White House on Iraq-Africa: \"it might in fact be wrong.

From Yahoo/New York Times

Well, doesn't that just leave Tony Blair out to dry.

For what it''s worth, more poll numbers.

So Bush''s approval is dropping, but approval of the Democrats isn''t going up either. The last time there was apathy towards both candidates for an office, well, California got stuck with Gray ""Tell them the truth after you get elected"" Davis again.

Now, if the post only read ""White House on Iraq: ''It might in fact be wrong.'' ""

Wow, it''s fun to work with numbers.

We are comparing his favorability numbers with his high ratings immediately after the overthrow of Saddam. That''s ludicrous. Of course he got a ""bounce"" as people ""rallied around the flag"".

Look at his numbers pre 9/11, he was in the 50''s.


Clinton had a pre blow job approval ratings of 62% after his reelection and was ""riding high"". Clinton also had the benefit of the a good economy. What issue is George Bush benefitting from to garner a paltry 60%?


Further the headline is misleading. They say Bush''s approval is slipping when in fact it ""stood at 60%"".

Whatever. If he''s at 60% now and the stock market and enconomy are improving he is undefeatable. Especially when you consider the oppositions numbers.

Getting back to the initial topic...

I find the silence on the White House''s admission by several of those who defended the Niger document deafening. There needs to be an investigation done and done soon. We need to know for sure a.) who forged it (obviously somebody who wanted a war in Iraq); b.) who in the Administration knew it was forged (the ex-envoy to Niger said he told Cheney); c.) when these people knew (same ex-envoy told Cheney well before the SotU Address); d.) and why this was kept quiet until now.

Here''s it he portion of the President''s State of the Union Address. The comment regarding Africa, which does not mention Niger, is one of a litany of reasons he raised in support for war.


The statement was correct as Bush said it, ""The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."" The State of the Union Address is meticulously written, and the choice of words was intentional.

I think a better question is, ""Why didn''t we hear from the envoy prior to war?"" He is the only supposed evidence that the administration knew prior to the State of the Union address.
However, an inquiry into the source of the documents is warranted, and if the President wrote them himself he should be impeached.

Well, look at the list of suspects who had an axe to grind against Saddam/wanted a war in Iraq:

Ahmed Chalabi, along with the other Saddam opposition groups

The Project for the New American Century (led by Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney, and Paul Wolfowitz)*

The American oil industry

George W. Bush (he was quoted in March of 2002 as saying ""f*ck Saddam; we''re taking him out!"" by an aide, long before the war rhetoric began)

The Saudi Royal Family

Al-Qaeda (there''s some logic to this; they hated Saddam the infidel and may have wanted a new recruiting drive thanks to the war)

The Franco-German alliance (to screw over the US government when the truth about the document was revealed)

* = The Project for the New American Century sent a letter to President Clinton in 1998 urging a full-scale invasion of Iraq. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz both advocating immediately attacking Iraq the day after 9-11. Also, retired NATO Supreme Commander General Wesley Clark claimed that before he went on CNN on 9-11, he received a phone call from the Pentagon to focus on Iraq, despite no credible evidence of a connection has ever existed.

I thnk it was Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard.