[tag]Helen Thomas[/tag] asked [tag]Scott McClellan[/tag] the same question for several years, but never got an answer. Today, she gave it a shot with [tag]Tony Snow[/tag].
Q: The new Italian Prime Minister says that the President’s invasion of Iraq was a grave error. As the new kid on the block, can you give me the latest [tag]rationale[/tag] the U.S. has for invading [tag]Iraq[/tag]?
Snow: There has only been one rationale, as you know, Helen, and this that Saddam Hussein had resisted — what is the proper number, 17 United Nations resolutions — and had refused repeatedly to permit weapons inspectors to do their work, and consistent with that. And also we had cited other concerns in terms of democracy and human rights. That case has never changed.
As Salon’s Tim Grieve noted, “one rationale” is a little on the low end of the count of rationales. OK, more than a little.
As a student researcher at the University of Illinois found a couple of years ago, the Bush administration advanced more than 20 different justifications for the [tag]war[/tag] in Iraq between 2001 and 2002. One that [tag]Snow[/tag] didn’t mention, at least explicitly, today: The threat, described by the president in his September 2002 speech before the U.N. General Assembly, that [tag]Saddam Hussein[/tag] was going to give the [tag]weapons of mass destruction[/tag] he didn’t have to al-Qaida terrorists with whom he wasn’t working.
It’s hard to deny that Tony Snow, as a professional communicator, is more articulate and confident than Scott McClellan ever was. But after just a few press briefings, Snow has already made clear that he has a McClellan-like approach to the truth. The more things change…