Where's the Certainty?

Remember back in the good ol' days in the build-up for the attack on Iraq? Remember how all those administration folks were running around stating things unequivocally, and making the most astonishing statements with absolutely no hesitation or caveat? As I recall, Donald Rumsfeld knew exactly where some chemical weapons were stored. Condi Rice was certain that Saddam had aluminum tubes that could be used for nothing but a uranium centrifuge. Ah, the sweet certainty of youth.

Now, a little bit older, Condi appears to have abandoned such childish things as definitive statements. In her responses to questions from senators today, she worked hard to avoid being pinned down on anything. Perhaps the rumors that there may be indictments heading for the former members of the White House Iraq Group has encouraged her to avoid saying anything that might lead to perjury charges at any time in the future.

The AP pretty much summed up my two favorite bits:

WASHINGTON Oct 19, 2005 — Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice declined on Wednesday to rule out American forces still being needed in Iraq a decade from now. Senators warned that the Bush administration must play it straight with the public or risk losing public support for the war.

Pushed by senators from both parties to define the limits of U.S. involvement in Iraq and the Middle East, Rice also declined to rule out the use of military force in Iran or Syria, although she said the administration prefers diplomacy.

Poor Senator Sarbanes tried and tried to get her to say that we'd at least have our troops out by 10 years from now. But no. Condi wouldn't commit to it even being a likelihood, that 10 years from now, on top of the years already spent, would be enough to complete the mission that good ol' Wolfowitz was saying would be over in 6 months, no problem.

And then, when they tried to get her to say that the language of the resolution that has been stretched to make our occupation "legal" might not stretch to include attacking other countries, if W. got itchy (like once his entire staff is indicted), could they get our Secretary of State to offer any opinion? Nope. Though she did reassure us that ""I don't think the president ever takes any of his options off the table concerning anything to do with military force." That's she's pretty sure about.

I guess I'd prefer them to be refusing to say anything than continuing to lie to our faces, but what I'd really prefer if they'd tell us the truth. Would it have killed them for her to say "We don't intend to have forces there in 10 years" or "Current plans have our troops home long before then, but, for obvious reasons, I can't give you a more precise timetable?" Or would that have been a lie?

Have we ever gotten further explanation of those reports that we were building permanent military bases in Iraq? Hmmm.