July 2003 - weblog posts

This is a list of weblog posts for July 2003.

7/30/2003; 9:11:35 PM: Eric Altermain nails Dubya's press conference
Go, Eric!:

I had to end the "Meet the Press" contest, owing to today’s meeting of the press, albeit a long way from prime time. But I also wonder just what their value is, when the president did not give a single substantive answer to the deeply troubling questions about both his honesty and competence with regard to Iraq, homeland security and the economy. The lack of the ability (or willingness) of the reporters to ask tough follow-ups or to cede their questions to other reporters whom the president refuses to call on makes such scenarios mostly public relations exercises for the White House, with reporters acting as mere props.

You just explained that your approach to your job is to try to produce results. It has been roughly a year since North Korea apprised the United States government that it is seeking to reactivate its nuclear weapons program. In that year, you and your aides have repeatedly said that you seek a diplomatic approach to that problem. And yet, over that year, all we've seen from the North Koreans are more bellicose statements and more steps taken to add to their stockpile of nuclear weapons that they already have. What can you point to in the record over the last year by your administration, for Americans to look at and say, this President has produced results?

So the progress that is being made is we're actually beginning to make serious progress about sharing responsibility on this issue in such a way that I believe will lead to an attitudinal change by Kim Jong-il, which will be very positive for peace in the region.

Is that straight talking or what?

My favorite answer was, when asked "U.S. has lost credibility by building the case for Iraq upon sometimes flimsy or, some people have complained, non-existent evidence":

And in order to placate the critics and the cynics about intentions of the United States, we need to produce evidence. And I fully understand that. And I'm confident that our search will yield that which I strongly believe, that Saddam had a weapons program. I want to remind you, he actually used his weapons program on his own people at one point in time, which is pretty tangible evidence.

We didn't invade Iraq because it had a weapons program. We were told we invaded it because Iraq had weapons. And how is a weapons program used on people? Does Dubya not know the difference between weapons and weapons program? Or, more likely, is he saying totally contradictory stuff so that he can't be proved wrong? And Dubya said something that actually addressed the question only after a 265 word ramble.

Continuing my previous post
UN Inspections of Iraq - Still didn't happen
No chemical or biological weapons and no nuclear weapons in Iraq - Mentioned slightly and confusingly 
Daily deaths of American troops in Iraq - Still not happening, only "sacrifice"

7/30/2003; 6:59:48 PM: More on Iraq and the Right living in a fantasy world
I wanted to tie together a couple of threads from early posts.  Earlier, I said that the Far Right is living in a fantasy world.  Earlier today, I said that most of Dubya's case for the invasion Iraq fell apart once the UN inspectors went into Iraq.  Recently, both Cheney, Delay and Dubya each made speeches about Iraq.  Cheney spent over 1,000 words describing the run up to the invasion of Iraq, and didn't mention the UN inspectors.  Delay said, "But in the last 18 months, it has become clear that the extreme, Bush-hating wing of the Democrat Party has decided to either ignore or reject the fundamental realities of 21st century life," and then ignores that the UN inspections ever happened.  Dubya takes the cake though.  He said, "[W]e gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power, along with other nations, so as to make sure he was not a threat to the United States and our friends and allies in the region."

Some more curious omissions - both Cheney and Delay fail to mention in their speeches that no chemical or biological weapons and no evidence of an active nuclear weapons program has been found in Iraq.  They both also don't mention any of the causalities that have occurred in Iraq.

To summarize, in the Republican fantasy world:
UN Inspections of Iraq - Didn't happen
No chemical or biological weapons and no nuclear weapons in Iraq - Not worth discussing
Daily deaths of American troops in Iraq - Not happening

7/30/2003; 7:09:05 AM:

My thoughts on the case for the war in Iraq
I recently got an e-mail from the author of the Mythic Flow blog, linking me to his thoughts on a recent Economist article on the case for the war in Iraq.

Let me give you some background (as I understand it) before I give you my thoughts on the case for the war in Iraq.  Once Iraq kicked the inspectors out in 1998, my understanding is that the US intelligence agencies stopped receiving any significant intelligence from Iraq.  What the intelligence community then did is say that based on what Saddam did before inspectors went in, this is probably what he did after the inspectors left.  It may have been a Wild Ass Guess, but it was a Scientific Wild Ass Guess (SWAG).  Dubya then built his case for war on those intelligence estimates (though he left out all the caveats).

