Skippy suggests that this is the reason bush has told the truth about saddam and 9/11.
Really, I’m not holding my breath for any more truth. He needs to establish a consistent new pattern for this to mean much. And, with rummie, rice and mcclellan working hard to revise history I don’t think we will see the pattern:

White House spokesman Scott McClellan reiterated to reporters yesterday that the administration never directly linked Saddam to the Sept. 11 strikes.
“If you’re talking specifically about the September 11th attacks, we never made that claim,” McClellan said.

As you will see below this is not quite true.
Rantavision posits that bush may be getting ready to cut out cheney:

The other interesting thing is that in distancing himself from Cheney, Bush might be paving the way for cutting him loose from the ’04 ticket, letting him take the blame, and picking up a Powell (or someone else equally outside of the Chaney/Rumsfeld/Wolfwitz camp) for VP?

And points us to The Left Coaster who believes that bush in admitting this has provided grounds for his own impeachment:

The failure to find any imminent WMD threat has now negated Article 1 of the rationale Bush used above. Today he says he has no evidence that Saddam was involved in September 11(when on March 18 he says he did have such evidence), which then negates Article 2 of his legislatively-required justification for war as outlined under PL 107-243.

The Left Coaster is referring to the letter bush sent to the Speaker of the House justifying his authorization of the invasion. Best to go read the entire post but I have copied the justification letter into the extended entry section if you just want a quick look:

(more…)