Reporting, Commentary, Fantasy? You Decide.

I recently ran across this article (?) listed under YahooNews' "Top Stories." Now admittedly, YahooNews isn't The Washington Post or The Christian Science Monitor. But as more and more of us get our news from online sources, it's important that we take stock in what is actually being served up to us.

I was surprised to discover this article classified as journalism while it is at best commentary, and at worst subjective crap. Tom Raum (whoever he is) contributes a piece which does not constitute real reporting, but rather is a regurgitation of a silly and oft-repeated meme that the administration has had "shifting rationales" for the war in Iraq. Take this gem, for example:

When no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq, Bush shifted his war justification to one of liberating Iraqis from a brutal ruler. After Saddam's capture in December 2003, the rationale became helping to spread democracy through the Middle East. Then it was confronting terrorists in Iraq "so we do not have to face them here at home," and "making America safer," themes Bush pounds today.

Perhaps Tom Raum should have listened to President Bush's speech at the American Enterprise Institute in February, 2003. In that speech Bush said:

The first to benefit from a free Iraq would be the Iraqi people, themselves. Today they live in scarcity and fear, under a dictator who has brought them nothing but war, and misery, and torture. Their lives and their freedom matter little to Saddam Hussein -- but Iraqi lives and freedom matter greatly to us. (Applause.)

Bringing stability and unity to a free Iraq will not be easy. Yet that is no excuse to leave the Iraqi regime's torture chambers and poison labs in operation. Any future the Iraqi people choose for themselves will be better than the nightmare world that Saddam Hussein has chosen for them. (Applause.) ...

There was a time when many said that the cultures of Japan and Germany were incapable of sustaining democratic values. Well, they were wrong. Some say the same of Iraq today. They are mistaken. (Applause.) The nation of Iraq -- with its proud heritage, abundant resources and skilled and educated people -- is fully capable of moving toward democracy and living in freedom. (Applause.)

The world has a clear interest in the spread of democratic values, because stable and free nations do not breed the ideologies of murder. They encourage the peaceful pursuit of a better life. And there are hopeful signs of a desire for freedom in the Middle East. Arab intellectuals have called on Arab governments to address the "freedom gap" so their peoples can fully share in the progress of our times. Leaders in the region speak of a new Arab charter that champions internal reform, greater politics participation, economic openness, and free trade. And from Morocco to Bahrain and beyond, nations are taking genuine steps toward politics reform. A new regime in Iraq would serve as a dramatic and inspiring example of freedom for other nations in the region. (Applause.)

To be sure, the centerpiece of Bush's case was the legalistic argument about weapons of mass destruction. But to suggest that the president, Tony Blair and other Coalition leaders were not consistent and passionate in their condemnation of Saddam Hussein's brutality is preposterous. To argue that they were not regularly speaking about the liberation of the Iraqi people and ultimately, the opportunity to establish a democratic beachead in the Middle East is simply poppycock. The truth is, that those who opposed the war simply shut-down every time those arguments were advanced. "Yes, we know Saddam is a bad guy, but...." was the common refrain.

Tom Raum isn't digging for facts or interested in providing his audience with a credible expository on the rationales for war. He's interested in advancing a political agenda. He's interested in serving up raw meat for those who believe George Bush lied us into war. Proof positive comes when he misuses a quote from foreign policy expert Michael O'Hanlon. In using the quote, Raum overlooks a preamble which essentially repudiates his central thesis in order to be able to slip in a "gotcha" on the Iraq project as failure:

Except for the weapons of mass destruction argument, there is some validity in each of Bush's shifting rationales, said Michael O'Hanlon, a foreign policy scholar at the Brookings Institution who initially supported the war effort.

"And I don't have any big problems with any of them, analytically. The problem is they can't change the realities on the ground in Iraq, which is that we're in the process of beginning to lose," O'Hanlon said. "It is taking us a long time to realize that, but the war is not headed the way it should be."

Desperation so intense that you invalidate your own argument with expert opinion is not the hallmark of good reporting or true journalism. It's not even the hallmark of quality commentary and editorial. It's proof of partisan hackery in the run-up to an election. When classified by YahooNews as, well, news is nothing short of a wolf in sheep's clothing.