Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Washington Post In 2002 And 2007: Bush Is Trying To ‘Prevent’ War

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-27-07 08:07 AM
Original message
Washington Post In 2002 And 2007: Bush Is Trying To ‘Prevent’ War
http://thinkprogress.org/2007/10/26/post-prevent-war/


Washington Post In 2002 And 2007: Bush Is Trying To ‘Prevent’ War

Yesterday, President Bush announced new, unilateral sanctions against Iran. Sen. Chuck Hagel (R-NE) warned that the unilateral approach “escalates the danger of a military confrontation.”

Today, the Washington Post offers a very different perspective. The paper writes that Bush’s sanctions regime demonstrates that he actually seeks to “prevent” war with Iran:

In approving far-reaching, new unilateral sanctions against Iran, President Bush signaled yesterday that he intends to pursue a strategy of gradually escalating financial, diplomatic and political pressure on Tehran, aimed not at starting a new war in the Middle East, his advisers said, but at preventing one.

Bush believes Tehran will not seriously discuss limiting its nuclear ambitions or pulling back from its involvement in Iraq unless it experiences significantly more pressure than the United States and the international community have been able to exert so far, according to administration officials and others familiar with the president’s thinking.

That the Post is so willing to uncritically accept the White House interpretation of its own actions is nothing new. In 2002, during the run-up to the Congressional vote to authorize military action against Iraq, the Post similarly wrote that Bush viewed the vote as “the best way to prevent a war:”

Moreover, unlike 1991, passage of the resolution does not mean that a war is imminent. Indeed, as the vote neared, Bush and members of his administration in recent days have deliberately toned down their tough rhetoric. The notion that Iraqi President Saddam Hussein must be toppled has been shoved in the background, while instead officials argue that the best way to prevent a war is strong support from Congress and the U.N. Security Council for a possible war, because it will demonstrate to Hussein that he has no choice but to give up his weapons of mass destruction.

The drumbeat for war with Iran strikes disturbingly similar notes as that leading up to war with Iraq. It is unfortunate that the Washington Post has not grown more skeptical of Bush’s attempts at “preventing” war.

UPDATE: Matthew Yglesias has more:

http://matthewyglesias.theatlantic.com/archives/2007/10/scratching_the_bottom.php
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
tekisui Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-27-07 08:16 AM
Response to Original message
1. Jesus, you could probably match up the march to war
stories for Iraq and Iran to a Tee. When will the bombing campaign occur based on the timelines? Early 2008?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Olney Blue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-27-07 08:17 AM
Response to Original message
2. This analogy has to be SCREAMED from the rooftops.
We cannot let this raving chimp's administration take us into another war!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-27-07 08:24 AM
Response to Reply #2
3. I have to believe the WaPo is aware that they're repeating themselves.
Their memories can't be that short. So why are they not a tad more skeptical?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Olney Blue Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-27-07 08:26 AM
Response to Reply #3
4. Maybe war sells more papers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
babylonsister Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-27-07 08:59 AM
Response to Reply #4
5. Yes, but the general public is more informed now; doesn't make sense to me. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lumberjack_jeff Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Oct-27-07 12:13 PM
Response to Original message
6. Because, of course, "war is our last resort". n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue Oct-30-07 09:43 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 25th 2024, 06:31 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC