The Moderate Voice writes:
The Moderate Voice - Washington Post Says Bush Speech Not Quite Accurate: [I]t contends President George Bush's speech contained a fundamental inaccuracy that some are sure to dismiss as a slight oversight and others will insist represents falsification.... The Post writes:
President Bush and his national security adviser have answered critics of the Iraq war in recent days with a two-pronged argument: that Congress saw the same intelligence the administration did before the war, and that independent commissions have determined that the administration did not misrepresent the intelligence.
Neither assertion is wholly accurate.... Bush and his aides had access to much more voluminous intelligence information than did lawmakers, who were dependent on the administration to provide the material. And the commissions cited by officials... were not authorized to determine whether the administration exaggerated or distorted those conclusions.
To repeat what we've said in many posts here: this administration's biggest problem is its credibility. Stories such as this mean his speech will (once again) be welcomed by always-loyal partisan supporters, immediately seized upon by partisan foes -- and will be yet ANOTHER nail in the coffin for GWB & Co in terms of independent voters or even some of the more conservative Democrats that voted for him and the GOP....
If the White House intent is to indeed go on the offensive against war critics (read that: Democrats, in particular), turning once again to the power-enhancement via division playbook, it may not work this time. Convincing arguments are not arguments that can be shot down in a mere newspaper story -- and this Post story will not be welcome news for the White House.... Add to that White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan's war with the White House press corps and it looks more like more than ever Bush is going to try to get through the next three years by rallying his base.
And expanding his number of political enemies.
It's considerably worse than that. The Bush administration's recent embrace of Chalabi tells us that they are lining up on the side of the deceivers. As Jack Fairweather of the Telegraph wrote a year and a half ago:
Telegraph | News | Chalabi stands by faulty intelligence that toppled Saddam's regime : Mr Chalabi, by far the most effective anti-Saddam lobbyist in Washington, shrugged off charges that he had deliberately misled US intelligence. "We are heroes in error," he told the Telegraph in Baghdad. "As far as we're concerned we've been entirely successful. That tyrant Saddam is gone and the Americans are in Baghdad. What was said before is not important. The Bush administration is looking for a scapegoat. We're ready to fall on our swords if he wants."
Few members of even the Bush base will stand for this.