Blitzer let Rice push false justifications for Iraq war
SUMMARY: Wolf Blitzer failed to challenge Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's misleading statements about the Bush administration's justification for the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq -- that there were "[t]oo many unanswered questions about [Saddam Hussein's] weapons of mass destruction program," despite the Bush administration's pre-war claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and that "[i]n the post-September 11 environment, [Iraq] was a threat that needed to be dealt with."
On the October 10 edition of CNN's The Situation Room, host Wolf Blitzer failed to challenge Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice's misleading statements about the Bush administration's justification for the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq. In response to Blitzer's assertion that "a lot of analysts believe the U.S. has been weakened in dealing with North Korea and Iran by its involvement in Iraq," Rice asserted America had to "deal with a threat that had been there for too long." According to Rice, part of that "threat" was that there were "[t]oo many unanswered questions about [Saddam Hussein's] weapons of mass destruction program." In fact, in the run-up to the war, the Bush administration unequivocally asserted that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, not that there were "unanswered questions" about whether Iraq possessed WMD. Moments later, Blitzer left unchallenged Rice's assertion that, "[i]n the post-September 11 environment, [Iraq] was a threat that needed to be dealt with," despite the absence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Rice's history of misleadingly linking the war in Iraq to Al Qaeda, and the track record of President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney linking Iraq to the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. As Media Matters for America has noted, even Bush has acknowledged that there is no evidence that Saddam Hussein had anything to do with 9-11.
WMD
Blitzer failed to point out that Rice's assertion that the United States "needed to deal[]" with Iraq because of "unanswered questions about [Saddam's] weapons of mass destruction program" misstates the administration's rationale for the war. In fact, Bush and members of his administration unequivocally claimed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction prior to the invasion. As Media Matters noted, in an October 5, 2002, radio address, Bush asserted that "Iraq has stockpiled biological and chemical weapons, and is rebuilding the facilities used to make more of those weapons." In his speech in Cincinnati two days later, he unequivocally declared that Iraq "possesses and produces chemical and biological weapons." Moreover, Bush stated on February 25, 2003, "The risk of doing nothing, the risk of the security of this country being jeopardized at the hands of a madman [Saddam] with weapons of mass destruction, far exceeds the risks of any action we may be forced to take."
As recently as the September 24 edition of CBS' 60 Minutes, Rice stated that "everybody thought that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction," as Media Matters noted. In fact, a year after the U.S.-led invasion, Rice still maintained that Iraq possessed WMD when the war began, as she stated during a March 18, 2004, interview with CNN chief national correspondent John King on CNN's Lou Dobbs Tonight:
KING: One of the debates about going to war in the first place, of course, has been over weapons of mass destruction. The president of Poland said today that he believes there are none, and they will not be found. The administration says we're still looking. Is it time, at the one-year mark, to just concede that point, that the intelligence was wrong, that there were no active stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and move on?
RICE: Well, I talked to the Poles, and they think they were a bit misinterpreted here, because there's been no stronger ally in this than the Poles. And President [Aleksander] Kwasniewski and the president [Bush] have talked about this, and they went to war for the right reasons.
Look, John, it's not as if anybody believes that Saddam Hussein was without weapons of mass destruction. We have to remember that we looked at the intelligence, the United Nations looked at the intelligence. Many, many allied -- the intelligence services looked at the intelligence. And he was considered a serious weapons of mass destruction threat.
Blitzer also left unchallenged Rice's assertion that "[i]n the post-September 11th environment, it [Iraq] was a threat that needed to be dealt with." Blitzer did not challenge Rice on how Iraq was a threat if it had no weapons of mass destruction, as she claimed at the time, nor did Blitzer ask her how the "post-September 11th environment" related to Iraq. Media Matters for America and others have documented Rice's history of making false and misleading statements during media interviews and public speeches in which she misrepresented the evidence of Iraq's purported WMD. For instance, as Media Matters noted, in The New York Times' investigation of the intelligence regarding Iraq's purchase of aluminum tubes, the paper reported on October 3, 2004, that Rice had misrepresented the state of intelligence on the tubes. Prior to the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq, the White House and parts of the intelligence community had promoted the purchase as crucial evidence that Saddam had restarted his nuclear weapons program:
The tubes were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs," Condoleezza Rice, the president's national security adviser, explained on CNN on Sept. 8, 2002. "We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."
But almost a year before, Ms. Rice's staff had been told that the government's foremost nuclear experts seriously doubted that the tubes were for nuclear weapons, according to four officials at the Central Intelligence Agency and two senior administration officials, all of whom spoke on condition of anonymity. The experts, at the Energy Department, believed the tubes were likely intended for small artillery rockets.
As Media Matters has repeatedly noted (here, here, and here), in the lead-up to the Iraq war, Bush claimed there was a connection between Saddam and the attacks on 9-11, including the specific assertion of such a link in a letter to Congress at the start of the war. As Media Matters also noted, as recently as last month, Rice herself baselessly linked the September 11 attacks to Iraq. On the September 10 editions of CBS' Face the Nation and Fox Broadcasting Co.'s Fox News Sunday, Rice justified the Iraq war by falsely suggesting that the 9-11 Commission report supports her claim that Saddam's Iraq had "contacts" with Al Qaeda before the U.S.-led invasion of that country in March 2003; Rice also linked Iraq with Al Qaeda via now-dead terrorist leader Abu Musab Al-Zarqawi. In fact, the 9-11 Commission found that Iraq and Al Qaeda had no "collaborative and operational relationship," and the September 8 Senate Intelligence Committee report concluded that Saddam's government "did not have a relationship, harbor or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi and his associates."
As Media Matters has noted, during an August 21 press conference, Bush was specifically asked: "What did Iraq have to do with ... [t]he attack on the World Trade Center?" He replied: "Nothing." Nevertheless, Blitzer did not ask Rice what about "the post-September 11th environment" made Iraq a "threat that needed to be dealt with."
