Iraq: The controversy over whether there ever was a threat from weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has not received the same attention in the United States as in Britain, but there are growing signs that it could dog President Bush in the days ahead, writes Conor O'Clery New York
As a US Congressional committee held its first hearing on the issue yesterday, commentators across the political spectrum are voicing increased scepticism about the Bush administration's pre-war assertions that Saddam Hussein posed a threat to the US and the world.
Liberal columnists like Paul Krugman of the New York Times have led the charge with warnings that if the claims about weapons were fraudulent "the selling of the war is arguably the worst scandal in American political history - worse than Watergate, worse than Iran-Contra".
But even mainstream news commentators such as Don Imus of NBC have voiced doubts. On his morning news radio show yesterday he said that any evidence of manipulated intelligence could cause big problems for Mr Bush. "Either way he loses," he said. "Either he deliberately deceived us, or he's a dope." On the same programme Daily News columnist Mick Barnicle asked if 150 young Americans died in Iraq "for a deception", a question posed increasingly on air by former Clinton aides like Mr Paul Begala.
Mr John Dean, a former Republican aide to President Nixon who was jailed for his role in the 1972 Watergate scandal, raised the - extremely unlikely - prospect of impeachment of the president.
"If Bush has taken Congress and the nation into war based on bogus information, he's cooked," Mr Dean wrote in a much-quoted column.
"Manipulation or deliberate misuse of national security intelligence data, if proven, could be "a high crime" under the Constitution's impeachment clause." One of the proposed articles of impeachment against President Nixon, Mr Dean pointed out on CNN, "was his misuse of the CIA and the FBI".
While taking up much air time on cable and network news, the issue has provoked nothing like the uproar among the American public as in the UK.
In post 9/11 America there is still an overwhelming sense of national pride about winning a war against a harsh dictator, and this still overwhelms doubts about the prime reason for deploying troops in combat.
"The President is 99 per cent safe on this one," said former Republican House Speaker Mr Newt Gingrich.
The "literary class" that disliked Bush was thrilled, he said, but in the US, "given the mass graves, given the level of torture and brutality by the Baath Party regime, you're asking the American people to side with the apologists for replacing Saddam."
Most Democratic challengers to Mr Bush in 2004 do not want to be seen criticising the removal of the Iraqi dictator, though observers say they could step up a verbal assault on the White House if American casualties continue mounting in Iraq in the months ahead.
But the furore in the House of Commons has resonated across the Atlantic, with Bush officials concerned that evidence of intelligence manipulation in Britain would undermine American credibility too. Yesterday Mr Bush said in brief comments to reporters that it was "simply not true" to say that the British Prime Minister, Mr Tony Blair, had distorted intelligence.
Mr Bush, who is not subject to aggressive questioning by parliamentarians - or by the more respectful US media - dismissed the growing criticism of his own pre-war assertions as "a lot of revisionist history".
The President, who in a November 7th speech said categorically: "The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons," has subtly changed his own rationale for the war, referring in speeches only to Saddam Hussein's weapons "programme".
Yesterday's hearing on Capitol Hill by the House of Representatives Intelligence Committee was closed, despite objections from minority Democrats. The Senate Intelligence Committee will hold its own closed-door hearing today. Both committees are relying on documents provided by the intelligence agencies.