It seems as though something is missing here. It's beginning to appear that most of Joe's book ramblings aren't based in fact, yet that's not the issue (even though he ought to return his journalism truth teller award). Now we’re to believe the issue is some sort Republican/British CIA/MI6 vendetta against Joe because he's rightous truth-telling dude.

However Joe's got a few credibility problems. Not the least of which are these: 1.) Joe didn't fess up that Val Gal recommended him for the jaunt to Niger and 2.), when told Iraq had visited Niger and had discussed trade relations between the two countries, dismisses the idea that the trade talk focus was yellow cake (I think Uranium exports are 90+% of Niger's economy). To suggest that these facts are somehow subject to devaluation because they don't come from Joe's book (which of course is not the least self-serving), Michael Moore or other AL (Angry Left) sources but now purported to be the product of some Bush/Cheney, Blair/MI6 character assassination plan is patently absurd.

NO ONE ever said that Saddam had ACQUIRED uranium. The statements were (and always have been) about multiple ATTEMPS TO ACQUIRE uranium and other WMD capabilities. Those statements were true, are true and will remain true.

NO ONE said Iraq was an imminent threat. The statements were that Iraq, by pursuing its WMD plans and policies WOULD BECOME an imminent threat.

To maintain the belief that "Bush Lied" because he gave voice to what the Clinton administration leadership thought and the best intelligence in the world concluded (I'm being charitable in lumping in the CIA with MI6 and whatever the Russian's call their intelligence apparatus these days), is utter folly.

The UN and the US congress, in possession of basically the same intelligence analyzed by the Clinton and Bush administrations (as well as the Blair government), approved action against Iraq. To suggest that because some of the intelligence was not as good as it should (in the ideal world) have been, then the action against Iraq is “illegitimate” is intellectually dishonest.

I think what pisses the wacko-left off most is that Bush told the truth. Bush told Iraq (and the world) that if you don’t come clean and show us what you’ve got and what and how you got rid of the stuff you weren’t supposed to have, we will come it and take it from there. I think that most politicos thought this was posturing and that at the 11th hour, Bush would back down. He didn’t.