Representative Press Blog

Bush doesn't have a clue about recent events concerning Saddam and Iraq! The Media fails to inform the public about Bush's extreme cluelessness

A Bush fan trys to explain it away by claiming the whole thing is just an opinion in an opinion piece, "Sorry, but an opinion piece by ..."

I am not talking about an opinion peice! What Bush said is totally off the wall>Does he have ANY idea what he is talking about? He is clueless about Iraq and the press kept that from most Americans. DEAL WITH IT.
Visit the whitehouse website for the quote President Reaffirms Strong Position on Liberia
See how I provided the link? it isn't an opinion, it is a fact.

While the world continues to parse President Bush's 16 little words in his State of the Union message on Iraq's alleged try to buy nuclear fuel in Africa, it seems to have ignored his latest contribution to, as he likes to say, "revisionist history."

In an exchange with reporters the other day after the White House visit of U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, the president offered this to explain why he invaded Iraq:

"The fundamental question is, did Saddam Hussein have a weapons program? And the answer is, absolutely. 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, 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."

What? Unless memory fails, Mr. Hussein did let the weapons inspectors in, and they had to be withdrawn for their own safety when Mr. Bush decided to bypass them and the U.N. Security Council and proceed with his invasion of Iraq.

Surprisingly, neither The New York Times nor many other newspapers paid any attention to this colossal misstatement. The Washington Post, in a Page One story focusing on the faulty intelligence controversy, did note that Mr. Bush had said he had given the Iraqi dictator "a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in."

But the Post story merely observed that "the president's assertion that the war began because Iraq did not admit inspectors appeared to contradict the events leading up to the war this spring: Hussein had, in fact, admitted the inspectors and Bush had opposed extending their work because he did not believe them effective."
"appeared to contradict the events leading up to the war"!! can this reporter bend over backwards any more! talk about downplaying!
At the regular White House press briefing the next day, the presidential press secretary, Scott McClellan, was asked why Mr. Bush had said what he did -- a patently false reconstruction of what had happened, in justification of going to war.

Mr. McClellan put this evasive spin on Mr. Bush's clear words: "Yes, I think he was referring to the fact that Saddam Hussein had a long history of deceiving inspectors. Saddam Hussein was not complying with [U.N.] Resolution 1441, and he was doing everything he could to thwart the inspectors and keep them from doing their job. So that's what he was referring to."

A reporter later asked Mr. McClellan whether he was "clarifying" what Mr. Bush had said "or conceding that he misspoke." Mr. McClellan repeated his answer. Well, a reporter said, "people misspeak all the time. It's possible that he did misspeak." McClellan replied: "It's what I've said. I've addressed this two or three times now." (this is another lie, McClellan had just started that day!!! we saw him BS an answer then when he was asked to clarify he said this crap!! these guys are liars and the press goes out of its way not to call attention to it.)
source:
http://www.sunspot.net/news/opinion/oped/bal-op.witcover.18jul18,0,7002303.column?coll=bal-home-columnists