From the October 10 edition of CNN's The Situation Room:
BLITZER: You know a lot of analysts believe the U.S. has been weakened in dealing with North Korea and Iran by its involvement in Iraq.
RICE: I just don't understand this argument. The United States is quite capable of taking care of several problems simultaneously. Iraq is -- was a desire to finally deal with a threat that had been there for too long. Too many Security Council resolutions violated. Too many unanswered questions about his weapons of mass destruction program. Too much ambition to dominate the region. Too many wars launched by this dictator. Too much harshness against his own people, including mass graves. It was time to deal with Saddam Hussein.
BLITZER: I'll leave -- we're out of time, but I'll leave you with one email we got from Scott Vanderbosch in Minnesota. He lost a son in Iraq. He said -- he wrote to us this. He said, "My son Jake died in Iraq on October 3rd, 2005. When will you finally admit that you were wrong going to Iraq and pull out? Why not try to save some American lives?"
RICE: Wolf, nobody can ever make up for the personal sacrifice of a father of his son. And all you can do is to mourn that sacrifice. We also know that nothing of value is ever won without sacrifice. And the United States has had to, throughout its history and especially through its postwar history, to sacrifice when peace and security, and indeed freedom, were on the line.
Iraq was a threat. In the post-September 11th environment, it was a threat that needed to be dealt with. Yes, it's extremely difficult helping a country come to a democratic future that has never had that experience. But an Iraq that is secure, an Iraq that is democratic, an Iraq that is able to solve its problems through politics will be a centerpiece of a different kind of Middle East.
BLITZER: Senator Warner says you have two, three months to get this right, otherwise you've got to rethink the whole strategy.
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” — Joseph Goebbels
Hermann Goering
"Naturally, the common people don't want war ... but after all it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country."
Remind anyone of anything in recent US history?
Does Karl Rove have a vintage SS uniform that he puts on late at night? Does he stand in front of the mirror, admiring himself as he clicks his heals and gives the Nazi salute?
Goebbels was alive today, he would be head of Fox News!
Sacrifice? What do these war pimps know of sacrifice?
Something like one or two percent of American families are baring the burden of sacrifice in the occupation of Iraq. Meanwhile, since W. can't get the people to rally behind his perpetual war for perpetual profit, he tells us to go shopping.
Mass graves? They're still being dug and filled. These war sissies claim that they are so concerned for the people of Iraq. BS! If they were so concerned their hearts would rend over our bombs killing even one Iraqi civilian.
I can hardly wait for these vampires to disintegrate in the sunlight.
The only reason we're still there is that George Bush's supporters are either (A) Too rich to have their kids in harms way or (B) Stupid enough to believe that Puddinhead George is on a mission to usher in Armageddon and the subsequent return of Jeeeeezzzzzzuuuuusssssss.
That's why I propose a draft, starting with the children of the wealthiest families and working your way down the economic scale. We'd be out of Iraq before you even got out of the top 1%.
What has Rice ever sacrificed for this country. How about bush, Cheyney, etc?
All any of them has ever done is profit from someone else's sacrifice and misery.
It appears that they're getting ready to change the reasons for invading Iraq once again. How many times will we fall for this?
Condi is on TV so much these days I thought she might have a new sitcom. Maybe 'That's My Propaganda?'
I guess you might boil the Secretary's comments down to...
"If we erred, we erred on the side of caution."
Fair enough.
But two things strike me as queer, in the defense of "we erred on the side of caution":
1. Why is the administration so adamant about maintaining the present level of U.S. Troops in Iraq?
I mean, how do you reconcile "we erred cautiously" with "stay the course"?
It makes "stay the course" sound like "let's continue to err long past the point of being detected in our errors".
And as for being detected in their errors...
2. Why do we continue to go so long wthout a completed investigation into WHY the 'pre-invasion intelligence' was so flawed?
It has consumed many thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars, that flawed 'pre-invasion intelligence' has...
Where's the completion of the Senate Intelligence Committee's investigation into that FALSIFIED 'pre-invasion intelligence'?
Where is an investigation into the matter, on the part of the People's House?
The failure of our Congress to investigate that FALSIFIED intelligence (so costly of life and the U.S. Treasury) cannot be simply dismissed as...
"If we erred, we erred on the side of caution."
I guess you might boil the Secretary's comments down to...
"If we erred, we erred on the side of caution."
It's a bogus argument in more ways than those you mentioned. Every reputable expert predicted, prior to the war, that a U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq would make it a recruitment poster for groups like al Qaida. One of the major anti-war propaganda images was Osama bin Laden done up like Uncle Sam from a World War II-era recruitment poster, reading "I Want You... To Invade Iraq." Now, over three years later, the U.S. intelligence community has just confirmed that these predictions, like practically every other major pre-war prediction of the war skeptics, were dead on. The invasion has created a whole new generation of terrorists, in a world in which terrorism had been declining into irrelevance for about 15 years. The Iraq policy has made matters for more dangerous for the U.S. and the world. You can call such a policy many things, but "erring on the side of caution" is NOT one of them.
President Clinton, on "Larry King Live," four months after the coalition troops entered Iraq, said, "[I]t is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons. We might have destroyed them in '98. We tried to, but we sure as heck didn't know it because we never got to go back in there."
**********************
Bush may have mismanaged this War to the n'th degree and he will forever be saddled with the hideous mess he has created in Iraq. It is incontestable the damage he has done there, the incredible poor planning following major combat operations, on and on and on. He deserves the blame, that is undeniable.
But even Clinton thought there were wmd's in Iraq, which was the major justification for the invasion, especially in a post 9/11 world. However that being said, I am a conservative who is for winning wars, not languishing in an Iraqi civil war.
Bush has failed us miserably.
Clinton did not think" there were wmd's in Iraq" he said he didn't know. There is a big difference. I was with bush until he pulled out the UN weapons inspectors. Bush pushed Saddam until he relented and let the inspectors back in. The inspectors were doing their job, they were looking for the wmds. Then bush told them to leave because we were going to start bombing. look it up.
