The "16 words" flap has puzzled me. To recap, in the State of the Union address in January, President Bush said that British intelligence had reported that Saddam Hussein tried to buy uranium in Africa last year.
For weeks now, the Democrats and the media have been just BESIDE themselves with furious accusations that the president LIED. They want blood. The Washington Post had a big front page article how this flap has caused a big drop in Condoleeza Rice's reputation. LIE, LIE, LIE. Howard Dean is demanding that people be fired.
Thing is, Bush's 16 words were absolutely true and correct. British intelligence did say that Hussein was attempting to buy uranium, and they are still sticking by their story.
American intelligence on this story was mixed, with one guy reporting back that the information was incorrect. Considering that it was a case for war in a SOTU speech, you might reasonably argue that even this one sentence buried in the middle of an hour plus long speech was somewhat questionable. The fact that he specifically said that the information was from BRITISH intelligence, however, might reasonably be seen to imply that our people hadn't confirmed it. At worst, this item constitutes a slightly questionable judgment call.
The FACT that Bush's 16 words were totally TRUE does not, of course, dissuade the opposition from screaming their bloody heads off. That's not real puzzling or surprising to me. Further, they've had one defense that does seem legitimate, which leads to my puzzlement.
If what the president said was true and above board, then why are they acting like they've done something wrong? Why was Ari Fleischer out apologizing? Why did they send George Tenet out to accept responsibility when there's been nothing done wrong? Huh?
This does seem pretty odd. The administration has a perfectly reasonable defense, yet acts like they've been caught at something. This doesn't make any sense. You can hardly get a politician to accept responsibility for things they've done realy, really wrong, so why would they be apologizing for things that are NOT wrong?
Gentle readers, I have a theory. I'm not saying that it's necessarily true, but I'll just throw it at the wall and see if it sticks:
Perhaps the administration has purposely chosen to draw fire for a minor issue. It's just enough that Democrats and media will find themselves irresistably drawn to the chance to smear Bush- at least it became irresistable once Bush's people started acting like they were vulnerable. It's a rope-a-dope, causing the opposition to pound themselves bloody, and wear themselves down.
Article comments
1 - Howard Owens
Al, I think you're on to something. It makes sense. I've noted Machavellian tactics in the administration before. I wouldn't be surprised if the WH was purposing drawing fire on something it knows won't stick long-term to distract critics from larger issues.