Sir, the difference comes about today because, since my testimony on September 28, I have read and reread and reread again. I have tried to inform myself, as best I could.
I realized after my testimony that my testimony was not as precise and as accurate as it could have been, and that I had made a mistake. Therefore, I did two things. I tried to come back before the committee as quickly as I could, and I informed myself by reading the report as many times as I could and by talking to other people about it.
I recognize that I made a mistake in inferring or leaving the impression that I knew information about those mistakes in 2002, when in fact I couldn't have known. I knew the information in 2006, because from the moment I picked up the report until I testified here, I was absorbed with this report. I clearly made the mistake of inferring that the knowledge I was acquiring from the report, in reading it in 2006, was actually knowledge that I had in 2002. I clearly didn't have it then, and Justice O'Connor clearly states that I didn't have it.
One other point I would make is that if I knew that information at that time, or if any of my senior officers knew at that time, I think Justice O'Connor, in his exhaustive report, would have probably picked that up and pointed it out, because it does become a very important issue. But Justice O'Connor does not.
So as I said, I accept that I was imprecise and made a mistake. My mistake seems to be constant in my answers, but I'm here to try to correct that as best I can.