[ravingnutter]

What gets my goat about this whole subject and no one else seems to be picking up on this, is the statement from Stephen Hadley, Bush's #2 guy on National Security...pay close attention to the second sentence...

An unsigned CIA memo on Oct. 5 advised that "the CIA had reservations about the British reporting" on Iraq's alleged attempts in Niger, Hadley said. A second memo, sent on Oct. 6, elaborated on the CIA's doubts, describing "some weakness in the evidence," such as the fact that Iraq already had a large stock of uranium and probably wouldn't need more, Hadley said.

Source

The CIA determined that Saddam was not seeking uranium because he already had a large stock? And the Dems are complaining that Bush misled the nation into going to war on the "sought" charge? Why wasn't this info included in the speech instead of the "sought" charge? It is much more damning IMHO.

[dirtboy]

such as the fact that Iraq already had a large stock of uranium and probably wouldn't need more, Hadley said.

Yeah, ain't that a kick in the head? There's a trap waiting to be sprung there, if someone in the GOP is smart enough.

[xlib]

I think it turns on the difference between plain old uranium and enriched uranium. Only the latter is bomb-ready.