THE NUANCES OF GEORGE BUSH….Max Boot writes about the uranium scandal today in the LA Times. We get the usual talking points ? intelligence is by nature fragmentary, Clinton bombed an aspirin factory, it was only 16 words, etc. ? and then this:
This administration never pretended that it had firm intelligence that Hussein was about to attack the United States.
Don’t you just love the oh-so-careful wording here? The implication is that Bush never oversold the case against Iraq at all and certainly never claimed the United States was in any real danger from Saddam Hussein. Unless, of course, you count things like this from the now infamous State of the Union address:
It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known. We will do everything in our power to make sure that that day never comes.
It’s undeniable that Bush never flatly claimed that an attack against the United States was only days away, but surely Boot’s statement is, um, just a teensy bit disingenuous anyway? Does anyone seriously doubt that George Bush was the cheeleader-in-chief for the notion that that United States and the world were in grave and immediate danger from Saddam Hussein and his weapons of mass destruction?
Conservatives sure are getting good at Clintonian levels of hyper-legalistic word selection, aren’t they? Care to try again, Max?