Preznit Bush today admitted he'd planned to remove Saddam from the time he took office, implicitly acknowledging that his humble foreign policy campaign pledge was a lie. Even George Soros thinks so.
Paul Krugman writes today:
The point is that the credentials of the [Bush] critics just keep getting better. How can Howard Dean's assertion that the capture of Saddam hasn't made us safer be dismissed as bizarre, when a report published by the Army War College says that the war in Iraq was a "detour" that undermined the fight against terror? How can charges by Wesley Clark and others that the administration was looking for an excuse to invade Iraq be dismissed as paranoid in the light of Mr. O'Neill's revelations?So far administration officials have attacked Mr. O'Neill's character but haven't refuted any of his facts.
So, is Bush's concession today a pre-emptive non-denial denial? Or a way to slip in a little retroactive reality control? Bush is quoted as saying "The stated policy of my administration toward Saddam Hussein was very clear -- like the previous administration, we were for regime change." Does this mean regime change, but, like, humble regime change?
Update 5:55pm: Unnamed offical leaks the same concession of O'Neill's charges. That was fast -- from unnamed leak to presidential admission in less than one news cycle! Note that Donald Rumsfeld hasn't been briefed yet:
Defense Secretary Rumsfeld disputed O'Neill's account today. "I don't know what meetings he could have been in," Rumsfeld told reporters during a Pentagon briefing.
Careful there, Rummy-boy! That's your boss you're contradicting!