WASHINGTON (CP) - President George W. Bush dismissed criticism of his use of false intelligence on Iraq as "rewriting history" Wednesday while Democrats demanded a full, open inquiry of evidence used to justify the war.
But most critics stopped short of saying Bush misled Americans after the White House admitted Monday he was wrong about Saddam Hussein trying to buy uranium from Africa for nuclear weapons. The president, on an African tour, has escaped the political roasting endured this week by British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who was criticized by a parliamentary panel Monday.
Unlike in Britain, where most people opposed the war, a majority of Americans supported the invasion of Iraq and recent polls suggested two-thirds still believe weapons of mass destruction will be found.
Bush, who has mostly been letting his staff try to explain the false intelligence provided by Britain, said in South Africa that he's still "absolutely confident" about the decision he made to invade.
"There's going to be a lot of attempts to try to rewrite history and I can understand that."
Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld picked up the torch at home at a Senate hearing, saying the erroneous information was "one scrap of intelligence" and the Iraq war wasn't based on any significant news about Saddam's weapons anyway.
"The coalition did not act in Iraq because we had discovered dramatic new evidence of Iraq's pursuit of weapons of mass murder," he told the Senate Armed Forces Committee.
"We acted because we saw the existing evidence in a new light, through the prism of our experience on Sept. 11."
It is perhaps a startling statement for other countries debating what the standards should be for invading a country and wrestling with their decisions to either help the U.S. or stay home.
But not for many Americans who watched Saddam closely for 12 years, deemed him untrustworthy and simply wanted him gone, said Chris Sands, an analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a think-tank based in Washington.
"The American public didn't need all this business about weapons of mass destruction. They bought into the war very early.
"So there's no uranium. So what? It's a tiny little thing. It was never fundamental here in the same way it was for others. The war is sold here. It's done. Here, pre-emptive strikes are not on trial."
Still, Democrats are trying their best to capitalize on the fact that Bush used bad intelligence in his January state of the union address that rallied support for war.
While Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle told a briefing Wednesday there was ample reason for an Iraq war, he said Americans don't have all the facts.
"History hasn't been written yet. In fact, it's being written as we speak. And I think as we write history, we want to make sure we have the facts.
"Were we given the correct information about some of those motivations, including weapons of mass destruction? On that question, nobody has the answer today. No one can say without equivocation or with confidence that we know the answer."
Congressional hearings on whether the intelligence that led to the war was hyped by the government, which began last month, are closed to the public.
Criticism of the war, muted during the heat of battle, has been increasing since Bush declared major fighting over May 1.
Some are calling it a credibility gap about weapons of mass distortion. And a major Democratic lobby group recently took out an ad in the New York Times with a new moniker for the U.S. president - Misleader.
There are signs Americans are growing increasingly disenchanted with the cost of subduing post-war Iraq, especially the number of soldiers still getting killed.
Still, opposition has been fragmented with no particular figure leading the charge and Bush's personal approval rating remains high.
Even Democratic presidential candidates must be somewhat circumspect. After all, they could face a decision to attack one day.
So far, Howard Dean, a former governor from Vermont, has been the most vocal. He is also a potential upstart in a field of candidates where no clear front-runner has emerged.
Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, ranking Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, called it "absolutely startling" that the administration could have been in the dark for so long when U.S. intelligence sources apparently knew for months the uranium information was bogus.
"I think we would all want to know how it could possibly have stayed there in the basement of the agency while policymakers and the upper floors were making these statements."
Rumsfeld said he couldn't give him a good answer.
"I find that corrections are being made fairly continuously . . . So the fact that the facts change from time to time with respect to specifics does not surprise me or shock me at all; it's to be expected.
"I don't think that the fact that there is an instance where something was inaccurate ought to in any way paint a broad brush on the intelligence that we get and suggest that that's a pattern or something; it's just not."
Bush's trump card for the critics has always been the relative speed of the victory and his ability to claim success.
"One thing is for certain, (Saddam's) not trying to buy anything right now," he said Wednesday. "If he's alive, he's on the run. And that's to the benefit of the Iraqi people.
"And I'm convinced the world is a much more peaceful and secure place as a result of the actions."
