Since you like to believe Bush spells out everything precisely,
I'd like you to explain this statement:
"The game is over"
What game? When did it end? What was the score?
I must have been watching the wrong game on the wrong channel.
Well, I'm not so naive as to believe that Bush really spells everything out. "The first casualty of war..." and all that. However, I do think that his statements mean something.
As for his statement that "the game is over," look at it in context. Here's the Voice of America article on it, from Feb. 6, 2003 (my emphases in boldface):
President Bush wants a second U.N. resolution authorizing the use of force against Iraq if it does not cooperate with inspectors searching for weapons of mass destruction.
President Bush says the "game is over," that it is time for the U.N. Security Council to take action against Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein because he is violating U.N. resolutions demanding that he disarm.
"Saddam Hussein was given a final chance. He is throwing that chance away. The dictator of Iraq is making his choice. Now the nations of the Security Council must make their own," he said.
Mr. Bush says it is a moment of truth for the United Nations which he says must renew its purpose as a source of stability and demonstrate that it is prepared to meet future challenges to its authority.
"Now the Security Council will show whether its words have any meaning. Having made its demands, the Security Council must not back down when those demands are defied and mocked by a dicator," he said.
The president called for a second resolution restating U.N. demands, but said that resolution will have little meaning without the will to act.
I think the game that is about to be over is the U.N.'s game. Saddam's game won't be over for a while yet, unfortunately.