quote:

---

Analysis: Bush keeps revising war justification

President Bush keeps revising his explanation for why the U.S. is in Iraq, moving from narrow military objectives at first to history-of-civilization stakes now.

Initially, the rationale was specific: to stop Saddam Hussein from using what Bush claimed were the Iraqi leader's weapons of mass destruction or from selling them to al-Qaida or other terrorist groups.

But 3 1/2 years later, with no weapons found, still no end in sight and the war a liability for nearly all Republicans on the ballot Nov. 7, the justification has become far broader and now includes the expansive "struggle between good and evil."

Republicans seized on North Korea's reported nuclear test last week as further evidence that the need for strong U.S. leadership extends beyond Iraq.

Bush's changing rhetoric reflects increasing administration efforts to tie the war, increasingly unpopular at home, with the global fight against terrorism, still the president's strongest suit politically.

"We can't tolerate a new terrorist state in the heart of the Middle East, with large oil reserves that could be used to fund its radical ambitions, or used to inflict economic damage on the West," Bush said in a news conference last week in the Rose Garden.

When no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq, Bush shifted his war justification to one of liberating Iraqis from a brutal ruler.

After Saddam's capture in December 2003, the rationale became helping to spread democracy through the Middle East. Then it was confronting terrorists in Iraq "so we do not have to face them here at home," and "making America safer," themes Bush pounds today.

"We're in the ideological struggle of the 21st century," he told a California audience this month. "It's a struggle between good and evil."

Vice President Dick Cheney takes it even further: "The hopes of the civilized world ride with us," Cheney tells audiences.

Except for the weapons of mass destruction argument, there is some validity in each of Bush's shifting rationales, said Michael O'Hanlon, a foreign policy scholar at the Brookings Institution who initially supported the war effort.

"And I don't have any big problems with any of them, analytically. The problem is they can't change the realities on the ground in Iraq, which is that we're in the process of beginning to lose," O'Hanlon said. "It is taking us a long time to realize that, but the war is not headed the way it should be."

Andrew Card, Bush's first chief of staff, said Bush's evolving rhetoric, including his insistence that Iraq is a crucial part of the fight against terrorism, is part of an attempt to put the war in better perspective for Americans.

The administration recently has been "doing a much better job" in explaining the stakes, Card said in an interview. "We never said it was going to be easy. The president always told us it would be long and tough."

"I'm trying to do everything I can to remind people that the war on terror has the war in Iraq as a subset. It's critical we succeed in Iraq as part of the war on terror," said Card, who left the White House in March.

Bush at first sought to explain increasing insurgent and sectarian violence as a lead-up to Iraqi elections. But elections came and went, and a democratically elected government took over, and the sectarian violence increased.

Bush has insisted U.S. soldiers will stand down as Iraqis stand up. He has likened the war to the 20th century struggles against fascism, Nazism and communism. He has called Iraq the "central front" in a global fight against radical jihadists.

Having jettisoned most of the earlier, upbeat claims of progress, Bush these days emphasizes consequences of setting even a limited withdrawal timetable: abandonment of the Iraqi people, destabilizing the Middle East and emboldening terrorists around the world.

The more ominous and determined his words, the more skeptical the American public appears, polls show, both on the war itself and over whether it is part of the larger fight against terrorism, as the administration insists.

Bush's approval rating, reflected by AP-Ipsos polls, has slid from the mid 60s at the outset of the U.S.-led invasion in March 2003 to the high 30s now. There were light jumps upward after the December 2003 capture of Saddam, Bush's re-election in November 2004 and each of three series of aggressive speeches over the past year. Those gains tended to vanish quickly.

With the war intruding on the fall elections, both parties have stepped up their rhetoric.

Republicans, who are also reeling from the congressional page scandal, are casting Democrats as seeking to "cut and run" and appease terrorists.

Democrats accuse Bush of failed leadership with his "stay the course" strategy. They cite a government intelligence assessment suggesting the Iraq war has helped recruit more terrorists, and a book by journalist Bob Woodward that portrays Bush as intransigent in his defense of the Iraq war and his advisers as bitterly divided.

Democrats say Iraq has become a distraction from the war against terrorism � not a central front. But they are divided among themselves on what strategy to pursue.

Republicans, too, increasingly are growing divided as U.S. casualties rise.