Then, the UN inspectors went in.  Even sitting in my living room, it was obvious that our intelligence estimates were all wrong.  There was clearly no nuclear weapons program.  It was highly unlikely that the Iraqis could product chemical or biological weapons.  There was a chance that the Iraqis had some chemical or biological weapons hidden somewhere, but that chance was dwindling fast.

I read somewhere that the speechwriters for the State of the Union address tried to build a 5 point case in favor of invading Iraq - that Iraq had chemical weapons, that Iraq had biological weapons, that Iraq was trying to build nuclear weapons, that Iraq had links to al-Quida, and that Saddam was a brutal dictator.  By Dubya's March press conference, he knew that the support for the first four points were weak.  But he made no mention of that at the press conference and soon we invaded.

Now, one could argue that the invasion of Iraq is justified by the removal of Saddam.  But if we were going to invade for humnitarian reasons, we needed to make life significanly better for the Iraqi people right away and we have not.  But as the humanitarian reasons were just one point out of five, I feel that the case for the invasion of Iraq has not been proven out.

7/29/2003; 11:39:04 PM: Consumer confidence is nosediving again
Here is the graph:

Consumer confidence is lower than when it was after 9/11.  Until consumer confidence picked up in April (probably on war news), it was on a trend to hit 0 in April, 2004.  Now that the war is no longer going well, the trend down has resumed.

7/29/2003; 6:15:27 AM: Truth and the Daily Howler
A truly great website, The Daily Howler has been on a campaign to say that Dubya has been unfairly bashed for the 16 words about Iraq and uranium in the State of the Union address.  If Bob Somerby would stop at saying that Dubya said no more than what is in the National Intelligence Estimate, I would agree with him (see my earlier post).  However, Somerby seems intent on proving that what Dubya said is true.

Now, if somebody has accused someone of doing a vile deed and the other said, "Prove it!", isn't it up to the first party to back up what they said?  If they can't back it up, wouldn't you consider them a liar?  The support for the Iraq-trying-to-buy-uranium-from-Africa consists of lots of rumors and what-ifs, but absolutely no proof.  However, Somerby seems to be saying that because the claims that Saddam tried to buy uranium from Africe haven't been disproven, what Dubya said must be true!

For example, Somerby cites this story from the Guardian:

Documents seen by the Guardian show that leaders of the Mayi-Mayi, a brutal militia embroiled in the country’s civil war, visited Baghdad twice and offered diamonds and gold to the Iraqis. Uranium was not mentioned in the documents but the intelligence officer said the Mayi-Mayi would be able to obtain the material in areas it controlled.

On Saturday, Somerby linked to a story that mentioned that the Iraqi ambassador assigned to Niger actually visited Niger in 1999 and actually asked about trade.  He apparently never said the "U" word, but just discussing trade is apparently enough "evidence" for Somerby.  I guess the Iraqi ambassador assigned to Niger should never actually visit the country and if he does, should keep the conversation strictly on the weather.

Let's look at the rumors from the other way around - if Iraq actually went to the time and money to try to obtain uranium, what would they do with it?  The only processing equipment US forces have found in Iraq was a partial centrifuge buried under a rose bush.

As I said earlier, the onus is on the White House to back up their claims.  It is great to have a watchdog on the media, but in this case, the watchdog is barking up the wrong tree.

7/28/2003; 8:19:53 PM: Who does the White House belong to?
The Washington Post wrote

For example, a photo released for this year's speech shows him working on the address. The caption reads: "Sketching notes in the margin of speech drafts, President Bush rewrites portions of the address in the Oval Office Jan. 23, 2003." The president's meticulous devotion to detail was also highlighted in the photo display from the 2002 State of the Union. The White House wouldn't give permission to use the photo focusing on two cufflinked forearms editing a speech draft

a conservative group that supports Bush's policies has built a fundraising campaign around an official Navy photo of the president on the ship's deck.
:
After the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the National Republican Congressional Committee, an organization that supports the party's House candidates, was criticized for using in a fund-raising appeal an official White House photo of Bush aboard Air Force One following the attack."

7/28/2003; 6:58:03 PM: What mission Dubya said was accomplished
Here is the context of Dubya's only uses of the word "mission" in his speech on the Abraham Lincoln:
"Yet all can know, friend and foe alike, that our nation has a mission: We will answer threats to our security, and we will defend the peace. Our mission continues. Al Qaeda is wounded, not destroyed. The scattered cells of the terrorist network still operate in many nations, and we know from daily intelligence that they continue to plot against free people. The proliferation of deadly weapons remains a serious danger. The enemies of freedom are not idle, and neither are we. Our government has taken unprecedented measures to defend the homeland. And we will continue to hunt down the enemy before he can strike."

