[Uninspired by Bill Press’s 'four simple words' parting shot this morning on Air America Radio]
Eight simple words. But why, why??, why can't you say them, Hillary?
John Edwards has already said them*, and nobody even noticed. That's probably what will happen with you too, Hillary. It'll just be water under the bridge, Hill, no one will call you a flip-flopper, or consultant-driven, or a panderer. All you have to say are the eight little words. Trust us on this one!
Don't you understand that no one is blaming you for being lied to and misled by the White House, CIA, Washington Post, New York Times, and the entire mainstream punditocracy. No one is blaming you for trusting a guy who seemed eminently trustworthy at the time, like Colin Powell. No one is blaming you, either, for thinking the President would do what you** and the October, 2002 resolution told him to do, to remove Saddam's purported WMD while sparing no effort to avoid war.
So then, uhh, just say you made a mistake.
Well, actually, all we really want is for you to say you made a mistake because you were misled? See, you don't have to say "I made a mistake" all by itself. You can add four words of 'explanation'. And no, it’s not nonsensical, it won’t be pretending there are "do overs" in life.
And no, none of us will ask you and harrass you with, "What happened to ‘there are no do-overs in life?'" after your 'confession'.
And anyway, who cares about all this semantical silliness anyway, it's just words we're talking about here. We won’t hassle you about it. Like we said, it’ll be water under the bridge as soon as you ‘come clean’, so to speak.
---- Your Friends in the Mainstream Media
###
(P.S. – One particularly annoying statement in Bill Press’s parting shot was his equating John Kerry’s 2004 ‘I would vote the same even with what I know now’ (election-losing) nonsense with what Hillary has said on the 2002 vote. Hillary has said, since 8/04, that she would have voted ‘no’ with the benefit of hindsight.)
*FOR THE RECORD, here's what Edwards said in late 2005:
I was wrong.
Almost three years ago we went into Iraq to remove what we were told -- and what many of us believed and argued -- was a threat to America. But in fact we now know that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction when our forces invaded Iraq in 2003. The intelligence was deeply flawed and, in some cases, manipulated to fit a political agenda.
**FOR THE RECORD, here's some of what Hillary said back in October, 2002:
I believe international support and legitimacy are crucial. After shots are fired and bombs are dropped, not all consequences are predictable. While the military outcome is not in doubt, should we put troops on the ground, there is still the matter of Saddam Hussein's biological and chemical weapons. Today he has maximum incentive not to use them or give them away. If he did either, the world would demand his immediate removal. Once the battle is joined, however, with the outcome certain, he will have maximum incentive to use weapons of mass destruction and to give what he can't use to terrorists who can torment us with them long after he is gone. We cannot be paralyzed by this possibility, but we would be foolish to ignore it. And according to recent reports, the CIA agrees with this analysis. A world united in sharing the risk at least would make this occurrence less likely and more bearable and would be far more likely to share with us the considerable burden of rebuilding a secure and peaceful post-Saddam Iraq.
President Bush's speech in Cincinnati and the changes in policy that have come forth since the Administration began broaching this issue some weeks ago have made my vote easier. Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I will take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a UN resolution and will seek to avoid war, if at all possible.
Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely, and therefore, war less likely, and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go way with delay will oppose any UN resolution calling for unrestricted inspections.
This is a very difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make -- any vote that may lead to war should be hard -- but I cast it with conviction.
And perhaps my decision is influenced by my eight years of experience on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House watching my husband deal with serious challenges to our nation. I want this President, or any future President, to be in the strongest possible position to lead our country in the United Nations or in war. Secondly, I want to insure that Saddam Hussein makes no mistake about our national unity and for our support for the President's efforts to wage America's war against terrorists and weapons of mass destruction. And thirdly, I want the men and women in our Armed Forces to know that if they should be called upon to act against Iraq, our country will stand resolutely behind them.
My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of pre-emption, or for uni-lateralism, or for the arrogance of American power or purpose -- all of which carry grave dangers for our nation, for the rule of international law and for the peace and security of people throughout the world.