[link|http://slate.msn.com/id/2090636/|Probably a wise move.]

Excerpt:

Dr. Drezner writes in his critique, "The conclusion of the report\ufffdis that a clear quid pro quo exists between government procurement and campaign contributions to George W. Bush." That's a rather breathtaking conclusion, but it's not ours. Anyone reading the roughly 60,000 words we published in the report will have a hard time finding us making such a statement. While the campaign contributions show that many of these companies, their employees and political action committees have been players in the political process, we never argue that there is a "clear quid pro quo" between contributions and contracts. There are myriad other ways in which companies can attempt to influence the federal government, including lobbying and the hiring of well-connected former government officials\ufffdnowhere do we state, however, that in any case these types of influence have been rewarded by a "clear quid pro quo."

We did, however, find a contracting process riddled with irregularities...

I say:

This looks like an attempt at an orderly retreat. Better that than a rout, I suppose.

Nicely clarified. Or finessed. Or weaseled. Or something.