The only mission mentioned is answering threats to the US's security. One could argue that with the fall of Saddam's regime, that mission was accomplished in Iraq. Of course, I think the evidence shows that Iraq was never a serious threat to the US's security.

7/28/2003; 6:26:06 AM:

Dubya's critics are overlooking what?
In Sunday's Dallas Morning News, Keith Rosenkrantz has an opinion piece entitled, "Critics are overlooking all the obvious signs of success".  Here are the "obvious" signs that Keith says I am overlooking:
"Mass graves have been uncovered"
Everyone knew that Saddam was an evil man. Why is this a success?

"many of the ruthless individuals who supported Saddam's regime have either been captured or killed"
And how many of them have been turned over to an international court for justice?

"Iraq's secret nuclear weapons programs...was uncovered"
Are we talking about the partial centrifuge that had been buried under a rose bush for 12 years?  I feel a lot safer knowing that it is now in American hands.

"Water and power ore being restored and oil production is at 1 million barrel a day"
This is good news, but they are still not much better than pre-war levels

That's it.  Were are spending $4 billion a month and an averaging more than one troop killed a day, and those are all the successes Keith Rosenkrantz can come up with.  I particular found this funny:

Yet for all that our armed forces have accomplished, President Bush continues to be criticized because so-called weapons of mass destruction have not been found. Where were the critics when Iraq's secret nuclear weapons program - ready to be reconstituted once U.N. sanctions were lifted - was uncovered?

7/27/2003; 8:21:28 AM: Randy Barnett is almost right
Randy Barnett, while guest blogging on Glenn Reynolds' blog, said the following:

Since the 2000 election, however, I have begun to realize for the first time that the Left really and truly lives in a socially constructed world -- a world where "truth" is their own construction.
:
:
:
But what I am now coming to appreciate is that increasing numbers of persons on the Left create in their minds a false world in which to live -- a world that better suits their preconceptions. They are not content to disagree with the goals of their opposition or about predictions of future policy results. They must make up facts about the world that fit their theories...

How about these startling results from a mid-January poll - 44% of Americans believed that most or some of the September 11th hijackers were Iraqi when none were.  65% of the Americans surveyed believed that al-Qaida and Iraq were closely collaborating allies when in reality there were idealogical opposites.  A May poll found that a third of the American public believed U.S. forces had found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and 22% believed Iraq actually used chemical or biological weapons.  Unfortunately, these poll results are not broken out by political party, but I think it is a logical to guess that Dubya supporters would be the most likely to believe the worst about Iraq in spite of the facts.

Randy himself is in denial.  "Now the Left is lying about Bush to make him appear to be a liar because they cannot catch him in any actual lies."  Recently Dubya said "And we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in. And, therefore, after a reasonable request, we decided to remove him from power....”  Is that not a lie?

Dubya's administration's made a lanudry list of claims about Iraq's WMD's - 100's of tons of VX, mobile biological weapon labs, missiles with biologoical weapons hiding under palm trees - and none of them have proved true.  Any rational discussion of the administration's WMD claims has to start with that American people were misled.  Then we can begin to discuss whether the Dubya administration received bad intelligence, did they overstate what intelligence they got, did they make false claims, etc.  However, I haven't the Republican politicians and conservative pundits accept that the American people were misled on Iraq's WMD's.

Contrast the Right's denial about being misled on the WMD's with Clinton supporter's acceptance that they were misled about Monica.  I can't remember anyone saying that "I did not have sex with that woman" was technically accurate and that claims that Clinton lied were overstated.  I accepted that I was lied to about this issue, wasn't too concerned that the President lied to me about his personal life, and continued to support Clinton because I supported the majority of the policies he pursued.

An early example of that is the first presidential debate in 2000.  Al Gore stated "Under Governor Bush's tax cut proposal, he would spend more money on tax cuts for the wealthiest 1 percent than all of the new spending that he proposes for education, health care, prescription drugs and national defense, all combined."  Dubya responded, "Well, let me just said that obviously tonight we're going to hear some phony numbers about what I think and what we ought to do."  Dubya called Gore a liar, but never said whether the wealthiest 1 percent was getting less that all of the new spending that he proposed.  Gore was citing a study from a well-respected think tank.  Dubya cited nothing.  After the debate, Dubya would get his supporters to chant "Fuzzy Math" but never debunked any of Gore's descriptions of his plans.  To me, those supporters who chanted "Fuzzy Math" were either (a) horribly cynical or (b) in severe denial.

