TidBits From the top dawgs...
Mood:  accident prone
Topic: Is true or Memorex?
SO...Coming up later this week will be the storied Barbara Walters interview with Dubya and Mrs. Dubya. I am sure Walters will probe deep into the cavernous ass of Dubya. One thing that has hit the press already is that he is STILL saying this whole Iraq disaster is worth it:

(Courtesy of ABC News)
"The invasion of Iraq, which ousted Saddam Hussein and has cost the lives of some 1,300 U.S. military personnel and billions of dollars, was "absolutely" worth it, despite the absence of any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, President Bush told ABC News' Barbara Walters in an exclusive interview that will air this Friday."

Oh, Ok then...So what ever happened with that whole weapons of mass destruction thing?

"The White House acknowledged today that there is no longer an active search for Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. The final report from chief U.S. weapons inspector Charles Duelfer, due out next month, has concluded that "the former regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of WMD."

The Bush administration does not hold out hopes that any weapons will ever be found."

Wonder why this never came up during the election? Would this be an admission of being wrong? Afterall, didn't somebody else say all this a while back?

"Duelfer's predecessor, David Kay, reached the same conclusion a year ago. "It's taken them another year, and in fact we were right a year ago. There were no weapons there," Kay said in response to Duelfer's announcement."

So, Dubya was WRONG then, right?

'Bush told Walters, "I felt like we'd find weapons of mass destruction - like many here in the United States, many around the world. The United Nations thought he had weapons of mass destruction. So, therefore: one, we need to find out what went wrong in the intelligence gathering."

Oh I see, Bush wasn't wrong...It's that damn intelligence community! I mean Bush really felt like they would be there.

Furthermore...

"... Saddam was dangerous and the world is safer without him in power."

Really? I wonder if all those Iraqi government officials that found themselves killed this week think that? Or the aides to Sistani that were also killed. Not to mention our own troops that continue to get killed daily as well. They're all safer?

'When asked if the war was worth it even if there were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, Bush responded, "Oh, absolutely."'

Bastard.

And speaking of the Troops, anyone have any idea how much longer we will be there? During the election it was looking like years not months. Kerry was said to have been 'unrealistic' about even mentioning the idea of bringing even some of the troops home in 2005. Fast forward to today and we suddenly get this from the AP(via Drudge):

'WASHINGTON - American troops will begin leaving Iraq this year as the Iraqi army, national guard and police force take on a larger security role, says Secretary of State Colin Powell.
"But I cannot give you a timeline when they will all be home," Powell told National Public Radio in an interview released Wednesday by the State Department.'

WHaaaAAAAT?!

This must mean that the Iraqi election must be coming together pretty well!

From the Washington Post:
'With just over two weeks until the Iraqi elections, the United States is lowering its expectations for both the turnout and the results of the vote, increasingly emphasizing other steps over the next year as more important to Iraq's political transformation, according to U.S. officials.
The Bush administration played down voter turnout yesterday in determining the elections' legitimacy and urged Americans not to get bogged in a numbers game in judging the balloting, a reflection of the growing concern over how much the escalating insurgency and the problem of Sunni participation may affect the vote.'

But Freedom was marching all over Iraq going on two years now...Surely the Sunni's can see that they must participate...I mean, if we can't have a complete election won't that make the thing invalid?

'"I would . . . really encourage people not to focus on numbers, which in themselves don't have any meaning, but to look on the outcome and to look at the government that will be the product of these elections," a senior administration official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity at a White House briefing yesterday. The official highlighted the low voter turnout in U.S. elections as evidence that polling numbers are not essential to legitimacy.(remember 2000?) The transition from an interim body, which was appointed last summer by U.N. and U.S. officials, to an elected government "in itself is an enormous achievement and . . . we all encourage people to view it in that way," the official said.'

So, with this logic would that not also indicate that Dubya's 'mandate' might just be a fabrication? I can't imagine that. Surely, some admission of error or perhaps coming up with a new plan is on order, right?

'For months, the administration has promoted the elections as a major milestone in its efforts to bring democracy to Iraq and then the wider Middle East and Islamic world.

But the continuing insurgency and the inability of U.S. forces to stabilize Iraq almost two years after the invasion to topple Saddam Hussein has forced the administration to redefine the context, goals and role of this first vote.'

Wait a dog gone minute here...Did that just blame the troops?! So what's Plan B?

'"I don't think they're thinking of a Plan B. What they have is permutations of Plan A: You go for elections, hope for the best and if it doesn't materialize, you go with whatever emerges -- probably a heavily Shiite government," said Henri J. Barkey, a former State Department Iraq specialist who is now head of Leheigh University's International Relations Department. "Then you hope that this new government will be smart enough and enlightened enough to make an outreach to the Sunnis."'

So, everybody cross their fingers! I wonder if that was the official Rumsfeld plan from the get go? Operation Fingers Crossed.