This whole "hide behind clinton" lie ought to be embarrassing for you rightwing bush apoligists. ( and yes you are being a bush apologist here.) How desparate are you?
In any event, the decision was Bush's and should have been based on what we knew in March 2003. But Bush had no interest in anything that cast doubt on his case for invasion. Clinton's thoughts over 2 years earlier are irrelevant.
"In 1998, Saddam Hussein pressured the United Nations to lift the sanctions by threatening to stop all cooperation with the inspectors. In an attempt to resolve the situation, the UN, unwisely in my view, agreed to put limits on inspections of designated "sovereign sites" including the so-called presidential palaces, which in reality were huge compounds well suited to hold weapons labs, stocks, and records which Saddam Hussein was required by UN resolution to turn over. When Saddam blocked the inspection process, the inspectors left. As a result, President Clinton, with the British and others, ordered an intensive four-day air assault, Operation Desert Fox, on known and suspected weapons of mass destruction sites and other military targets.
In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change, including support for Iraqi opposition leaders within the country and abroad.
In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001.
It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.
Now this much is undisputed."
[link to clinton.senate.gov]
Please read carefully.
Nor did the Senator have access to all of the relevant Iraq intelligence. That fact has been well established. Also, reading on, the Senator stated...
If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us.
and this...
A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President and we say to him - use these powers wisely and as a last resort.
Not to give the Senator a complete pass on this, should Clinton have recognized that the Administration was deceiving members of Congress with respect to Iraq intelligence? Perhaps. Was the Senator's voted for a Congressional resolution that amounted to an abdication of responsibility a grave mistake? Yes, that's clear now, a lesson I hope we've learned.
However, none of this excuses Bush's actions...not one bit.
that any Democrat who voted to allow Bush to use his power to go to war is castigated, but all the Republicans who voted the same are not challenged? Apparently it is OK to be wrong, as long as you don't admit it.
We now are told by BOTH of the CIA teams we sent to Iraq to find WMDs that there WERE no WMDs in Iraq in 98. Also left unchecked is not the same thing as invading. What is undisputable is Bush LIED and misled about WMDs in the runup to the war.
You can deny what you want, I have no interest in your silly labeling of me one way or another. But I prefer to deal in facts and undeniable statements, like Clinton's above.
Let me ask you? If this was just a big lie by Bush, and he knew it all along - why was Tony Blair on board? He was Clinton's guy, not Bush's? This is a question that the vitriolic Bush haters never can seem to answer with any certainty.
And for you to call me a Bush apologist either shows you haven't read anything I have written, or you are just completely delusional. Frankly, I could care less which it is.
that is what you're doing. Show where clinton says he thought Saddam still had WMD? You can't so you try to change the subject. You're a fraud tommy. you may have scraped the bush cheney bumpersticker off your car, but you still are responsible for what they did with your support, and you are still apologizing for him if you make stuff up to try and mitigate what he has done with your help.
Read what Clinton says, four months after we invaded. Does the word "incontestable" escape you? He is saying that Saddam's weapons were never accounted for, they may or may not have been destroyed.
Now come on Sweety, even you aren't that thick not to be able to understand that?
And you can call me anything you'd like or blame me for whatever you want to regarding Bush and my soiled hands, or whatever other silly rhetoric you can muster up. I deal in reality and facts, you are blinded by destructive hatred, sadly. So carry on.
Really? So what was the fact? The fact in 2000 was that we (the Administration) didn't know. President Clinton didn't say that he was certain that Iraq had WMDs. He said we were certain that we weren't certain!
Also, when Clinton stated this, he was talking about what was known in 2000. The fact that he made this statement four months after the invasion - which you imply is important - is irrelevant. Clinton was talking about history. If he made the same statement today, he still be 100% correct. None of that changes the facts of the situation in March 2003.
There is no comparison with what Clinton claimed was "incontestable" 4 months after the war started to what the administration knows now. The fact is Clinton was right - that WMD were unaccounted for was incontestable. That's the "questions" to which Condi refers. It's still incontestable. But the administration, and it's apologists, are backpedalling from their original stance without apology. Delve the deep recesses of your memory and recall that it was "pretty much confirmed" that Iraq had WMD. Recall that Saddam "recently sought significant quantities of uranium". Recall that the aluminum tubes were "suitable for nuclear weapons production". No, these idiots went to war NOT for the incontestable questions, they went to war for THEIR answers to those incontestable questions. Condi is just another spokesperson in the CYA operations of this administration.
I can deal with most of the inherent paranoia of conservatism. But going to war, sacrificing the lives of those committed to defending the country, invading a sovereign nation, killing innocent civilians, all because of uncertainty is inexcusable. To bolster the mistaken decision by continuing to CYA by the obfuscation of known facts and the blind continuation of that same mistaken decision is criminal.
"He is saying that Saddam's weapons were never accounted for, they may or may not have been destroyed.
Now come on Sweety, even you aren't that thick not to be able to understand that? "
"never accounted for, may or may not have been destroyed".
that means he didn't know. I'm embarrassed for you tommy. you really are that thick. And it is this steadfast refusal to admit you're wrong, this steadfast willingness to continue to spew your conservofacist talking points that proves you are a bush toadie. deny it all you want, you're just making a bigger fool of yourself.
International Relations 101:
Tony Blair is the Prime Minister of the UK. Bill Clinton was the President of the US, the UK's most important ally. Dubya Bush is the current President of the US, still the UK's most important ally. Strategic alliances are not based on partisanship. The reason T Blair supported Bush is because he decided that it was in the UK's national interest. I do hate Bush, but apparently it didn't stop me from answering your asinine question.
If it was in "UK's national interest", why would Blair follow Bush into a war made up of Bush's lies? You mean Blair would risk his own political behind, not to mention his own soldiers to help out Bush, who he wasn't even close with, and had no reason to do so.
If that's all you've got, you'd better try again.
