WTF Is It Now?!?

White House tries to defend uranium claim
'It was darn good!'

The White House defense of pResident Bush's now-disavowed claim that Iraq was seeking uranium in Africa has evolved over the last two weeks: blame others, stonewall, bury questions in irrelevant information and, above all, hope it will go away.

So far, none has worked.

In question: Sixteen words in Bush's Jan. 28 State of the Union speech: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

At issue: The credibility of the president's allegation that Saddam was rebuilding a nuclear weapons program. The assertion that Iraq was trying to buy uranium was a key component of that claim - and a key piece of Bush's justification for war.

With its press staff unable to quell the controversy, the White House brought in bigger guns - Secretary of State Colin Powell, Rice, the president himself and even, later, British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

But, after two weeks, a White House usually adept at controlling stories merely by dismissing questions and waiting them out has had no luck.

The central questions - asked over and over - were not changing:

-Who knew what when - especially the president?

-Why was it so important to include the statement in the speech?

-Who was responsible for putting it in?

-Why has the president refused to take responsibility for uttering it?

Only the White House's explanations shifted - often contradicting themselves in the process. - - Read more here (thanks to Antidolt at the BC Forum).