iraq uranium falsehood roundup
Whee...it seems that despite its efforts to minimize notice by releasing its admission that the Iraq/Niger/uranium claim in the State of the Union address was bogus on the eve of Bush's departure to Africa, the first-ever admission is proving the thin edge of the wedge, and the realization that Bush was less than truthful in his selling of his coveted war on Iraq had definitely developed legs.
I'm busy today, so here are some vital links.
The Washington Post has the Bush Administration and the CIA pointing fingers at each other.
Calpundit comments extensively on the sjubject; start here and scroll down.
An alert reader of Oliver Willis catches Condi Rice in a lie.
Pandagon has a pretty good summary of events, is less than impressed with Republican damage-control spin, and has much more commentary as well.
Talking Points Memo has been all over this story too; start here and...oh, heck, read it all.
In the Washington Post, E. J. Dionne notes that Bush is now playing defense on more than just Iraq.
Let's be serious. Can anyone realistically claim that there is, or was, evidence to support the notion that Iraq posed such an imminent threat to the US that it needed to be attacked immediately, before Bush's re-election campaign Saddam gave weapons to al Qaeda? Please.
And I, for one, have lost patience with governments claiming. Both Bush and Blair need to realize that they have little credibility, and less as events unfold.