DO THINGS EVOLVE BACK TO THEIR ORIGINAL FORM?:

Record shows Bush shifting on Iraq war: President's rationale for the invasion continues to evolve (Marc Sandalow, September 29, 2004, SF Chronicle)

President Bush portrays his position on Iraq as steady and unwavering as he represents Sen. John Kerry's stance as ambiguous and vacillating.

"Mixed signals are the wrong signals,'' Bush said last week during a campaign stop in Bangor, Maine. "I will continue to lead with clarity, and when I say something, I'll mean what I say.''

Yet, heading into the first presidential debate Thursday, which will focus on foreign affairs, there is much in the public record to suggest that Bush's words on Iraq have evolved -- or, in the parlance his campaign often uses to describe Kerry, flip-flopped.

An examination of more than 150 of Bush's speeches, radio addresses and responses to reporters' questions reveal a steady progression of language, mostly to reflect changing circumstances such as the failure to discover weapons of mass destruction, the lack of ties between Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network and the growing violence of Iraqi insurgents.

A war that was waged principally to overthrow a dictator who possessed "some of the most lethal weapons ever devised'' has evolved into a mission to rid Iraq of its "weapons-making capabilities'' and to offer democracy and freedom to its 25 million residents.

Regime change for regime change sake had actually been U.S. policy since the Clinton Administration, SENATE ESTABLISHING A PROGRAM SUPPORT A TRANSITION TO DEMOCRACY IN IRAQ (Congressional Record, October 7, 1998)

Mr. McCAIN: I ask unanimous consent that the Senate now proceed to the consideration of H.R. 4655, which is at the desk.

The PRESIDING OFFICER: The clerk will report. The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:

A bill (H.R. 4665) to establish a program to support a transition to democracy in Iraq.

The PRESIDING OFFICER: Is there objection to the immediate consideration of the bill, There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill. [...]

Mr. KERREY: Mr. President, I rise to urge the passage of HR. 4655, the Iraq Liberation Act. Thanks to strong leadership in both Houses of Congress and thanks to the commitment of the Administration toward the goals we all share--for Iraq and the region, this legislation is moving quickly. This is the point to state what this legislation is not, and what it is, from my understanding, and why I support it so strongly,

First, this bill is not, in my view, an instrument to direct U.S. funds and supplies to any particular Iraqi revolutionary movement. There are Iraqi movements now in existence which could qualify for designation in accordance with this bill. Other Iraqis not now associated with each other could also band together and qualify for designation. It is for Iraqis, not Americans to organize themselves to put Saddam Hussein out of power, just as it will be for Iraqis to choose their leaders in a democratic Iraq. This bill will help the Administration encourage and
support Iraqis to make their revolution.

Second, this bill is not a device to involve the U.S. military in operations in or near Iraq. The Iraqi revolution is for Iraqis, not Americans, to make. The bill provides the Administration a portent new tool to help Iraqis toward this goal, and at the same time advance America's interest in a peaceful and secure Middle East.

This bill, when passed and signed into law, is a clear commitment to a U.S. policy replacing the Saddam Hussein regime and replacing it with a transition to democracy. This bill is a statement that America refuses to coexist with a regime which has used chemical weapons on its own citizens and on neighboring countries, which has invaded its neighbors twice without provocation, which has still not accounted for its atrocities committed in Kuwait, which has fired ballistic missiles into the cities of three of its neighbors, which is attempting to develop nuclear and biological weapons, and which has brutalized and terrorized its own citizens for thirty years. I don't see how any democratic country could accept the existence of such a regime, but this bill says America will not. I will be an even prouder American when the refusal, and commitment to materially help the Iraqi resistance, are U.S. policy.

But when George W. Bush made the most important and explicit case for war--before the U.N.--he grounded it in simple legal justification, including Saddam's failure to perform regime change himself, as required by the U.N. resolutions that got him a truce in 1991, President's Remarks at the United Nations General Assembly (New York, New York, 9/12/02) :

Twelve years ago, Iraq invaded Kuwait without provocation. And the regime's forces were poised to continue their march to seize other countries and their resources. Had Saddam Hussein been appeased instead of stopped, he would have endangered the peace and stability of the world. Yet this aggression was stopped -- by the might of coalition forces and the will of the United Nations.

To suspend hostilities, to spare himself, Iraq's dictator accepted a series of commitments. The terms were clear, to him and to all. And he agreed to prove he is complying with every one of those obligations.

He has proven instead only his contempt for the United Nations, and for all his pledges. By breaking every pledge -- by his deceptions, and by his cruelties -- Saddam Hussein has made the case against himself.

In 1991, Security Council Resolution 688 demanded that the Iraqi regime cease at once the repression of its own people, including the systematic repression of minorities -- which the Council said, threatened international peace and security in the region. This demand goes ignored.

Last year, the U.N. Commission on Human Rights found that Iraq continues to commit extremely grave violations of human rights, and that the regime's repression is all pervasive. Tens of thousands of political opponents and ordinary citizens have been subjected to arbitrary arrest and imprisonment, summary execution, and torture by beating and burning, electric shock, starvation, mutilation, and rape. Wives are tortured in front of their husbands, children in the presence of their parents -- and all of these horrors concealed from the world by the apparatus of a totalitarian state.

In his excellent new book looking at the relationship between Tony Blair and America generally but George W. Bush specifically, The Accidental American: Tony Blair and the Presidency, James Naughtie argues dispositively that for George Bush this was enough to justify the war, and even for Tony Blair it came close, but that the later justifications of WMD and ties to terror were added in order that Mr. Blair might sell the war to his reluctant party and nation and to try and overcome Security Council opposition. It is these tangential arguments in support of the war that have had a rough go since Baghdad fell, but the main justification--the liberation of Iraq--is unsullied and it's hardly surprising that the President returns to it again and again.

Posted by Orrin Judd at September 29, 2004 1:25 PM