WP: For Bush*, a Tactical Retreat on Iraq

[kskiska]

By Dana Milbank

In deciding to back an independent review of the intelligence regarding Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, President Bush is implicitly conceding what he cannot publicly say: that something appears to be seriously wrong with the allegations he used to take the nation to war in Iraq.

Most everybody in a position to know has agreed that a huge mistake has been made.

(snip)

Bush will announce this week that he is creating, by executive order, a bipartisan independent panel of at least nine members that will make a report in 2005, the White House confirmed yesterday. But those close to the president say he is doing so while continuing to avoid any explicit public acknowledgment that the intelligence was wrong. Why the reluctance to state what appears increasingly obvious as Kay spent the past 10 days dashing prospects that significant weapons stockpiles would be found in Iraq? Although the tactic may appear to be obtuse, there is a real strategy behind the Bush response -- and one that has been used before, to great effect.

Bush aides have learned through hard experience that admitting error only projects weakness and invites more abuse. Conversely, by postponing an acknowledgment -- possibly beyond Election Day -- the White House is generating a fog of uncertainty around Kay's stark findings, and potentially softening a harsh public judgment.

"They aren't giving up," Hans Blix, the former chief U.N. weapons inspector in Iraq, said recently. Blix's failure to find weapons of mass destruction before the war was ridiculed by the administration. "They all prefer to retreat under a mist of controversy rather than say, 'I'm sorry, this was wrong,' " he said.

more…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/?LOAD_PAGE&reload=true

[frank frankly]

1. this is the brick wall

they could have said to wait until the 3rd inspector returned...

but they didn't. very telling. maybe the spooks are showing their teeth.

it can't take long for the OSP to enter these articles.

[saigon68]

16. Let's throw some flower petals on the manure pile

And hope the smell goes away.

On second though get some of those flower petals from the Iraqi people.

After all of the ones they threw at us.

They must have plenty left? </Not>

[0007]

23. The article can be found at this link

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3980-2004Feb1.html

The spooks are showing real sharks teeth now. The repuke are in a full court march madness press.

[grasswire]

2. grrrr this fries me

"Bush aides have learned through hard experience that admitting error only projects weakness and invites more abuse."

Goddam. Goddam.

Whatever happened to the party of personal responsibility?

Abuse? Abuse? Is that the new word for accountability?

[July]

18. And what "hard experience" are they talking about?

I can't remember any errors that they've admitted. Are they talking about other people's errors?

[madrchsod]

3. "sorry i was wrong"

yes i just killed thousands upon thousands of people cause i didn`t know what i was doing. ya hell will freeze over if he ever admitted he was wrong.

[Beetwasher]

4. All Said, This Is A Damning Article, IMO

Milbank's been pretty good and this article is pretty good and objective. It's by no means a pretty picture of what these thugs have to answer for...

[stumblnrose]

15. Milbank's been pretty good?

Everybody likes Milbank. Milbank is a fine-pointsman but never ever asks the big questions. Okay, okay, WP won't allow them? I think Milbank is the kind of small-points petooty who is allowed to operate as if we are still living in a democracy. just like anyone who tells me that The Guardian doesn't truly have its nose up Blair's posterior is likewise being fooled. The Independent RULZ.

[daleo]

5. A smokescreen, to cover this up until after the election

Then after the election, they can just tell everyone to kiss off. Every day it becomes more obvious how imperative is that they not be able to win (or more likely steal) the 2004 election.

[reprobate]

8. Consider this scenario.

With real conservatives turning on *, a combination of dems and true conservatives could publish their report in october, accusing him of lying.

If he loses the election this could be the basis for a criminal trial of him and the rest of the neocons.

If he wins, it could be cause for impeachment, since the patriot act makes lying about US intel a felony, which would come under 'high crimes and misdemeanors'.

Well, I can dream, can't I?

[Bush_Eats_Beef]

11. Makes you wonder...

...how many hours a day are being spent at RoveCo planning "after the election" activities.

All of a sudden "after the election" strikes me as the three most chilling words in the English language.

I respectfully disagree on one point, however...I feel that the call to "kiss off" is actually "in progress"...

:spank:

[grytpype]

6. Page A01.

About time.

[desi]

7. The Bushians are not stupid..

they are well aware that there are many Americans SOS (StuckOnStupid.) "Bush will announce this week that he is creating, by executive order, a bipartisan independent panel of at least nine members that will make a report in 2005,"...By "executive order" he means that by Law, this "bipartisan independent" panel can not make its findings known until After the next stolen election cycle. And of course those SOS Americans will jump for joy because he is returning Honor and Integrity to Our WH by his now wanting to know all the facts that he claimed to have known prior to invading Iraq....btw, one of the names already floated to head this "impartial/independent" panel is Mr. James Woolsey. Remember who Bush* wanted to head the 9/11 Commission..???

(edit: wrong brackets)

[Just Me]

20. Oh, great, the infamous WWIV Woosley to head the panel,...

,...*yak* :puke:

[Sagan]

9. Get used to hearing this:

"It's possible mistakes were made.. We just won't know until the committee reports in 2005. But we do know Saddam was a very very bad man and the Iraqi people are better off."

This will be repeated, ad nauseum, by the Chimpistas and their media whore sycophants.

[Beetwasher]

10. Yup, That's Their Only Defense

It's quite assailable IMO and I hope it is quite assailed as such..It damn well should be...

[Snappy]

12. This must be circumvented

The Dems have to get around this.

[mhr]

13. To Reelect Bush, The American People Need To Know Before The Fall

That is the argument you use with the SOS crowd.

That is the argument you use with the lapdog media.

Hammer it home.

How could we ever trust Bush again unless we know before the election if he is culpable?

[freethought23]

14. ' A huge mistake has been made' -- NO!

The Iraq war was not a "mistake," not an "error." It was an unprovoked act of aggression motivated by money and oil and covered up by lies.

[dusty64]

17. The article in

my local paper gave me the impression the WH will control the direction of the committee and appoint its members. Is this true? If so, how do they continue will this bullshit. Can anyone imagine if Clinton tried any of this crap.

[9215]

19. This part:

Bush aides have learned through hard experience that admitting error only projects weakness and invites more abuse. Conversely, by postponing an acknowledgment -- possibly beyond Election Day -- the White House is generating a fog of uncertainty around Kay's stark findings, and potentially softening a harsh public judgment.


Well, Mr. Bush there is more at stake than appearances. We have a gaping hole in the reliability of our intelligence, which is a serious threat to national security, and we have bodies stacking up in Iraq as you play politics with the matter.

[chopper]

21. Bush is quoted as saying

'i'm just keeeding'

[0007]

22. The WP must have pulled article - can't find it

[Bandit]

24. They are trying to make comparisons with the Warren Commission

I suppose that means they will be asking Judge Scalia to head it up so the comparisons stay the same. Impartial you know. Zell Miller and Ben Nelson, and James Bruox(sp) could also be on it. Bi-partisan it will be.