This controversy over Bush's claim that "the British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa", coupled with the continuing lethal attacks against US troops in Iraq and questions about the adequacy of the US Administration's post-war planning, have produced a changing political climate in the United States.

Despite White House efforts to disarm or silence their critics, both the press and political opposition have continued their challenge. During Bush's Africa trip, for example, the press corps traveling with Bush hammered him with questions about Iraq.

The din they created was so great, at times, it all but drowned out the administration's efforts to use the trip to focus on new US initiatives toward African nations.

At the end of a week of relentless criticism and allegations that the administration may have "manipulated" intelligence to make their case for war, both Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice tried to snuff out the story. Rumsfeld rebutted the charges of manipulation and then brusquely announced "end of story". Rice dismissed the charges as "ludicrous", while Republican spokespersons chimed in accusing their Democratic critics of "playing politics with the war".

But the story was not over. In fact, the story grew, each answer providing new questions about the veracity of the claims. Even when CIA Director George Tenet stepped forward to accept responsibility for the appearance of the unsubstantiated claim in the president's speech, his claim was not universally accepted. One senator noted: "This was not about Tenet's responsibility. It's about the president's responsibility."

Newspapers editorialized that the problem is not the "16 words" in the speech, but what they called "a pattern of deceit that has characterized the administration's entire case for the war".

A press that took a rather uncritical approach to Bush during the lead-up to the war and during the war itself now senses that they may have been misled and that the president is vulnerable and so they are attacking.

And on the political front, Democrats have become emboldened and their criticisms are harsh.

Senator Ted Kennedy, for example, charged: "It's a disgrace that the case for war seems to have been based on shoddy intelligence, hyped intelligence and even false intelligence." Senator Bob Graham, a member of the Intelligence Committee and a candidate for the presidency termed the president's behavior "impeachable" and said it was more serious than anything done by Bill Clinton.

Other senators questioned the administration's "truthfulness". Even two prominent Republican senators, Chuck Hagel and John McCain, expressed dissatisfaction with the administration's case and called for an investigation.

The nine candidates competing for the presidential nomination have, for the first time, found common ground in their charges against President Bush.

The president has his ardent defenders in the media and within his own party, but they have been put on the defensive for the first time in a year, and do not appear to be handling it all too well.

Worsening the entire situation are the daily press accounts of US casualties in Iraq, and indications that the rosy pre-war scenario painted by pro-war advocates are just not true. Questions that should have been answered before hostilities began are only being answered now.

For example, before the war, in addition to making their claim of "solid intelligence" on Iraq's alleged WMD program, the administration dodged questions on the cost and the terms of commitment of US forces in a post-war Iraq. Only now has the Pentagon put a near $4 billion per month price tag on the US troop presence and made it clear that forces will remain there "for the foreseeable future".

The administration's latest efforts to deflect the concerns about intelligence, cost and causes by stating that the real reason for the war was the "liberation of Iraq" is also not working to silence critics who are in no mood for a "subject change" at this point.

A recent Newsweek poll shows Bush's favorability rating at 55 percent, down from 71 percent a few months ago. The same poll shows that only 53 percent of the public approves of the president's handling of the Iraq War, down from 74 percent. And 45 percent now believe that the president "misinterpreted intelligence" in making his case for the war.

More indicative of Bush's problems can be seen in the findings of a recent Zogby poll stating that for the first time since the 2000 election only 46 percent of likely voters would vote for Bush as opposed to 47 percent who indicate that "it is time for someone new to be elected president".James J. Zogby is president of the Arab American Institute in Washington, DC. Courtesy of Media Monitors Network.