resident Bush, under pressure from anonymous hate email received from foreign leaders, today backtracked on his position of the regime change he so stridently had clamored for during the pre-election campaign.

Apparently, the Western world leaders are employing an AOL-based Instant Messaging communications system, instituted at the strong insistence of George Bush who found the White House telephone system too complicated, resulting in inadvertent hangups by the President during critical conference calls.

"This way, I don't have to interrupt my solitaire game on the computer - I can switch right over to the yeller screen which pops up right out of nowheres and I can respond right quick if some of the smaller world leaders need some quick advice from me," the President had said after the existence of the super-secret IM system was leaked to the press.

President Bush explained to press that they had totally misunderstood what he earlier had meant by 'Regime Change'

"It also works well when I communicationize with my shadow government. For instance, whenever Cheney starts getting antsy about living in that bunker up in Tennessee - oops I wasn't supposed to say that, was I - forget I said it, folks - PLEEEEEZE - any how, whenever Cheney gets the itch to return to Blair House, he IMs me, and I like to IM him back and telling him so stay put. It's so quick - and easy."

"And then I can simply log off, and there ain't no way the vice president can reach me," the President added with a poorly hidden smirk.

Speaking from the Rose Garden to a hastily convened press conference, the President admitted that when "I first said that a 'Regime Change' was necessary and that I intended to get Saddam's head - I was really referring to the fact that I was fixing to get inside his head."

"In other words - what I meant to say - and what Colin Powell so poorly tried to explain to the American people, but he couldn't do it in a clear and concise way like I do it, and that was what caused the confusion, what we meant to say was that we needed a change inside Saddam's head."

"See, you folks understand that Iraq is a tyranny, a dictatorship, and in a tyranny, all policy is set by one man - a man who enjoys full and glorious control of all the actions by his entire nation, so I was correct in implying that the entire Iraqeous government resided inside the head - the brain if you want - of one man, namely its dictator or tyraneous leader, Saddan Hussein, and therefore the term 'Regime Change' and 'Mindset Change' in this circumstance, are symmetrical terms, and therefore they mean the same, and one tyrant can say this about another tyrant, and the whole world, including the Washington press, should understand that when the President of the United States, the most powerful and heavily armed nation in the world, says one thing, with all of the confusing terms he is exposed to in a million boring briefings a day by people who are a hell of a lot more educated and worldly than him, it is only natural that he from time to time may use one of two symmetrical terms and really mean to use the other."

"The Press is simply making too much out of this. This is no different than when Clinton once used the word 'be' and at 'nother time used the word 'is'. The two words are, in the minds of most common folks, including Presidents, identical, so how can a President of the United States, holding the most powerful job in the whole world, be found at fault for mixing up using one of two terms which really mean the identical same thing."

"Two months ago we were clamoring for a regime change in Iraq, and we were going to accomplish that by invading Iraq. Today, we have as our goal Saddam's full compliance with the UN Resolutions, and if he does that, then this constitutes a 'Regime Change' in his attitude, as far as we are concerned, and we will have accomplished that by invading his brain."

"There really in no change in our foreign policy position between two months ago and now. The only difference is in the minds of the Beltway Press who like to get involved in semantics and silly plays on words and only want to make this Administration look bad and make it appear that we are wavering in our attitude towards Iraq."

"I particularly didn't appreciate that article in this morning's Washington Post which seems to imply that I conveniently change the facts to suit my political purposes."

Asked by the press specifically about Instant Messaging communications received from foreign leaders, ostensibly the reason for the change in policy respecting Iraq, the President downplayed their significance.

"Oh, there's been a few, from Blair, I think, although he tried to anonymize them by signing in as "UFA" - a handle I think was meant to suggest "Your Former Ally" - mostly short messages like Lay off Iraq <:-((( or Dont come down 2 hard on SH, or U oust him - he'll BRB"

"Stuff like that - all pretty innocuous."

Asked if he thought perhaps the 'Lay-off Iraq' messages might in fact have come from Iraq, itself, the President demurred. "I don't think so - we haven't put Iraq on the IM system yet. We decided to wait until they in fact deliver on that 8 million barrels a day supply contract with Enron before we give them access to our IM system. That way, Saddam can talk directly to Kenny."

"That isn't scheduled to take place until the second week in November."

Please Email Your Comments to the Gummi Bear - your gumshoe reporter, budding political satirist and author of this ditty - Feedback Urged

The original article serving as a basis for this developing story, can be found here

President Bush said today that the United States was trying diplomacy "one more time" to disarm Saddam Hussein "peacefully" and suggested that if the Iraqi leader complied with every United Nations mandate it would "signal the regime has changed."

The White House immediately said that Mr. Bush was not backing away from his past insistence that Mr. Hussein must leave office. His spokesman said he could not imagine a situation in which the Iraqi leader, after 11 years of defiance, would suddenly comply with the United Nations. The president himself said today, in an appearance with Lord Robertson, the secretary general of NATO, that "the stated policy of the United States is regime change."

Some administration officials said privately that they suspected that Mr. Bush was toning down his talk of removing the Iraqi leader, by force if necessary, to mollify nervous allies on the day that the United States and Britain began circulating a revised resolution in the Security Council demanding Iraq's disarmament.

Nonetheless, the president's comments raised the question of exactly how the president defines "regime change," and whether a radical change in the Iraqi government's behavior would accomplish the same goal as ousting Mr. Hussein.

