US: In a wide-ranging press conference yesterday - his first since before the Iraq war - President Bush finally took responsibility for the discredited claim about uranium in his January State of the Union message.
Mr Bush also said America had Saddam Hussein on the run and predicted that the issue of Iran's alleged nuclear weapons programme could be settled peacefully with EU help.
Asked if he took personal responsibility for the acknowledged "mistake" in the State of the Union address regarding the claim that Iraq had tried to buy uranium, he replied: "I take personal responsibility for everything I say, absolutely." Before now Mr Bush had sidestepped the question, taking responsibility only for his decisions and blaming the CIA for the sentence "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa".
Mr Bush also expressed confidence in his national security adviser, whose own credibility has been strained by contradictory statements about the 16-word sentence. "Dr Condoleezza Rice is an honest, fabulous person," he said. "And America is lucky to have her service. Period."
The hour-long press conference, held in the White House Rose Garden under a baking sun, was notable for the number of challenging questions thrown at the President by a normally respectful press corps. Mr Bush responded by reframing or sidestepping most questions and refusing to allow follow-ups. When a reporter attempted to press for a more direct answer, Mr Bush snapped, "You're through," and moved to another questioner. The journalist had put it to Mr Bush that the US had lost credibility by building a case for war on flimsy or non-existent evidence and asked, "Why did you choose to take the world to war that way?"
Mr Bush replied: "For a while the questions were: 'Could you conceivably achieve a victory in Iraq? You know, the dust storms have slowed you down.' And I was a patient man because I realised that we would be successful in achieving our military objective. Now of course the question is: 'Will Iraq ever be free, and will it be peaceful?' I believe it will."
When asked how he justified his pre-war claims of al-Qaeda links to Saddam when his own intelligence report last autumn was dismissive of the idea, he said it would take time to go through "miles of documents" to get the proof.
In combative mood, he defended the rationale for war, protesting that it was based on good intelligence, and emphasised instead the benefits of the fall of Saddam Hussein in that a free Iraq would change attitudes in the Middle East and help the Arab-Israeli peace process.
Saddam Hussein's two sons "were brought to justice" and this assured Iraqis that the Baathist regime would not come back to power, he said. "I don't know how close we are to getting Saddam Hussein. You know, it's closer than we were yesterday, I guess. All I know is we're on the hunt."
He also stated that there was a "real threat" of a new al-Qaeda attack on the US, but "I'm confident that we will thwart their attempts".
Mr Bush is leaving Washington this week for a month-long stay at his ranch in Texas, interrupted by some 15 fundraisers across the country to raise $170 million for a primary election next year in which he faces no Republican Party opponent.
Asked if he was worried about the perception that he was unduly attentive to the interests of people who can afford to spend $2,000 to see him, he said he had made the decision to run again for president, and "I'm going to do what candidates do".
When a reporter inquired bluntly if the US was building up to an attack on Iran, which the US has said is developing nuclear weapons, Mr Bush replied: "I believe the best way to deal with the Iranians at this point in time is for others to join us in a clear declaration that the development of a nuclear weapon is not in their interests."
On domestic issues, Mr Bush defended his tax cuts as necessary to avoid a deeper recession, and indicated that he planned to outlaw gay marriages, recently legalised in Canada.
"I believe a marriage is between a man and a woman. And I think we ought to codify that one way or the other. And we've got lawyers looking at the best way to do that," he said.