[Democracy In Iraq]

Okay look, I don't deny that there's a generic media bias against anything that would make Bush look good, but this is such a gigantic story that is so muffled, even among many conservative sites. (Even here, it gets only moderate play.)

There's got to be more to it than mere media bias. What is it?

[MarkeyD]

Because if the news was actually reported Bush's poll numbers might go into the eighties.

[kellynla]

"There's got to be more to it than mere media bias."

not reeeeely...
but then the Bush administration has not made a big deal out of the tapes either...guess they don't want to embarrass the Chicoms, Ruskees, Krauts and Frenchies who were all probably furnishing Saddam with all the toys for ten years.
General McInerney was just on O'Reilly and he is puzzled too why the administration has not made a bigger deal out of this other than maybe that GWB needs the backing of China, France and Germany at the UN for the present and future.

[MizSterious]

I was just watching the O'Reilly show a bit, and they suggested that the Bush admin is doing its level best to keep Russia and a few other countries on board with the WOT--and that this evidence is going to be extremely damaging to them. I'm not saying I buy this argument entirely--and if it's true, I'm not sure I care if someone gets their nose out of joint--but it's a theory I haven't heard before, and it could be true. We do know that the Russians helped Saddam get some of the WMDs out of Iraq and into Syria, for one thing.

[Billthedrill]

At this point there is an enormous worldwide investment of political capital in the idea that it was a massive intelligence failure. It is the basis of much of the Democratic platform in the United States but very much more than that in Europe alone.

This has to be nailed down completely before anyone who is currently on record as believing the "Bush lied" mantra will even consider it. It isn't yet - it's still deniable as the story mentions, as the fantasies of a sycophant stroking Saddam. Even tied up with bows it will be difficult for its skeptics to swallow - recall how long it took anyone faced with the slamdunk of the Maples/Rather forgeries to even admit that perhaps there were problems. There are still some - the principals among them - in denial. I think at this point there is only evidence and there will likely never be proof - not the sort that those with a vested interest in disbelief will be forced to admit to, at least.

[ardara]

What has happened with Drudge?

[Terpfen]

On the part of the MSM, it's bias. On the part of conservative sites like FR, they're preoccupied with Cheney, the ports, etc.

Able Danger hasn't gotten much play either.