On July 14, during a joint Oval Office news conference with UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, Bush was asked why he made the uranium assertion even though U.S. intelligence agencies had questioned its accuracy.
Bush replied that the CIA had cleared the speech, then added: "The larger point is, and the fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in."
The last sentence in that sequence simply can't be squared with the record of what happened in Iraq. In fact, the inspectors re-entered Hussein's domain in November after a four-year absence, quickly expanded their operations and worked until the eve of the U.S. invasion in March.
You could say that the inspectors were able to return only because of intense U.S. pressure, that they made no breakthroughs, and that they sometimes complained about a lack of Iraqi cooperation. All those statements would be right. But you couldn't say, as Bush did, that Hussein never let them in at all - not if you wanted to stay on the fair side of the truth.
-------------------------------------
Norman Ornstein, a political analyst at the American Enterprise Institute, agrees that Bush's history of malaprops have so lowered public expectations that he can commit a gaffe with little fallout. But he adds that questions of credibility strike directly at Bush's greatest political strength - his reputation as a straight shooter.
"The question is, when does that image slip, and then everything, no matter how small, becomes a big deal," he said. "We're not there yet. But now for the first time there's some tarnish out there."
"For the first time"? NOOO. You guys are just finally noticing for the first time. There's a difference.
It might do you good to LISTEN TO US once in a while. Check this site and the links in the sidebar on a daily basis. We're desperately trying to tell you stuff here.
