Rationalizations

Sometimes the headline really does sum it up.

Bush offers shifting rationale for war

Washington (Reuters, February 8) - President George W. Bush has offered a shifting rationale for the Iraq war - that Saddam Hussein had the capacity to develop unconventional arms if not the actual weapons.

The "capacity." I wonder of just how many nations it could not be said that they have the "capacity" to make biochem weapons.

But it does show the nature of Bush's fall and the difficulties he (happily for us) faces when the headline and lead from a mainstream news organization can refer to a "shifting rationale."

It's a fall reflected in some polls and not only those who show him in a dead heat or losing to John Kerry. The latter kind of poll deserves little attention at this point, but the former is worth noting:

A Time/CNN poll released on Sunday said 55 percent of Americans have "doubts and reservations" about Bush and less than half, 44 percent, said he is a leader they can trust.

While all this by no means indicates victory for the ABB (Anybody But Bush) folks, it does mean that the air of inevitability the GOP had sought to build up around the Liar-in-Chief has broken down to the point where the mass media feels comfortable reflecting it. And that is bad news for the Bushites.

Footnote: And what of prior rationales?

With no weapons found in Iraq, the administration had previously justified the war by arguing Saddam was worth toppling because of his appalling human rights record.

In the interview, Bush was read a quote by Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz who said this was not a justification for attacking Iraq. He declined to address it.

So we're at what, Plan C now? Or is it Plan D?