Where are Democrats and the media — now that Bush may have been right?

Good question from USA Today but even they couch the question in terms of Bush "may have been right". This, despite the fact, that two reports into the Niger - Iraq - Uranium affair, have declared that Bush and the Brits were correct in their assertions.

Even the New York Times admits "That apology was a mistake; Bush had spoken the plain truth.".

USA Today asks some more questions.

But now that the Wilson case has been debunked, it is interesting to note that the news media, so eager to build him up, and tear Bush down, now seem reluctant to tell the rest of the story, or at least the next chapter. Wilson, who had been a fixture on television, now seems to have disappeared. Democrats are silent.

Why were the media so willing to believe Wilson when he was an obvious Democratic partisan? He not only worked for the National Security Council in the Clinton White House, he also is a foreign policy adviser to the Democratic presidential campaign of John Kerry. Why, indeed?

Even Wilson's webpage has this at the bottom of the main page:

Paid for by John Kerry for President, Inc.

It is ironic, Moore and Wilson may have done far more good for Bush and far more damage to Kerry and Edwards.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------