"why would Blair follow Bush into a war made up of Bush's lies?"--Tommy
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
You are assuming Blair knew that Bush was lying. How do you get that? I don't even think President Bush knew he was making naive and false statements. It is fairly obvious that much of Blair's support for the Bush administration sprouted from a deeply misplaced trust that President Bush "got it right" about Iraq.
This is a cautionary tale about the limits of faith in other human beings.
You're confused. I am saying that Blair didn't follow Bush into Iraq based on his trust for him. He also believed through his own intelligence that Saddam had wmd's.
If Bush lied about it, Blair would never have committed to it, that's the point.
The US shared much of it's Iraq intelligence with other countries in an attempt to persuade them to join the effort. Some of the countries recognized the info as pure junk and others didn't. Why weren't the British as astute as the Russians? Misplaced trust is a plausible answer.
At this point it is purely speculative,but you cannot necessarily conclude that Blair only made the decision based on his own intelligence and not due to some arm-twisting and dubious intelligence supplied by the Bush Administration.
The info that has come out of Britain in the last few years provides evidence that they knew the intelligence was being fixed around policy which was to invade Iraq.
'C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.'
[link to www.timesonline.co.uk]
Bush did lie and Blair committed. Why wouldn't Blair go along? Britain has a sound war economy as well. Not to the extent of the U.S. but they too can turn a buck trafficking in warfare.
So then the Brits said THIS:
C [Dearlove] reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.
They KNEW Bush was "fixing intelligence around policy BUT somehow that turns into they never would have committed if they knew Bush was lying. Except that isnt the dynamic we are talking about. They KNEW Bush didnt have the goods he was CLAIMING he had, that is LYING, that doesnt mean they KNEW there were no WMDs. They were just, as usual with Britian, willing to back our play
and the case for war wasn't just made up of Bush's lies, it relied on cherry-picked intelligence from MI6 as well. His political behind was a gamble, but it seems to have worked out for him anyway. This war, unfortunately, was a strategic folly.
Weapons inspectors returned to Iraq on 11/27/2002 after a four-year absence. They were ordered out by the United States government on 3/16/2003. (Source: [link to www.usatoday.com]
In the meanwhile, they had discovered that the Iraqi al-Samoud II missle had a slightly further range than its 93-mile limit but nowhere near the 800-mile range missle Colin Powell asserted Iraq had developed. They also found that most of the tips given to them by U.S. intelligence were "garbage." They inspected and found nothing at the Presidential palaces, they found nothing at the purportedly new nuclear research buildings, they found that the aluminum tubes Iraq had acquired could not be used for uranium enrichment, and otherwise were led on wild goose chases by U.S. intelligence. (Source: [link to www.cbsnews.com]
Powell also had told the U.N. of a site containing chemical weapons and decontamination trucks that the weapons inspectors had been to and found no trace of chemical or biological agents and discovered the vehicles were water trucks. The IAEA had also found that the purported contract for Iraq to purchase uranium from Niger was a clear forgery. The head of the IAEA was "pretty convinced" Iraq had not reconstituted its nuclear weapons program that had been dismantled by the IAEA in 1997. (Source: [link to www.cnn.com]
The point is that Sen. Clinton's stated intention in her speech supporting the authorization for military force was to pressure Saddam to allow inspectors to return. Her objective was achieved. Inspectors were doing their job and were finding that the U.S. intelligence was clerly faulty. But since they were doing their job too well, they were undermining The Decider's case for war. They had to be stopped before the job was complete, since it is now obvius that Iraq had no WMD's or active programs. Had the inspectors been allowed to reach this final conclusion, there could be no war. The Decider had decided on war and wasn't going to let the facts get in his way. I would therefore have to conclude that The Decider and the Neocons never believed that Saddam would allow relatively unfettered inspections to resume and when Saddam capitulated, they were in danger of the truth.
"Let me ask you? If this was just a big lie by Bush, and he knew it all along - why was Tony Blair on board? He was Clinton's guy, not Bush's? This is a question that the vitriolic Bush haters never can seem to answer with any certainty. " --Tommy
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
There is a reason that question is unanswerable. It is manages to compress so much illogic in one place, it is hard to see where to begin:
1.I don't see where Fatbob said in the post you were replying to that Bush supposedly "knew it all along" that this was all a big lie. That is a strawman as far as I can see.
2.Your Tony Blair comment is odd. You claim Blair is "Clinton's guy, not Bush's". What logic are you using for that statement? The strong relationship between Bush and Blair has been there from the start as far as I know based on their religious kinship. Are you assuming that since Blair represents the more liberal party in England that he is somehow more loyal to Clinton (who represents the more liberal party in the US)? By extension of that logic, Chirac (who was the leader of the conservative party in France) would be "Bush's man", which he obviously wasn't. Do you have anything logical to support your claim?
To answer the overall silly question, I believe that Bush (and an overwhelming part of his administration) believed what he was saying was true because he wanted so hard to believe it was true. He may have been at worst criminally negligent due to a complete lack of normal skepticism. President Bush believed the false informtion so strongly and he used that belief to put pressure on others to accept it as fact. Blair made the mistake of trusting a complete naif like President Bush.
In an effort to strengthen their case against Saddam to satisfy the administration, administration handlers apparently deliberately exaggerated information supplied to the President and Congress. Anyone who was a party to that should be in jail right now if we had a real Congress.
There is nothing silly about the question and your failure to effectively answer it. The fact remains, Blair and Clinton were very tight, not Bush and Blair at all. If Bush completely lied us into War, then why in the world would Blair take his country in on it? There is no plausible explanation for it except for the fact that Blair concluded, with Bush, that the effort was worthy, at least from the start. And that is where the Bush lied fallacy falls apart, Blair wouldn't committ to Bush's folly if he wasn't as convinced, or even more so, of it's validity.
So keep saying it's a silly question, the fact for many is that it is the elephant in the room that many dismiss so conveniently because it flies in the face of reality and facts.
"The fact remains, Blair and Clinton were very tight, not Bush and Blair at all." --Tommy
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Again, based on what? Because apparently you believe it is true? Is that the reason?