Randy is right to ask"how can we settle our political disagreements if a large number of the players are living in a world of their own making?"  It is impossible to have a meaningful debate about the invasion of Iraq when so many people have the basic facts wrong.  But Randy and the Far Right are the ones living in a fantasy world.  Apparently, when Randy sees people talking about real world, he just writes them off as fruitcakes instead of trying to learn the truth.

7/25/2003; 6:28:08 AM:

How badly can we bungle Odai and Qusai's deaths?
It is clear to me now that we should have had full and massive disclosure.  We should have had TV cameras showing their bodies as soon as the fire fight ended.  We should have had the people who did the visual identification do so in front of journalists.  Instead, the military told the war, "Trust us, we wouldn't lie to you".  A really stupid strategy given that we lied about Iraq having WMD's.  So now, we are slowly doing those things that we should have done - we have released pictures and we have had reporters view the bodies.  But because we have done it so slowly and so grudgingly, we have turned an event that should have inspired jubiliation in the Iraqi into an event that inspired yet more mistrust.

From AP:

The photos, however, seemed to have had little effect on Iraqi opinions.

"This is a U.S. ploy to try to break the spirit of the resistance," said Jassim al-Robai, a computer engineer eating at a restaurant in Baghdad.

After seeing the images, Al-Robai said he wasn't convinced that the brothers were killed.

7/24/2003; 6:50:07 AM: Dubya's comments on Odai and Qusai's deaths annotated
BUSH: It is my pleasure to welcome Ambassador Paul Bremer back to the White House. I'm also pleased to be joined by Secretary Rumsfeld and General Myers.
Thank you all for coming.
Ambassador Bremer is doing a fine job in an essential cause.
The nations in our coalition are determined to help the Iraqi people recover from years of tyranny. And we're determined to help build a free and sovereign and democratic nation.

Free and sovereign and democratic as long as it does exactly what we want

Could somebody share the comprehensive strategy with the American people?

Everybody agrees that Saddam was an evil guy.  But sadly, there are evil guys in our coalition of the bribed

And the results are?  Has our work reduced the number of attacks on American troops?  Have we brought any of these killers to justice?

Saddam lost his sons, but he is probably still alive.  How does the death of his sons effect Saddam's ability to come back?

Yeah, occupying a country after an illegal invasion based upon lies told the American public is what I call noble and just

How does Dubya know what a free and democratic Iraq will do?  I mean, if it is the will of the people to have a theocratic government like Iran, who do we know that government will act in the way we want and not act like the government of Iran?

Like the great example Afghanistan has been setting?

Gee, the Iraqi people seem to be hating us more each and every day

Of course, Britian is providing like 12,990 of the 13,000.  And don't ask how the other 18 are - we won't tell you

Of course, the amount pledged is tiny compared to the amount needed

But Saddam did it a whole lot faster after Gulf War I than we are doing now

Gee, why didn't we do this right after we invaded instead of printing currency with Saddam's picture on it?

Just as soon as they freely and democratically agree to do everything we tell them

Hey, didn't we try that strategy in Vietnam?

But so far, they haven't been able to make a single decision beyond sending a few people to the UN

Just write a check to the US Treasury at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC.  Seriously, no country is going to make a meaningful contribution as long as we demand that we run the show

Are the two compatible?

Sounds great.  And that plan is...?

Can you tell us yet how much of a $$$ commitment?

And we are doing this be appointing former generals and former Baath party as governors

Mission Still Accomplished!

7/24/2003; 6:07:18 AM: You can call me paranoid
Monday, I heard some conservative radio talk show host suggest that the US should fake the killing of Saddam.  His idea was that it would force Saddam out into the open in order to prove that he is really alive.  I thought it was really a stupid idea because the people of Iraq would demand more proof than we could provide and it would obviously backfire.

Today, I heard about the Odai and Qusai killing and the US government is offering less proof than what the radio host was proposing to provide.  I find it hard to accept the story that 4 men could keep over 100 highly-trained troops pinned down for over 4 hours.  That when 3 men were dead, the troops were unable to capture the fourth alive.  I thought I had read in a news report that stills were taken right after the battle that clearly identify Odai and Qusai.  Where are they?  When is the public going to be allowed to see the body?