"I struggle with the fact that President Bush said, `As the Iraqis stand up, we will stand down.' But the fact is, this has not happened," said Rep. Christopher Shays (news, bio, voting record), R-Conn., a war supporter turned war skeptic.

The Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. John Warner (news, bio, voting record) of Virginia, said after a recent visit to Iraq that Iraq was "drifting sideways." He urged consideration of a "change of course" if the Iraq government fails to restore order over the next two or three months.

More than 2,750 members of the U.S. military have died since the beginning of the war, most of them since Bush's May 2003 "mission accomplished" aircraft carrier speech. Tens of thousands of Iraqis have died.

Recent events have been dispiriting.

The United States now has about 141,000 troops in Iraq, up from about 127,000 in July. Some military experts have suggested at least one additional U.S. division, or around 20,000 troops, is needed in western Iraq alone.

Dan Benjamin, a former Middle East specialist with the National Security Council in the Clinton administration, said the administration is overemphasizing the nature of the threat in an effort to bolster support.

"I think the administration has oversold the case that Iraq could become a jihadist state," said Benjamin, now with the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "If the U.S. were to leave Iraq tomorrow, the result would be a bloodbath in which Sunnis and Shiites fight it out. But the jihadists would not be able to seek power."

Not all of Bush's rhetorical flourishes have had the intended consequences.

When the history of Iraq is finally written, the recent surge in sectarian violence is "going to be a comma," Bush said in several recent appearances.

Critics immediately complained that the remark appeared unsympathetic and dismissive of U.S. and Iraqi casualties, an assertion the White House disputed.

For a while last summer, Bush depicted the war as one against "Islamic fascism," borrowing a phrase from conservative commentators. The strategy backfired, further fanning anti-American sentiment across the Muslim world.

The "fascism" phrase abruptly disappeared from Bush's speeches, reportedly after he was talked out of it by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Karen Hughes, a longtime Bush confidant now with the State Department.

Hughes said she would not disclose private conversations with the president. But, she told the AP, she did not use the "fascism" phrase herself. "I use `violent extremist,'" she said.

---

quote:

---

Bush has insisted U.S. soldiers will stand down as Iraqis stand up. He has likened the war to the 20th century struggles against fascism, Nazism and communism.

---

When he adds "Japanese Imperialism" to the batch, we'll know he's going to nuke Iraq and be done with it.
 

---

Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
 
Twice.

--Jonah
 

---

Posted by Saltah'na (Member # 33) on :
 
I think it's safe to say that George W Bush is truly responsible for the sorry state of world affairs. I'm very close to wondering if 9/11 would have happened with Al Gore as President, I'm not saying that anyone could have stopped it, but would al Qaeda truly attempt 9/11 with a much more rational president then Bush? With what's going on right now, it is Al Qaeda's dream, to turn the war against terrorism into Muslims vs everyone else....
 

---

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
 
I'm sure the WTC/Pentagon attacks would still have been at least attempted. Quite possibly even carried out. But the aftermath would have consisted of going into Afghanistan, overthrowing the Taliban, capturing bin Laden at Tora Bora, and leaving Iraq the fuck alone.
 

---

Posted by Da_bang80 (Member # 528) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason Abbadon:

quote:

---

Bush has insisted U.S. soldiers will stand down as Iraqis stand up. He has likened the war to the 20th century struggles against fascism, Nazism and communism.

---

When he adds "Japanese Imperialism" to the batch, we'll know he's going to nuke Iraq and be done with it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Da_bang80:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jason Abbadon:

quote:

---

Bush has insisted U.S. soldiers will stand down as Iraqis stand up. He has likened the war to the 20th century struggles against fascism, Nazism and communism.

---

When he adds "Japanese Imperialism" to the batch, we'll know he's going to nuke Iraq and be done with it.

---

Problem is: I'm not so sure who the fascist is in this case.

---

quote:

---

"It allows the government to seize individuals on American soil and detain them indefinitely with no opportunity to challenge their detention in court," Feingold said. "And the new law would permit an individual to be convicted on the basis of coerced testimony and even allow someone convicted under these rules to be put to death."

---

quote:

---

"It allows the government to seize individuals on American soil and detain them indefinitely with no opportunity to challenge their detention in court," Feingold said. "And the new law would permit an individual to be convicted on the basis of coerced testimony and even allow someone convicted under these rules to be put to death."

---

And THIS is what people call Civilization?
 

