Yellow Dog

In his Veteran's Day speech, Bush petulantly lashed out at critics of his (mis)handling of the war in Iraq and had the nerve to accuse his critics of "rewriting history" of our motives for going to war. Excuse me? Bush should know a lot about rewriting history, given his ever-shifting rationale for the war.

From The Washington Post (October, 2004):

In announcing 19 months ago that the United States was poised to invade Iraq, President Bush told the nation: "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. . . . The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder."

But the argument that the United States faced a moment of maximum peril in early 2003 from Iraq has been greatly weakened by the release of the comprehensive report of chief U.S. weapons inspector Charles A. Duelfer. The report found that the 1991 Persian Gulf War and subsequent U.N. inspections destroyed Iraq's illicit weapons capability, leaving it without any chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. Saddam Hussein hoped to someday resume his weapons efforts, the report said, but for the most part there had been no serious effort to rebuild the programs.

In the wake of the report, President Bush has reframed the way he characterizes his rationale for the launching the war. A review of his public statements before the war and this week shows how broadly his public argument has shifted, away from warnings that Hussein actually possessed horrible weapons in favor of talking almost exclusively about the dictator's intent.

Bush then "reframed" his argument a third time, from the claim that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction to the weaker claim that they had weapons-related-programs to, finally, the rationale that we invaded in order to build a democratic government in Iraq (even though he claimed in 2000 that he was against "nation-building"). Which of these 3 arguments is it, Mr. President?

This constant "reframing" of the rationale for sending our troops into Iraq is sounding a lot like "rewriting history." If only we could rewrite history and go back to that fateful day when the Supreme Court overruled the American voters and handed the presidency to the most incompetent leader we've ever had....

Bush Recasts Rationale For War After Report (washingtonpost.com)