~~~~~~
"Bush completely lied us into War, then why in the world would Blair take his country in on it?" --Tommy
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Yet more evidence you didn't read my post. I never said Bush lied on purpose. Lying requires intent as far as I am concerned. Bush naively or negligently believed what he was saying and was very good at pressuring others into believing his specious conclusions. He wasn't lying.
~~~~~~
"And that is where the Bush lied fallacy falls apart" --Tommy
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Yes. Again you have successfully pummelled yet another strawman. Congratulations.
Just do me one favor...Next time read my post before you reply.
Thanks.
Then perhaps our argument is pointless, if you say Bush didn't lie. Because on that point, we agree.
Maybe you'd better turn your attention to your fellow liberals who claim Bush LIED all the time.
I think Bush lies (or more precisely "misleads") to a certain degree much of the time. Most Presidents apparently have to. Often presidents are shielded from the truth in order to maintain plausible deniability. Bush has also shown disdain toward dissent within his administration, further leaving him prone to mislead.
I should point out that I don't think President Bush intentionally lied about what he believed in regards to WMD's. The fact that so many people on the left and the right have said seemingly similar things about WMD's in Iraq should lead most people to understand they didn't believe they were telling falsehoods. They should all get the same benefit of the doubt on that specific point.
What everyone should get from all of this is that your presidential vote especially has consequences. Bush was a terrible choice. We need to see what flaw in our collective logic allowed someone with such obvious bad judgement on matters of policy to be elected in the first place.
...lied about WMD. We know that. We also know that the vice president set up his own intelligence shop to get his intelligence because he didn't like what was being given to him. There is so much information out there if, and only if, you are willing to do some research. You have to want to know the truth as well.
On Sept 7th in a joint press conference with Tony Blair Bush said "I would remind you, when the inspectors were in Iraq- when they were finally denied access. An IAEA report came out saying they were six months from a (nuclear) weapon" LIE, flat out. No such report, doesnt exist, Bush pulled it directly out of his ass. What the 98 report ACTUALLY said was that the IAEA had destroyed Iraqs nuclear program in 91 and they had seen no evidence it had been reconstituted. Now that isnt a failure of intelligence, that isnt a misintepretation. HE MADE UP A REPORT THAT DIDNT EXIST, at least not one that said what he claimed. I have pointed this out several times, each time you dodge away then come back and repeat the same old propaganda that Bush never lied. Bush LIED, he also directly misled. When he sent TWELVE reports to congress saying the aluminum tubes could ONLY be used for Gas Centrifuges even though EVERY SCIENTIST THAT EXAMINED THEM refuted that claim and their reports to that effect were never mentioned, that is misleading that comes pretty close to a lie
Read "Against All Enemies" and "Worse Than Watergate". Attacking Iraq was on the Bush Agenda well before 9/11. I agree with you that Bush didn't lie all the time. He was on vacation a lot.
Blair, as did Bush, concluded that it was in their respective national interests to invade Iraq. Not because Iraq posed a threat, it clearly didn't (even if there was WMDs they still didn't pose a threat), but because Iraq has alot of oil (which was being controlled by France and Russia), because it would be a show of force (shock and awe) to all other intransigent countries, and because it would grant them numerous bases in the region to keep uppity Iran in check. Now it turns out that the cost benefit analysis was disastrously wrong, as is usually the case when a state puts its national interest above its national security.
...is that despite Bush and Blair's ideological differences, Blair recognized that he couldn't allow the U.S. to go it alone and leave Britain/Blair off the world stage. Then there's this...
[link to www.dailymail.co.uk]
I.e., Bush lied to Blair too.
There are many more plausible explanations. Take your pick.
...Fatbob they have nothing else to go on, they can't let go of WMD's. The problem is they made all these statements declaring he had them so now they try and say everyone thought he did.
Republicans repeatedly take Clinton to the lash to make Bush look like a victim of Clinton's ineptitude (concerning 9/11) then use the SAME person to prove what a great thinker Bush is based on the rare occasions when he and Clinton are ideologically or rhetorically in synch. You can't have it both ways! You cannot use the wisdom of Clinton, who is repeatedly blamed for 9/11, as proof of Bush's cleverness and insight, as if Clinton is some sort of Bush-policy idiot savant. You won't catch anyone picking through Bush's garbage piles for verbal refuse looking for a nugget of serendipitous wisdom to defend Bill Clinton. There is no need. Clinton's record speaks for itself. Great on all accounts except marital fidelity, which, last I checked, is irrelevant to the well being of everyone in the country aside from Mrs. Clinton.
By the same token, you cannot prop up Clinton as the absolute truthsayer and the all-knowing saint of wisdom, and then discount what he has historically said about Saddam and the unaccountability of his WMD's - just because it would refute the fallacy of Bush, and Bush alone, lied about the reasons for going into Iraq.
The sword cuts both ways. The real fact is the intelligence failed Clinton, and Bush. What we thought Saddam had or wasn't sure he didn't have, turned out wrong.
Really? I suppose from the perspective that the intelligence was uncertain, it failed him. The difference is that Clinton did not invade a country based on uncertainty, Bush did. The idea that Bush was the victim of failed intelligence isn't credible.
Apparently the Bush Administration deals with uncertainty differently than the Clinton Administration did.
In the Bush Administration, uncertainty allows you to pick conclusions that fit your worldview and then convince yourself that you are certain your conclusions are correct.
If anyone questions your certainty, you just cherry pick the information from the "pro" column and pretend there is no "con" column at all.
EXCEPT the whole intelligence dynamic changed when the inspectors went into Iraq and new intelligence was available. What Clinton was saying in 98 really isnt relevant to the equation for that reason
Bush had bodies on the ground that told him the previous intelligence was wrong, but he still invaded.
Hey Tommy;
Your realization is touching, yet still a rationalization that leaves you carrying the Republicans puke. The fact is GWB and his crew was lost in a fog of power, and greed that precluded any idea of victory, they were so convinced they would be hail as though they were conquering tribunes of a modern era of American domination. They were about 25% right as they won the 2004 election.