---

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
 

"How much longer does the world have to put up with Bush?"

Until January 20th, 2009, most likely.
 

---

Posted by Shik (Member # 343) on :
 
So when does Europe launch its liberation force for America?
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
Bad as it is here, the world is turning ablind eye to Russia's "KGB State", and the complete loss of civil liberties there.
Putin's setting himself up to be the next Stalin and he gets ovations from the U.N. when he speaks.
 

---

Posted by Timo (Member # 245) on :
 
But the only place where he's exporting his worldview currently is Caucasus. Which, morbidly enough, is the place the average Caucasian polled would feel the least concerned about.

Timo Saloniemi
 

---

Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
 
At least America is now pronouncing the capital of Ukraine correctly...

Someone needs to strike oil in North Korea. Then Bushco will "intervene" there.

--Jonah
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
phht. Why bother- a better plan for the world would be to plant WMD evidence in the Sudan, then the international community can do what it knows is right and overthrow the genocidal regime that's been keeping the war going and going and going...

After the condemnation and quagmire the Iraq invasion has brought on the US, the UN is loathe to use force against a soverign nation- even to stop what amounts to genocide.

Besides, with a stable Africa, I'll finally be able to get my grill done with some cheap blood diamonds.
 

---

Posted by Peregrinus (Member # 504) on :
 
Unfortunately, that wouldn't help me. Opals are my girl's best friend.

On the other matter... *sigh* I know there's no absolute morality, but I can't conceive of any morality where stepping on your own people's lives is a good thing. I say we send the Delta Force on a "World Tour 2007", where they off all the assholes-in-charge of places from Africa to North Korea to Russia to Syria, et cetera. Then the first people to step in to fill the power vacuum. Then the second. Then the UN goes in and picks the people who least want to run those countries to run those countries.

--Jonah
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
Looking at our own political future, I think that idea needs to be tested here first.

Not that I trust the UN to appoint anyone to lead anything...hopefully with the new Secretary General (and with Bolton yanked out of his chair)...

OTOH, we could start by maing UN voting/speaking rights directly proportionate to how much money/rescources a country contributes.
I'm getting pretty tired of every pay-nothing dictator talking shit at the UN podium while doing nothing to aid the orginization.
 

---

Posted by TSN (Member # 31) on :
 
So that, instead of the richest countries having the most power, the richest countries exclusively will have power?
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
So that the richest countries contrbute their share- consider Venezuella, which contributes less than 1% of the UN's budget but sooo wanted that rotating Security Council seat.
Many countries fail to even pay the minimum dues (Sudan for example) yet share equal right to tell the other countries to bugger off.

I'm not saying that only wealthy countries should have a say, but wealthy countries that contribute nothing and countries that actively undermine the UN should have less say than they do now.

I'd rather see a rep from a poor country speak up (even if it's a position I dont agree with) and have the floor than a rep from a wealthy country that is against the UN in every way and pays dick to keep it running.
 

---

Posted by Nim (Member # 205) on :
 
And yet you would make it possible for a rich country that is against the UN to gather power through "contribution", without smaller but kinder countries being able to match. It's self-contradictory.
Regardless, privileges according to contribution-wealth is undemocratic in the purest form.

Also, didn't Bush use that exact card, the "You wouldn't have these fancy UN-offices if it wasn't for our purse so now help us bomb Saddam, biatch"-card, back before the war? Trying to abuse the US' lauded standing in the UN for his agenda?
 

---

Posted by Jason Abbadon (Member # 882) on :
 
Of course, you're right, (no defending Bushco).

I'm more for "if a country can afford it, UN sponsorship should be mandatory"- at least on a sliding scale of a country's wealth.

Consider that the UN serves as both emergency aid and an insurance policy against invasion, natural disaster and famine (due to mismanagment or whatever)- yet a lot of wealthy countries contribute nothing while publicly condemning member states that contribute the most.
It's annoying to see countries play "holier than thou" while actually never getting involved with world affairs.

Currently, there is a preference to hear the cases of countries that contribute more- mainly because when military force is mandated, it's troops from those countries that bear the brunt of it.
It's probably also why Darfur/Sudan has gotten so out of hand, when it could have been curtailed years ago.

But then, I also dont think any dictatorship should be allowed a say- as they dont represent their people to the world, only themselves.
I also dont think any country that is a gross human rights abuser should serve on the UN's Human Right's board.
 

---