‘Our public and private comments are fully consistent’

March 27, 2006

There are several important angles to the New York Times’ report this morning on Bush’s behind-the-scenes meetings with Tony Blair in 2003, but the bottom line is that the president had, despite comments to the contrary, made up his mind about invading Iraq. We’ve known this for quite a while, but the NYT article offers details on how Bush made his determinations clear and his willingness to consider fraud to make the invasion necessary.

It’s pretty damning stuff. How would Scott McClellan defend it today in the face of reporters’ questions? By going into a deep sense of denial.

Q: Is this [David Manning] memo wrong?

McClellan: Well, you covered us at that time period. And let me remind you, go back to that time period, look at the public comments that were made, look at the numerous statements that were made by the President of the United States. We were continuing to pursue a diplomatic solution, but we recognized that it was necessary to prepare and plan accordingly in the event we would need to use force, and that’s what we were doing at that time, as well.

But Saddam Hussein was given every opportunity to comply, and he continued to defy the international community — even when he was given one final opportunity, or face serious consequences. So let’s not rewrite history.

It amuses me to no end that when McClellan wants to rewrite history, he says, “Let’s not rewrite history.” Saddam was given every opportunity to comply — which Saddam accepted by letting U.N. weapons inspectors into Iraq. When Bush didn’t like what the inspectors found (i.e., nothing), the war started.

As for the public comments from early 2003, in which the president said he hoped to avoid war, and the private comments from early 2003, in which the president said he’d already made up his mind, McClellan said, “I think that our public and private comments are fully consistent.” He did not appear to be kidding.

Let’s make this simple: Shortly before the invasion, the president said, “I’ve not made up our mind about military action.” At the exact same time, the president told Blair that he was determined to invade, he based the diplomatic efforts around the plan for a war, and he even picked a target date to begin dropping bombs.

Only Scott McClellan could argue that the “public and private comments are fully consistent.” And only a sycophant would believe him.

Only a sychophant or a man whose brains have been thoroughly addled by drugs and alcohol. There is one other (non-exclusive) possibility: a man who is so inexperienced in the real world, so spoiled by the circumstance and family connections, that he simply doesn’t give a damn about pesky things like “facts”.

  • The administration is politically in what chess players call zugzwang, where any move they make will force them into a significantly weaker position. They have a choice between fast, castastrophic collapse and a slow and incremental decline. If McClellan admits the truth, what all the evidence says, it immediately spells the end and maybe war crimes trials. The GOP will see this country in a shambles before they allow that to happen. If McClellan lies, then yes he will draw scorn and hardly anyone will believe him–but he’ll keep the smoke and mirrors show going for a few more days.

    Seriously, Congress needs to send the Marshals up to the White House with arrest warrants. This is now a farce & would be hysterical if it were not happening in our own country.

  • Only a sycophant or someone with extreme short-term memory loss. Just last week Bush told Helen Thomas

    “And the world said, Disarm, disclose or face serious consequences. And therefore, we worked with the world. We worked to make sure that Saddam Hussein heard the message of the world.

    And when he chose to deny the inspectors, when he chose not to disclose, then I had the difficult decision to make to remove him.”

    But he didn’t choose to deny the inspectors, and he didn’t choose not to disclose, and Bush had already made the decision to remove him. Talk about rewriting history.

  • Ed, how dare you insult those of us whose brains have been addled by drugs and alcohol. Even so, we still know the difference between what happened in 2003 and what bush and mccllelan claim happened in 2003. it’s not fair blaming bush’s inabilities on coke and alcohol: he would have been a pathetic shallow little dipshit even if he’d been straight all his life.

    what’s interesting to me is to read this in connection with the stuart rothenberg posting earlier: there are still a surprising number of people who haven’t grasped that the bush administration has zero interest in anything but its own political needs.

  • Where is the follow up question:

    “But Scott, Saddam DID comply and let inspectors in–it wasn’t Saddam who told the inspectors to leave, it was President Bush–so who is rewriting history?”

  • What is so mystifying is the lack of reaction by
    the public, the MSM, the press, the Democrats,
    the independents,
    and yes, the true conservatives, the libertarians
    and the honest Republicans to all these damning
    revelations about this horrible crime committed
    by Bush and company. Why is there no reaction?
    I just can’t understand it. It nearly blows my mind
    what Bush did, and yet nobody cares.

  • I agree with Hark. I constantly bring up the lies that Bush tell’s with people and they just don’t believe me. They think he’s some kind of GOD and that I’m a crazy liberal. Why is liberal such a bad name? Why don’t our newspapers write this stuff? The liberal press? What a joke the liberal press is/NOT. We keep moving farther and farther towards dictatorship.

  • Im just confused on how it is that this can be reported as such, and yet nothing happens. Generally, this is the kind of information that, if presented in a court of law, alongside comments as to the purported reasons for war, would generally find one guilty of contempt.

    We have certainly entered some sort of political twilight zone – it’s as if there are no powers left in our government that can hold anyone responsible. Obviously the supreme court just sits there and doesnt do anything until a case is brought before it, although the comments by Sandra Day O’Conner recently are getting close to the issue – but of course she is retired.

    Since the administration is at fault here, clearly, and congress was essentially negligent in its duty to control the administration in its runup to war, the former is going to stay in denial, as long as the latter fails to act to hold it accountable.

    Given that there seems to be noone in Congress on the majority side that cares about all the administrations transgressions, both before and during the war, where do we as citizens turn? It seems the only hope for this country is to elect anyone but those currently in power. Even if it cannot be done for the 06 elections, I think we have to focus on getting more responsible people in office as time goes by. Eventually, we should see Bush and co. brought before some sort of court, even after they have left office, because they have caused thousands of deaths, and done so through falsehood, deception, and continued obfuscation. I dont care WHEN justice is served, but eventually, it must be. The question is how.

  • None of this is news — to people who follow the news. Until now, Bush has made one stupid comment after another and the press has ignored them.

    When the President of the United States cites a specific reason he took the country to war — and that reason is, on its face either a blatant lie or a sign of brain damage, the press should examine the statement more closely.

    Go to this site for proof that Bush is certifiable. I saw this statement “live” on CNN:

    http://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/conason/2003/07/15/bush/index.html

    And never saw it again!!!

  • “Let’s not rewrite history”-
    because Bush has already put so much hard work into rewriting events for the administration spin version.

    These guys are professional media manipulators and they don’t want competition from some hacks who bring up inconvenient facts.

  • Orwell had a nice quote in 1984 that would seem appropriate.

    “Those who control the present control the past. Those who control control the past control the future.”

    • Comments are closed.