perfidy

I really don't see why the left is having such a hissy fit over this. The President correctly and truthfully stated that the British thought Saddam tried to buy Uranium from Africa. Apparently, the British based that conclusion on French intelligence - and surely they weren't trying to aid the cause of the American President. And the British government (backed by a parliamentary investigative committee) still maintains that its report is true.

And in any event, our decision to go to war was not based on those sixteen words. At most, they were a factor in our decision. And if it could be proved now that Saddam didn't try to buy the Uranium (and CIA reports going back several years indicated that he was trying to get it from three other African nations as well) that doesn't change the fact that we were acting on the intelligence available at the time, which included far more than just this one bit.

This tired refrain of "what did he know and when did he know it" is, well, tiresome. A democratic CIA director has accepted whatever blame there is to be had. Some of the more hysterical dem presidential candidates are talking impeachment, and using Clinton as a touchstone. Personally, I wouldn't have gone there, but it is a ridiculous comparison.

The defensiveness of some administration flunkies is to be deplored, honesty being the best policy, and forthrightness being a close second. But still, making such huge deal of this suggests to me at least that this is the largest caliber ammunition that they have. And to mix metaphors, it is a thin reed to lean on.