What is the half-life of the uranium “scandal”?

I haven’t commented on the whole Iraq-Africa connection because – swear to heaven – I never thought this news story would last more than a week. What’s the worst thing than can be said about President Bush? He was overzealous in presenting the case for removing Saddam Hussein? Even the most partisan Democrats don’t accuse him of lying (although they’ve been flogging the “credibility gap” meme). Jeff Jacoby of the Boston Globe sums up my feelings:

Americans are not dismayed that the United States led a successful war to crush a savage dictatorship. Their opinion is reinforced with every newly discovered mass grave - the most compelling evidence of Saddam's mass destruction. And their opinion is not likely to change because of anything the president did or didn't say about uranium in January.

Today, the Wall Street Journal broke open the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) and concluded: “As we interpret that NIE language, the President was entirely accurate in what he said in that speech about Saddam pursuing uranium in Africa.”

In the past, it’s possible I’ve given too much credit to the Karl Rove political machine. But could this all be yet-another clever plan to lure the Democrats into wild, intemperate, and inchoate remarks only to have them backfire spectacularly? As Jacoby notes: “…do Democrats really imagine that the way to unseat Bush is to run against the war?”

The corollary question might be: “Are Democrats really this dumb?” Wait…don’t answer that.