The POTUS came out swinging yesterday,
honoring the brave and the dead on Armistice Day,
by continuing to do what he is now known to do best:
Use powerful cultural events and emotional situations to give credibility
and substance to his administration's claims, policies, and mistatements.
"While it is perfectly legitimate to criticise my decision or the conduct of the war, it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite the history of how the war began."
His forceful words reflect a recognition by the White House that it must not lose the argument about why the US went to war if it is to maintain support for keeping troops in Iraq.
"The stakes in the global war on terror are too high and the national interest is too important for politicians to throw out false charges," Mr Bush said.
Here is the basis of what he and his team said in counterattacking his now plummeting ratings on leadership and credibility.
"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."
The truth is, Bush and his aides, through the daily CIA briefings, had access to volumes of intelligence information, while the Congress was dependent on the administration to filter and provide the material.
Much of this material was cherry picked and in some cases simply misrepresented, as in the case of the alluminum tubes, the claims of purchases of uranium in Niger based on forged documents, the reliance of hearsay from known unreliable sources, and in the unsubstantiated linkage of Iraq to 9/11.
And the commissions cited by officials, though concluding that the administration did not pressure intelligence analysts to change their conclusions, were not authorized to determine whether the administration exaggerated or distorted those conclusions.
This determination is the subject of the second part of the same investigation that has been held up by Republicans in the Senate, and is the very reason that the Senate went into closed session last week using rule 21.
But the mystery is this.
Why would anyone.
I mean anyone.
Expect those who lie,
To change their ways?
They did it then, they are doing it now.
It's a mystery.
Here is Steve Colbert on breaking the code of mysteries and deceit.
And here is Olbermann on another mystery of words. (quicktime 7)
And here is another professor who chooses to pierce the mystery
rather than enjoy the rest of his life accepting fiction with his pension.
What it is About