Yet, here we are with many stark comparisons of governance, leadership and the preservation of the American Democracy such as Bosnia vs. Iraq, Iran Then vs. Iran Today, N. Korea Then vs. N. Korea Today, Osama Bin Laden Then vs. Osama Bin Laden Today Still, Budget Surplus vs. Budget Deficit, Trade Deficit Then vs. Trade Deficit Today, FEMA Then vs. FEMA Today, New Jobs Then vs. New Jobs Today, American Honor vs. The Patriot Act/Abu Gharab/Guantanamo/Detainee Commissions/Abramoff/Valerie Plame/ ……………………..
The comparisons are so plain for the rational to see it make one wonder why somebody would argue for things as the are????
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
The FACT the inspectors were in Iraq and giving new intelligence and reason to question the WMD rationale. What Clinton thought in 98 is therefore not relevant to what Bush did. The new intelligence both from France who was telling us (they had the best intelligence on the ground there) and the inspections change the equation.
Clinton said that we could not verify what happened to Saddam's stockpiles of WMD's.
That's why the UN Weapons Inspectors went in to look after Saddam said that he had no WMD's, because we had to verify it.
"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons store"
These would be the intelligence reports that Hillary and the rest of congress was getting from the WhiteHouse, the cherry picked, stove piped, reports cleansed of modifiers, in some cases, refuted reports from questionable sources, that supported the bush plan to invade. and if you'd read carefully yourself, or didn't cherry pick your qoutes you'd have seen this:
"If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a pre-emptive strike on Pakistan. And what if China were to perceive a threat from Taiwan?
So Mr. President, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, on the present facts is not a good option."
This is from your linked article Hillary and it points outs that she was against doing what bush did. period. bush lied to congress and and now the few remaining bush apologists are trying to pull a fast one. it aint going to work. This is bush's mess. this is your mess. Iraqi and American blood is on your hands.
Actually... you are the one now cherry picking quotes. This is the speech in which she stated her intention to vote for giving Bush power to invade.
My point wasn't what you think it was... I was pointing out one instance of Hillary herself talking about weapons inspectors being expunged before Bush even took office. She also talks about UN weaknesses...
Yes, Clinton acknowledged inspectors has been previously expelled and the Clinton administration responded. Yes, the Senator pointed out the U.N. has weaknesses. Perhaps you'd care to elucidate as to what this reveals to you.
Someone... Fatbob?... was pissing and moaning about Bush, and I was simply pointing out that something he said was a little off. That's all. It's about the liberal misinformation. ;-) Out.
To what misinformation in Fatbob's post was your posting of the speech excerpt responding?
The fact Senator Clinton was ALSO misled by Bush shows her naivite, I mean I never believed the lying cretin. It however shows NO liberal misinformation except in your fevered imagination. Did you forget THERE WERE NO WMDs in IRAQ?
He hasn't been president since January of 2001.
He did not invade Iraq.
End of discussion!
Fine, but when one continues to call Bush a liar it needs to be in context. And that context is many other's, including the former President, believed Saddam had WMD's. Turns out they were wrong.
I don't make excuses for any of Bush's mishandling of the War, you know that. But that doesn't mean one abandons facts and fairness at his expense.
Whether we believed that Iraq had WMDs or not, did not give us the right to invade Iraq. If that's the standard for pre-emptive war, then why didn't we invade North Korea? Why didn't we invade Pakistan? Why aren't we invading Iran?
Bush invaded a sovereign nation that was not a threat to American interests. From the start of his administration he was determined to go into Iraq. Bush appointed PNAC members to key posts in his administration. PNAC had been recommending regime change for years before Bush took office. Whether he was telling the truth or not, there seemed to be some kind of plan in place from the beginning to overthrow the government of Iraq.
I can't argue with much of what you say. I do believe that Bush steered us into going to Iraq, it was what he wanted to do. But whether he lied is another matter. Saddam made it easy for him, he called his bluff and thumbed his nose at us.
Look, for the record, I am voting for divided government this fall. Bush and the power hungry Rep. need to be in check. If that means voting for Dem., so be it. I am tired of the abuse of power by the right. So if investigations proceed and Bush is weakened, well, how much worse can Iraq get than it is now?
But whether he (Bush) lied is another matter. Saddam made it easy for him, he called his bluff and thumbed his nose at us.
That last sentence has a bit of pronoun problem, but I gather you are saying that Saddam's defying the UN made it easy for Bush to build a case to invade Iraq. Yes? There is, however, one flaw in that logic: Saddam LET THE INSPECTORS IN. They searched 100 or 600 suspected sites and found NOTHING. Saddam was cooperating, was no longer in violation of the UN. It was BUSH who halted the inspections to start a war. As we now see, Bush had to stop the inspections or the truth would have seen the light, that Saddam had no WMD or WMD programs, and was not a material threat to the United States or his neighbors. Ergo, the concocted excuse to invade would have disappeared in a puff of fantasy.
Proclamations of Bush's unintentional fibbing become rather untenable when this bludgeon of reality is added to the discussion.
Proclamations of Bush's unintentional fibbing are untenable given his bludgeoning of reality.
Tommy;
Wake up!!!
You were lied to!!!
We were lied to!!!
They dressed up a pig, and wed you to it, and you still think you got a pretty young bride!!! One might wonder how the sex is after all this time, but that's too Republican for me!!
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
After spending year after year attempting to portray Clinton as the most incredibly dishonest individual imaginable, the regressive rightists can now find nothing better to say about their own George W. Bush than that he's as honest as Slick Willy.
All these quotes from Democrats supporting Bush before the war mean nothing. Their opinions were based on scrubbed intelligence reports from the Rumsfeld/Cheney Bullsh*t factory. Enough people from the CIA and Pentagon have testified to this that there is no real question any more, unless you believe that they are all lying and only the Bushies are telling the truth. So, you Bush apologists can leave that "everybody-thought-he-had-WMDs" wagon on the side of the road. The wheels fell off long ago.
