Man, this is SO cool

You have no idea how complex it used to be to put in emails (intact) from other folks (like 'Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting').  Here's a note from FAIR they sent today:

In a December 1 interview with ABC anchor Charles Gibson, George W. Bush gave a grossly erroneous history of the run-up to the Iraq War--a false version of events that Gibson failed to challenge and the Washington Post glossed over the following day.  

When Gibson asked if Bush wished he had any "do-overs," Bush responded:

BUSH: I don't know--the biggest regret of all the presidency has to have been the intelligence failure in Iraq. A lot of people put their reputations on the line and said the weapons of mass destruction is [sic] a reason to remove Saddam Hussein. It wasn't just people in my administration; a lot of members in Congress, prior to my arrival in Washington D.C., during the debate on Iraq, a lot of leaders of nations around the world were all looking at the same intelligence. And, you know, that's not a do-over, but I wish the intelligence had been different, I guess.

GIBSON: If the intelligence had been right, would there have been an Iraq War?

BUSH: Yes, because Saddam Hussein was unwilling to let the inspectors go in to determine whether or not the U.N. resolutions were being upheld. In other words, if he had had weapons of mass destruction, would there have been a war? Absolutely.

GIBSON: No, if you had known he didn't.

BUSH: Oh, I see what you're saying. You know, that's an interesting question. That is a do-over that I can't do. It's hard for me to speculate.

The Washington Post's write-up (12/1/08), praising Bush's "new candor," reported that he

admitted to errors and regrets in several key areas. He said he wished "the intelligence had been different" on Iraq but declined to speculate on whether he still would have decided to go to war. "That is a do-over that I can't do," he said.

As Greg Sargent of Talking Points Memo (12/2/08)noted: "For Bush to blame the failure of intel for his decision to invade is not a concession at all, and it is not an admission of failure on his part.... It is an evasion of responsibility for what happened."

But there was an even more glaring distortion of history in Bush's statement: his claim that Saddam Hussein prevented weapons inspectors from conducting searches in Iraq. In reality, the inspections were a well-publicized process that attracted international news coverage and were the subject of lengthy discussions at the United Nations.

This is not the first time Bush has denied this history. As FAIR pointed out (7/18/03), in July 2003 Bush made a similar comment ("We gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in"), which the Post soft-pedaled by saying these words "appeared to contradict the events leading up to war this spring." And reporter Robert Parry (Consortium News, 12/2/08) noted after the ABC interview that Bush has made similar declarations (1/27/04, 3/21/06,5/24/07)--none of which  generated much interest from the corporate media.

Charles Gibson

Washington Post

Please post any responses you receive from ABC or the Washington Post on the FAIR Blog:http://www.fair.org/blog/2008/12/02/responses-from-abc-or-wapo-on-bushs-iraq-inspectors-lie/