One more thing: Why can't interviewers, other than members of the Irish press, master the concept of the follow-up question? I constantly, including when certain liberal leaning interviewers are involved, am not satisfied with an answer. This is far from surprising, even if the person being interviewed is not trying to avoid tough questions. In everyday life, we need to clarify what we are told numerous times. Why not when the person doing the questioning is being paid nicely for doing so? Why not indeed!
There is some dispute now over the truth of the claim that Iraq tried to obtain uranium from Niger. This was the basis of the whole "sixteen words" controversy in which the President, against the advice of the CIA, included British intel as evidence of the fact in his 2003 inaugural. Also, it was the reason Ambassador Wilson went to Niger to investigate, eventually leading to the outing of his wife as a CIA agent. Now, though the ultimate facts are disputed [rather strenuously, see Talking Points Memo, et. al.], some suggest there really was something to it the whole thing. The Brits are sticking to their claims as well. There might even be something to the claim Wilson's wife recommended him for the trip.
Overall, on some level, I really don't care. It is seems rather clear that the matter is open to dispute, the particular British intel cited hazy (leading to the administration itself saying it shouldn't have been included), and the outing of Valerie Plame is still outrageous conduct. My basic reason for opposing the war is that such conflict should not be carried forth on some preponderance of the evidence standard,* and anyway, I don't even know if that was met. I also didn't trust the administrative abilities of this bunch. I don't see how recent events really changed either one of these problems.
So, if one for the sake of argument assumes the other side's main points are true (I don't, so don't be too upset), it really doesn't matter. They still lose. It surely doesn't help that they remove the caveats and sneer at the dissenters, especially when they are the ones that are wrong. I sometimes wonder if I ever will have an easier time to choose a candidate than I will this All Souls Day, when I pull the lever for President. I will be almost as certain as W and company seem to be at times. I just will be more likely to be right.
---
* It is black letter law that the reason why criminal trials have a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard is because more is at risk than in civil trials, namely liberty or even life over (generally) mere property concerns. Why going to war, involving much more than the loss of life of even one not guilty individual, should not be done with equal care is unclear.
Apparently, since three thousand or so American lives were lost (a few hundred foreigners mixed in), the lives of many more can and must be lost (counting those injured, more than three thousand of our own citizens) on hazy intel, supposition, and (until long after the fact) underemphasized as well questionably handled human rights concerns.