Analysts say, though, that Americans could stop perceiving the war as a victory if too many more soldiers are killed or the administration continues to spend so many tax dollars in Iraq
But most critics stopped short of saying Bush misled Americans after the White House admitted Monday he was wrong about Saddam Hussein trying to buy uranium from Africa for nuclear weapons. The president, on an African tour, has escaped the political roasting endured this week by British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who was criticized by a parliamentary panel Monday.
Unlike in Britain, where most people opposed the war, a majority of Americans supported the invasion of Iraq and recent polls suggested two-thirds still believe weapons of mass destruction will be found.
Bush, who has mostly been letting his staff try to explain the false intelligence provided by Britain, said in South Africa that he's still "absolutely confident" about the decision he made to invade.
"There's going to be a lot of attempts to try to rewrite history and I can understand that."
Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld picked up the torch at home at a Senate hearing, saying the erroneous information was "one scrap of intelligence" and the Iraq war wasn't based on any significant news about Saddam's weapons anyway.
"The coalition did not act in Iraq because we had discovered dramatic new evidence of Iraq's pursuit of weapons of mass murder," he told the Senate Armed Forces Committee.
"We acted because we saw the existing evidence in a new light, through the prism of our experience on Sept. 11."
It is perhaps a startling statement for other countries debating what the standards should be for invading a country and wrestling with their decisions to either help the U.S. or stay home.
But not for many Americans who watched Saddam closely for 12 years, deemed him untrustworthy and simply wanted him gone, said Chris Sands, an analyst at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a think-tank based in Washington.
"The American public didn't need all this business about weapons of mass destruction. They bought into the war very early.
"So there's no uranium. So what? It's a tiny little thing. It was never fundamental here in the same way it was for others. The war is sold here. It's done. Here, pre-emptive strikes are not on trial."
Still, Democrats are trying their best to capitalize on the fact that Bush used bad intelligence in his January state of the union address that rallied support for war.
While Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle told a briefing Wednesday there was ample reason for an Iraq war, he said Americans don't have all the facts.
"History hasn't been written yet. In fact, it's being written as we speak. And I think as we write history, we want to make sure we have the facts.
"Were we given the correct information about some of those motivations, including weapons of mass destruction? On that question, nobody has the answer today. No one can say without equivocation or with confidence that we know the answer."
Congressional hearings on whether the intelligence that led to the war was hyped by the government, which began last month, are closed to the public.
Criticism of the war, muted during the heat of battle, has been increasing since Bush declared major fighting over May 1.
Some are calling it a credibility gap about weapons of mass distortion. And a major Democratic lobby group recently took out an ad in the New York Times with a new moniker for the U.S. president - Misleader.
There are signs Americans are growing increasingly disenchanted with the cost of subduing post-war Iraq, especially the number of soldiers still getting killed.
Still, opposition has been fragmented with no particular figure leading the charge and Bush's personal approval rating remains high.
Even Democratic presidential candidates must be somewhat circumspect. After all, they could face a decision to attack one day.
So far, Howard Dean, a former governor from Vermont, has been the most vocal. He is also a potential upstart in a field of candidates where no clear front-runner has emerged.
Senator Carl Levin of Michigan, ranking Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, called it "absolutely startling" that the administration could have been in the dark for so long when U.S. intelligence sources apparently knew for months the uranium information was bogus.
"I think we would all want to know how it could possibly have stayed there in the basement of the agency while policymakers and the upper floors were making these statements."
Rumsfeld said he couldn't give him a good answer.
"I find that corrections are being made fairly continuously . . . So the fact that the facts change from time to time with respect to specifics does not surprise me or shock me at all; it's to be expected.
"I don't think that the fact that there is an instance where something was inaccurate ought to in any way paint a broad brush on the intelligence that we get and suggest that that's a pattern or something; it's just not."
Bush's trump card for the critics has always been the relative speed of the victory and his ability to claim success.
"One thing is for certain, (Saddam's) not trying to buy anything right now," he said Wednesday. "If he's alive, he's on the run. And that's to the benefit of the Iraqi people.
"And I'm convinced the world is a much more peaceful and secure place as a result of the actions."
Analysts say, though, that Americans could stop perceiving the war as a victory if too many more soldiers are killed or the administration continues to spend so many tax dollars in Iraq