If they themselves were lied to then they were swindled just as much as the american people.
Are we playing the "poor uninformed Democrats were swindled here too" whine? Even if that were the case, then they are at the very least negligent in their duty.
For if they vote to send troops into any War and don't demand the case for doing so is rock solid, then you tell me? - why should I trust their judgement anymore than the administration's?
Face it, they had access to the same intelligence and many voted for it. Rewriting history is really hard when votes in Congress are public record.
So were they duped and just lazy, or did they agree?
bush gave them. congress does not have intelligence gathering capibilities (insert punchline here) they act on the intelligence they get from the executive branch. The one branch of gov bush is supposed to control. They based their votes on faulty information given to them by bush. Having said that, many also, most likely, based their votes on political expediency and lack of backbone becuase they knew that votes against the war would be used against them in the next election cycle. That doesn't excuse it, most elected dems are spineless cowards. But I'd rather have them than the repbulicons.
getting back to your earlier posts, in what language does "we don't know" mean "he has them"? until you have a logical answer to that question, you are a bush apologist. Despite your wounded assertions or flip dismissals of me.
"we don't know", means we don't know. In retrospect, yes, we now know. But we didn't then and that's the point. What we didn't know could have been cause for another terrorist attack. I never said Clinton said for certain there were wmd's. I said, he said, he didn't know as they were unaccounted for.
This is not hard.
I for one was certain that Iraq still had WMDs, as a Brittsh parliamentary inquiry concluded that the Brits had sold chemical and biological weapons to Iraq in the mid-nineties. Similarly, the record shows that US companies were doing the same, with the express approval of both the US and UK gov'ts.
Despite this, I didn't support the invasion because they didn't pose a threat. I was generally supportive of the notion of regime change if done under the auspices of the UN. However, the contention that Iraq was a smoking gun that could turn into a mushroom cloud was lunacy. They were not a threat. They sure as sh*t are now though. A breeding ground if you will.
A neighbor is a felon who did time for a violent crime. You're not on friendly terms with him. You're concerned that he may illegaly obtain or may have obtained a firearm, but don't know. Just in case, you bust down his door and shoot him.
We will never achieve peace if we allow our decisions to be governed by fear. Although that's a hypothetical situation, this seems to be the attitude of many people and what you're implying. You think that's a stretch? Here's a real example of how irrational fear is leading to absurd results (summary from an article by C. Oliver):
Some of the names on the government's No Fly List include - very common names, e.g., John Williams. - dead people, e.g., the 9/11 highjackers
Whose names are not on the list? "[M]any terrorists and terrorist suspects currently under investigation." In case the list should fall into terrorist hands, their names have been omitted to avoid tipping them off.
please explain how these two statements, made by you on this thread, (the the first one is from one of your first posts on this thread, the second one is right above here,) can be anything but a direct contradiction.
."But even Clinton thought there were wmd's in Iraq, which was the major justification for the invasion"
"I never said Clinton said for certain there were wmd's. I said, he said, he didn't know as they were unaccounted for"
words have meaning tommy. even yours.
Where's the condesending snark about me needing to learn to read tommy? how about reconciling your two statements tommy? Are you going to debate the meaning of "is" next tommy?
at this point, it doesn't matter, your credibilty is shot tommy, on this thread and any others. you've proven yourself to be willing to say anything and you bank on reasonable people just giving up. you are a fraud tommy. expect to have this exchange mentioned in response to your future posts tommy.
Do it.
Call him on this obvious contradiction at every opportunity.
He is a Bush apologist, has been, and will likely always be!
I see the light. You know my nieghbor is a bad guy. He beats his wife. He went to prison for robbery an shooting a guy. We argue a lot. What I DONT know might end up in him killing me and my family. I mean I doubt it but then again the CIA said directly they doubted Iraq would attack us or allow their weapons to be used to attack us. Tenent wrote a letter to the Senate saying EXACTLY that. I better kick down his door and kill him and his entire family just in case. Then there are those Martians. What we dont know about them, like whether or not the exist just like those WMDs, means they MIGHT shoot death rays at us. We better get a mission ready to invade Mars just in case. Then again that whole LUDICROUS ON THE FACE OF IT RATIONALE is completely without merit. I think you ough to try it in court. Well judge, I didnt know whether or not that preist might molest my alterboy son so I had to shoot him. And that homeless guy I shot I just didnt know whether or not he might mug and kill me so I was forced to shoot him. Good luck with that.
There is a great article in Newsweek that has an excerpt of Isikoff and Corn's new book "Hubris".
I really don't have much respect for the congressmen and congresswomen who voted to give President Bush authority for war, but this article describes the situation extremely well. It is particularly interesting how the Whitehouse exerted pressure on Dick Armey, who might have been able to defeat the resolution if he had some cajones to back up his skepticism. The amount of political pressure (apparently in lieu of persuasive evidence and intelligence) the Administration used was substantial.
That said...anyone who voted for the resolution to avoid a political cost should be labeled a moral coward in the history books. They had a chance to stop it. They didn't even really try.
The saw the intelligence that the Administration wanted them to see, and if you think it was'nt a portfolio meant to sway for war, your lying to yourself.
The exaggerated, falsified, and invented outright intelligence to get their war and plunder our tresure.
You justify the acts of privateers, scoundrels, and traitors.
Men whom would think it funny to wear "Band-Aid Purple Hearts " on their National Convention Floor while having troops in the field and for the world to witness. When does character mean anything for Republicans, just cover for when one of them get caught.
We disgraced a Vietnam Vet. whom volunteered for dangerous duty at a time of war and instead embraced a pair of draft-dodgers!!!
When will enough be enough??
