This is in today's N.Y. Daily News. Is Michael Kramer a conservative or liberal? Either way, it's a good article.
President Bush could lose the 2004 election. Before now, I didn't think that was possible. Considering Bush's general popularity, political skills that dwarf his father's and the prospective Democratic alternatives, I thought Bush would win reelection - and probably easily.
What's changed? The prospect for a major scandal involving the administration's arguments for going to war against Iraq and, specifically, the President's cavalier, even arrogant, responses to the charge that he and his aides distorted or exaggerated the intelligence on which the case for battle rested.
This story, only now unfolding, is getting uglier every day.
Right now, the focus is on Bush's assertion, made in his Jan. 28 State of the Union address, that deposed dictator Saddam Hussein had tried to develop a nuclear weapons program by buying uranium in Africa.
The intel on which that claim was based, relying as it did on forged documents, has now been shot down.
The key question is this: Did the administration know the intelligence was bogus when the President used it to help justify toppling Saddam?
Over the past week, the White House position has shifted. At first, the Bushies pointed to the careful way in which the President had said it was the British who had uncovered the uranium evidence.
http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/100436p-90699c.html