Right after Bush made his grand speech on imposing democracy in the Middle East and beyond, I expected to hear strong criticisms and shock from Democrats and moderate Republicans.
Before the war on Iraq, someone forwarded to me an alternative press article on PNAC and its influence on Bush. I went to the PNAC website and was shocked by it. Shocked that they would actually put that stuff in print like it's morally okay. When I forwarded this alternative press article to some more moderate friends (I'm a progressive Democrat), they were skeptical and said it seemed too crazy to believe that Bush would be influenced by this or that this could possibly be the rationale behind his interest in attacking Iraq.
Now, Bush is not only saying he does believe in PNAC's approach (without mentioning PNAC), but he's also saying he thinks the country should proudly expouse it and that it's actually the real reason we went to war with Iraq.
And, the American media is reporting this and no one seems to be blinking. Except, of course, those of us who still read the alternative press. The alternative press is full of articles about how leaders in the Middle East, China, and other places outside the U.S. are reacting to Bush's speech.
Do you think it would be effective for a Democratic Party representative (a DNC press release, the weekly radio address response, someone in Congress) or a particular presidential candidate to respond to Bush's speech? Why are Americans accepting this approach suddenly, when it seemed radical in early March (just 8 months ago)? Is it the difference between justifying embarking on preemptive war and rationalizing a decision to continue pursuing a war that's going bad?