DescentBB

How about USA Today?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq ... nium_x.htm

Fine, but it makes my case.

Meanwhile, an examination by a British investigative panel that was released days after the Senate committee report said that the allegations about Iraqi attempts to buy uranium from Africa were "well-founded" and that Bush was on solid ground to repeat Britain's concerns in his speech.

But in its new report, the Senate Intelligence Committee says Wilson's report from Niger modestly bolstered the case for an Iraq-Niger connection.

However, it's very strange that in the third graph (repeated in the penultimate graph) the writer claims "A unanimous Senate Intelligence Committee report released this month said U.S. intelligence lacked evidence that Saddam Hussein's regime even attempted to buy uranium in the African nation of Niger..." and then he goes on to cite the two studies that contradict his assertion. So in that article, one is left between believing the reporter's apparent misinterpretation (I'm being generous ) or the conclusions of the two governmental bodies that investigated.

bush makes vander's:
"The White House has not withdrawn or amended its statement last July that the intelligence behind the charge "did not rise to the level of inclusion in a presidential speech.""

It's still shakey. Hell, Bush won't even stand by it!

Back to your regularly scheduled straw grasping...