I think the current administration might be given credit for
trying to change the subject...
Here's a thought: could it be that the current shift in rhetoric which was, to be honest, pretty craftily done, has something to do with trying to shift the terms of the debate? If, as it appears, we are completely losing control of Iraq, the current Administration must worm its way out of a treacherous hole (of it's own devising, to be sure). The speech yesterday was an attempt to change the rhetoric of international debates (sadly, the first time the administration has made a show at paying attention to such debates...).
The president's reference to a U.N. report was pretty smart tactically, but I'm afraid it may be doomed to failure. It appears that the administration is a attempting to appeal to the positions that U.N. has long since endorsed. This shift in rhetorical strategy is clearly an attempt to win points internataionlly.
One is tempted to think: if this sort of language had preceded our effort at swaying the U.N. about these lofty goals for Iraq, perhaps an actual coalition of the willing could have developed.
Unfortunately, the rest of the world might have listened when the legislature caved in to the administration a year ago (just before the elections....). They took the U.S. on its word, that things will be done exclusively on our terms.
While expedient for waging war, this approach is difficult in maintaining any semblance of peace-- much less blossoming into the flourishing civil society and newfound public spiritedness that this administration told us would be so effusively forthcoming after the minor inconvenience of overthrowing the Baathist regime in Iraq was over.
One hopes the rest of the world might lend a hand. But I think that they won't trust this administration. We will have to find another one somewhere.
Any ideas?