Happy Thoughts;
Dan Grady
Congress did not have access to the "same intelligence" that the WH had. [link to www.washingtonpost.com]
So to say that they are at fault just as much as the President is flat out wrong. The Bush took the pain, anger and sense of patriotism America had after 9/11 and used it for political gain. EVERYTHING this administration does is done in the context of maintaining power even if it involves lying to the public as you seem to agree with. Fine, but when one continues to call Bush a liar it needs to be in context. And that context is many other's, including the former President, believed Saddam had WMD's. Turns out they were wrong. - tommy /
It has been show repeatedly that the Bush admin lied to the American public to take us to War over cherry picked intelligence with a country that they asserted that there was "no doubt" that Iraq had WMD's. The fact that Clinton was not sure is irrelevant since inspectors were on the ground IN Iraq a week prior to the invasion. Bush lied about that also.
One lie he has told repeatedly is that Saddam kicked out the inspectors. What he never admits is that the inspectors were let back in, and then told to leave by the U.S. so Bush could start his war.
Does prove my point, as Clinton was famous for the very same lie in 1998. When they launched operation desert fox (or whatever it was) it was ostensibly b/c Saddam kicked out the inspectors. In fact, the inspectors were withdrawn by the UN after the Clinton Admin. notified them that they were going to start aerial bombardment of Iraq. Politicians lie, its the name of the game. It just turns out that Bush is waayyyyyyyyy better than Clinton at lying...and lying big.
Saddam NEVER kicked out the inspectors thats rightwing propaganda. Richard Butler PULLED them out. There was a sensative site protocol. It called for, when inspecting a sensative site that four inspectors would be allowed in, IF they found anything everyone would then be admitted (remember we now know there were no WMDs in Iraq at this time) Butler demanded his entire team be admitted to a sensative site. The Iraqis said no, if they wanted the protocol changed they could have gone to the Security Counsel and made the case why it was necessary but Butler did not do this. He just pulled the inspectors out. I cannot understand how this became Iraq kicked out the inspectors.
The fact of the matter is every gov't lies to the public by releasing misinformation and disinformation. It is a procedural policy instrument. It is done to ensure that a chosen policy can be implemented in the face of opposition. Sure it sucks. It flies in the face of the democratic ideal, and the notion of "public" policy. But one mustn't forget that democracy is an ideal. Ideals are never achieved in reality.
For these reasons, it is imperative that citizens take for granted that their gov't will lie to them. Be critical. Always question the powers that be. Just because the leaders of a representative democracy are supposed to represent the public interest, doesn't mean they don't have their own self-interest or institutional self-interest.
Sure Bush lied, but that's just par for the course. After all he is a politician.
is that the inspectors were not finding anything even when we were telling them were to look. Look Tommy, I can appreciate you acknowledgement that Bush has set our country back in fighting the WOT. The problem I have is when you start with the excuses as to why Bush does not deserve 100% of the blame for our current situation. Bush is the President. He is the "deciderer" and nobody else (except Cheney). It is irrelevant what Clinton or anybody else thought at the time. The inspectors wer in Iraq. Bush cherry picked the intelligence that he showed to everyone else and he lied maintain support.
About the WMD, they misled the public by pretending to be certain. Bush said that Iraq was an urgent threat. That was a lie. We now know that there was plenty of intelligence available which did not support their conclusions; they just chose to ignore it.
We don't know yet why these criminals invaded Iraq, but we do know it had NOTHING to do with WMD, or any potential threat to the United States.
Personally, I'm beginning to think that Bush sees himself as some grand player on the Armageddon stage. Yes, I believe he's that stupid.
"Yes, it's extremely difficult helping a country come to a democratic future that has never had that experience."
And she should know. She helps countries to become democracies all day long, between piano recitals. It must be exhausting.
It's really simple to understand: God told George Bush to invade Iraq. That's all anyone ever needs to know about it. Since this is a divinely inspired invasion, any stories told or actions taken to support it must also be divinely inspired, hence unquestionable. Of course, the problem with this is that God seems to tell people to do what they already wanted to do.
As is demonstrated by the exchanges touched off by this article, there is a need for much greater precision in outlining the Bush case for Iraq than is usually offered. The usual shorthand goes something like this:
Bush and co. said Iraq was armed with WMDs and allied with al Qaida, hence they pose an imminent danger and must be stopped.
While this shorthand works for info junkies and newshounds who regularly follow these issues, it is so imprecise to the more casual reader as to amount to a misrepresentation. Worsening the problem, this misrepresentation is then exploited by those rather sick individuals who seek to exonerate the present regime--as a follow-up, they simply argue that Clinton or some other Democrat also said Iraq had WMDs, throw out the words "intelligence failure, and insist this ends the discussion.
The administration didn't let their case for war rest on the general claim that Iraq had WMDs, though. They offered a specific set of allegations about Iraq, its capabilities, its alliances, its intentions. Those of us who follow these matters all know them: The aluminum tubes, Niger uranium, the Atta meeting, IAEA reports, mobile weapons labs, training of al Qaida in bomb-making, poisons, and gases, the willingness of Iraq to use WMDs, and so on. This set of allegations formed the basis of that more general claim.
This is particularly relevant because every one of these data points used to make up the broader claim has been exposed as either entirely fraudulent or so misleading as to be a lie. More significantly, this was known before the administration began employing them. In the matter of the much-talked-about aluminum tubes, for example, the administration's own experts were unanimous in rejecting the notion that they were intended for nuclear work, yet Bush and his underlings either unambiguously declared that they were intended for centrifuge work (Bush, Rice), or said the experts who disagreed with that view were in the minority (Powell). They made such assertions in public, then ordered their own Energy Department experts, about whose views they'd publicly lied, not to talk to the press about the matter. To use another example, Paul Pillar, recently retired from CIA, has made it very clear that no intelligence analysis supported the notion of an alliance between the parties as was being advanced by the administration. The press has documented this for years, now. The recently released SSCI report on the matter supports that view, as well.
All of this detail is washed away when the Bush case for war is presented in the general terms I outlined earlier.
The Bush administration fabricated its case for war from top to bottom, and there needs to be some way to express that in articles such as these so as not to leave open the possibility of Bush apologists exploiting imprecision with a phony defense. Hard to do in a world of soundbytes, perhaps, but necessary.