From General Sanchez's press conference:

QUESTION: Sir, I was on the street a little while ago speaking to people, Iraqis, about this, and they were extremely skeptical and said: Prove it. We have to see pictures. We have to see evidence. They seemed extremely distrustful of this kind of word. Is there something you will do to confirm, in their minds, that this has, in fact, transpired?

SANCHEZ: You can come back tomorrow when we conduct the detailed briefing of the operation, and we'll show you additional details.

7/23/2003; 9:40:52 PM:

I have been linked to!
One of the big problems with my on-and-off blogging is that whatever audience I built before I lost when I stopped.  I get a steady 10 to 15 hits a day from Goggle searches, but I don't think many off these become repeat visitors.  To me, the key to getting any audience is to get a link from a big blog.  I did get a link from Gary Santoro's The Mediaburn Radio Weblog, which may not be a big blog, but I am still pleased to be linked to.

Gary mentions that the Dallas Morning News has started a blog by the editorial board.  It seems to be an odd sort of blog.  The blog doesn't accept comments.  Instead, you apparently click on the editorial board member's name and send him/her your comments.  The board member then chooses if your comments are worthy of posting and/or responding to.

7/23/2003; 9:26:33 PM: Read the released NIE on Iraq
Here is the link.   Here is the third paragraph of the NIE: "Since inspections ended in 1998, Iraq has maintained its chemical weapons effort, energized its missile program, and invested more heavily in biological weapons; in the view of most agencies, Baghdad is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program."  An amazingly strong statment given that, as the NY Times reported, "American intelligence officials and senior members of the administration have acknowledged that there was little new evidence flowing into American intelligence agencies in the five years since United Nations inspectors left Iraq".  If the American intelligence agencies had little new information, how could the NIE have such a bold claim?  Could it have had something to do with Cheney's three visits to the CIA?  Regardless, this is a scandal that we need public hearings on.

7/23/2003; 6:20:46 AM: The average popularity of a president
One of the standard defenses of Dubya is that he is popular.  I saw that in an article recently, even though his poll numbers have dropped to the high 50's.  I was wondering, what is the average popularity of a president?  I went over to Professor Pollkatz's and found a table showing the Gallup approval ratings of presidents going all the way back to Truman.  There are only 3 approval rating numbers for each even-numbered year, but it gives a significant sample size.  What I found is that the average Gallup presidential approval rating is 53.5%.  So Dubya is still more popular than average, but hopefully more people will come to their senses soon.

7/22/2003; 6:29:13 AM: I had wondered who the White House was going to send to the Sunday talk shows
I was really curious - who was going to get hammered for the White House this week? If anyone involved with the SotU address went, they would be asked a serious of embarrassing questions. How about the OMB Director to discuss the record deficit? That is not much better. So who got sent?

Ambassador Bremer and Speaker Hastert!  Bremer said everything is under control in Iraq and all the problems will be solved soon.  Hastert said little worthy of note and kept saying "you know" over and over again.

I wonder if the administration's new strategy is to lie low for the foreseeable future with the hope that all the Iraq furor will dissipate without any new quotes.

7/21/2003; 9:30:03 PM: It has started
There is one editorial calling for Dubya's resignation and a second implies it (but wants full public hearings first).  Every moderate or liberal pundit who called for Clinton to resign should make the same request of Dubya.

7/21/2003; 6:42:01 AM: Sometimes, they take your breath away
I am used to right wing pundits misleading, selective quoting and downright lying, but Charles Krauthammer recently told a whopper so huge that it took my breath away:

It is obvious he did so because he thought that, post-Sept. 11, it was vital to the security of the United States that Saddam be disarmed and deposed.

Under what analysis? That Iraq posed a clear and imminent danger, a claim now being discounted by the critics because of the absence thus far of weapons of mass destruction?

No. That was not the president's case.

Q Well, we went to war, didn't we, to find these -- because we said that these weapons were a direct and imminent threat to the United States? Isn't that true?

MR. FLEISCHER: Absolutely. One of the reasons that we went to war was because of their possession of weapons of mass destruction. And nothing has changed on that front at all. We said what we said because we meant it. We had the intelligence to report it. Secretary Powell said it.

The headline of the LA Times story on Dubya's 2003 State of the Union address was "Bush Calls Iraq Imminent Threat", an interpretion I doubt the White House disputed.

Actually, it was the DEMOCRATS who said that Iraq did not pose an imminent threat.

As I said, a whopper so big that it took my breath away.