The United States presented a slightly revised draft resolution to the Security Council today that moderated some requirements for weapons inspections in Iraq but still threatened unspecified consequences if Mr. Hussein refuses to disarm.

One of Mr. Hussein's top advisers said in an interview with The New York Times that secret weapons programs were not the Bush administration's real objective in threatening war, but rather "oil and Israel," citing the United States' failure to threaten tough action against North Korea since it admitted last week to restarting its nuclear arms program.

Mr. Bush's spokesman, Ari Fleischer, told reporters that the new United Nations resolution was now "moving forward nicely," and that, if passed, it would give Mr. Bush all the authority he believes he needs to act militarily if Mr. Hussein fails to comply.

Mr. Fleischer also dismissed the release of Iraqi prisoners over the weekend as providing any indication that Mr. Hussein was moderating his rule, saying it was unclear how many prisoners there were, and how many remain imprisoned.

For the first time today Mr. Bush talked publicly about the difference between the challenge posed by Iraq and by North Korea, which told American officials two weeks ago that it had restarted a clandestine nuclear weapons program using highly enriched uranium.

Mr. Bush said he saw no contradiction in threatening military action against Iraq, while relying on diplomacy to solve the new crisis in the Korean Peninsula. "Saddam Hussein is unique in this sense," Mr. Bush said. "He has thumbed his nose at the world for 11 years," he said, adding later, "and for 11 years he said, `No, I refuse to disarm.' "

The remarks seemed to leave open the possibility of negotiations with North Korea, a path that Mr. Bush has rejected outright in the case of Iraq and that some hard-liners in the administration argue would be a big mistake with Pyongyang as well.

Mr. Bush's comments today about Mr. Hussein were sparked in part by statements that Secretary of State Colin L. Powell made on Sunday during television appearances in which he discussed the two weapons crises. Mr. Powell is keenly aware that any talk of "regime change" makes Security Council members deeply uneasy, and he has noted repeatedly that while Mr. Saddam's ouster is an American policy, it is not the policy of the United Nations.

"We've tried diplomacy," Mr. Bush said when asked about the issue today. "We're trying it one more time. I believe the free world, if we make up our mind to, can disarm this man peacefully."

At the same time he said, "The stated policy of our government, the previous administration and this administration, is regime change — because we don't believe he is going to change."

Then, he added a cryptic caveat.

"However, if he were to meet all the conditions of the United Nations, the conditions that I've described very clearly in terms that everybody can understand, that in itself will signal the regime has changed."

Those were the last words of the brief Oval Office appearance, and aides shooed reporters out before they could ask follow-up questions.

This evening, Mr. Fleischer, asked about the president's comments, said Mr. Bush "reiterated today what he said in Cincinnati, which was a reiteration of what he said in the United Nations: that Iraq needs to comply with the U.N. resolutions, and if they do their regime will have indeed have changed, because under Saddam Hussein they have shown no inclination to comply."

Pressed on the question of whether Mr. Hussein could stay in power if he fully complied, Mr. Fleischer chuckled a bit and said: "I can't imagine a situation in which Iraq would do these things. When these steps are taken to observe the peace and honor the U.N. resolutions, at Saddam Hussein's direction and under his leadership, give me a call to discuss it."

A review of Mr. Bush's past statements on the question of how Mr. Hussein must change — and what the result would be — shows incremental but real differences.

On Sept. 12, speaking at the United Nations, Mr. Bush made six demands that Mr. Hussein must meet "if the Iraqi regime wishes peace." They included disclosing and removing all weapons of mass destruction, ending support for terrorism, ceasing the persecution of its own population, accounting for all those missing in action from the Persian Gulf war, and ending "all illicit trade" outside the oil-for-food program.

The president suggested that, even then, a new government would have to be put in place by the United Nations. "If all these steps are taken, it will signal a new openness and accountability in Iraq," he said.

In Cincinnati on Oct. 7, describing his rationale for pressing the Iraq issue, Mr. Bush repeated those demands and added one more: Mr. Hussein must allow his weapons experts to be interviewed outside Iraq — with their families — so Mr. Hussein could not intimidate them.

At that time, Mr. Bush seemed to suggest that if Mr. Hussein complied, he would in effect be running a very different country. "By taking these steps, and by only taking these steps, the Iraqi regime has an opportunity to avoid conflict," the president said. "Taking these steps would also change the nature of the Iraqi regime itself. America hopes the regime will make that choice. Unfortunately, at least so far, we have little reason to expect it." He added that that is why he and President Bill Clinton concluded that "regime change in Iraq is the only certain means of removing a great danger to our nation."

According to several officials, the administration has concluded internally that there is no way Mr. Hussein could comply with all of the demands: as soon as he was caught dissembling in his declarations about weapons of mass destruction, or blocking inspectors, or intimidating witnesses, the United States would have reason to act militarily.

An official who sits in many of the Iraq policy discussions said tonight: "I don't think the president is backing down one iota from his conclusion that Saddam's got to go. But he's learned that talking about it doesn't help his cause."

Mr. Fleischer, speaking a few hours before the president, put it more succinctly: "If anybody really thinks that Iraq is going to do all these things with the same despot in charge, with Saddam Hussein in charge, where on earth could anybody be getting that idea, based on Saddam Hussein's history and his current practices?

"I think it's a rather unrealistic notion."