7/19/2003; 7:55:35 AM: Rush is right!
From his website:

The Bush people are obsessed with smashing Bush's credibility and that of the military.

7/18/2003; 9:26:31 PM: That will show Dubya's critics!
From AP:

WASHINGTON - An intelligence assessment last October cites "compelling evidence" that Saddam Hussein was attempting to reconstitute a nuclear-weapons program, according to documents released Friday by the White House.

Mounting a campaign to counter criticism that it used flawed intelligence to justify war with Iraq, the White House made public excerpts of the intelligence community's October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate.
:
It also cites unsubstantiated reports that Iraq was trying to buy uranium from three African countries: Niger, Somalia and "possibly" Congo.
:
The material released by the White House also included a "footnote" by the State Department that said "claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are...highly dubious."

Unsubstantiated reports that are highly dubious – I am glad it is clear how high the bar is to be included in one of Dubya’s speeches.

7/17/2003; 6:42:21 AM:

Dubya has no more arrows in his quiver
The Note on Tuesday talked briefly about the advantages Dubya had over Democrats - oodles of money, tremendous popularity within his party, etc. But I can see one huge disadvantage Dubya has - nothing new to offer for 2004. The White House has finally agreed that the current deficits are unsustainable and is talking about cutting the deficit in half by 2008. So, Dubya can't propose any new tax cuts or any new spending without saying he is going to cut spending. From him to reach his goal of cutting the deficit in half, the economy is going to have to suddenly bloom or he is going to have to raise taxes. All Dubya can really say is that everything he has done so far is great and the economy will turn around really soon. As the Democrats are already talking about rolling back some of Dubya's tax cuts, they are free to propose new programs. Dean's claim that bringing back Clinton's taxes will bring back Clinton's economy may be magical thinking, but at least it is a plan with a positive track record, something that Dubya lacks.

Update: I had taxes when I meant economy

7/16/2003; 7:44:17 PM: Objectivity in the media
I read an article recently linked to by Atrios talking about some of the limitations of objectivity in the media. I think the article really missed the biggest flaws in the current media coverage. To me, a good objective article should quote knowledgable representatives of each position as well as a context for their statements. Media coverage is breaking down because people who have been repeatedly proven wrong are allowed to make false statements which are treated with the same respect as any other statement. A great example of an proven wrong "expert" who is still quoted is James Glassman, the author of "Dow 36,000", who I have repeatedly heard NPR use over the last couple of years for stock market analysis. What really bothers me is what I call 'flat earth statements" - statements that are obviously wrong but go unchallenged by the media. I heard a great example this morning on NPR - some Republican politician said that there is no way tax cuts could cause a deficit. Another thing that drives me nuts about media coverage is too many times they present quotes without noting what the same person said before. A great example was when the the Wen Ho Lee story first broke, Repbulicans went on all the Sunday talk shows and criticized Attonery General Reno for not arresting Wen Ho Lee soon enough. A few weeks later after the case against Lee fell apart, the same Republicans went on the same shows and criticized Reno for arresting Lee too soon. All the articles I read about the second weekend's shows didn't mention any quotes from the first weekend shows.

I found this this article to be great, because it does something so few writers have done to Dubya - tracked his and his officials' statements over a long period of time.

7/15/2003; 7:35:00 PM: New Press Secretary starts telling whoppers right off the bat

Q Two quick questions, one on Iraq. When the President said of Saddam Hussein, we gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in and he wouldn't let them in, why didn't he say that, when the inspectors went into Iraq?

MR. McCLELLAN: What he was referring to was the fact that Saddam Hussein was not complying with 1441, that he continued his past pattern and refused to comply with Resolution 1441 of the United Nations Security Council, which was his final opportunity to comply. And the fact that he was trying to thwart the inspectors every step of the way, and keep them from doing their job. So that's what he's referring to in that statement.
:
:
Q I just have my own quick question, but first I want to clarify what you said to Dana. Basically, are you -- on the inspections in Iraq, are you clarifying that, or saying that, or conceding that he mis-spoke?

MR. McCLELLAN: No, what I was saying was that he was referring to the fact that he was trying to keep the inspectors from doing their job. Saddam Hussein was not complying with Resolution 1441. He would not let them do their job. So that's not --

Q -- possible, but people mis-speak all the time. It's possible that he did mis-speak.

MR. McCLELLAN: It's what I've said. I've addressed this two or three times now.

© Copyright 2003 Unrelated Disney. Last update: 8/2/2003; 11:58:37 AM.