Is this supposed to be objective journalism?

This isn't in the opinion section, but it ought to be. The language is not objective, unbiased, or anything that ought to be in a news article. Tom Raum, Associated Press Writer, ought to go back to journalism school.

AP: Bush keeps revising war justification---

WASHINGTON - President Bush keeps revising his explanation for why the U.S. is in Iraq, moving from narrow military objectives at first to history-of-civilization stakes now.

Initially, the rationale was specific: to stop Saddam Hussein from using what Bush claimed were the Iraqi leader's weapons of mass destruction or from selling them to al-Qaida or other terrorist groups.

But 3 1/2 years later, with no weapons found, still no end in sight and the war a liability for nearly all Republicans on the ballot Nov. 7, the justification has become far broader and now includes the expansive "struggle between good and evil."

Which it is. What else would you call it? A couple of friendly neighbors disagreeing over who should have to clean up a tree's fallen leaves every autumn?

Republicans seized on North Korea's reported nuclear test last week as further evidence that the need for strong U.S. leadership extends beyond Iraq.

Bush's changing rhetoric reflects increasing administration efforts to tie the war, increasingly unpopular at home, with the global fight against terrorism, still the president's strongest suit politically.

"We can't tolerate a new terrorist state in the heart of the Middle East, with large oil reserves that could be used to fund its radical ambitions, or used to inflict economic damage on the West," Bush said in a news conference last week in the Rose Garden.

The War in Iraq is part of the "global fight against terrorism." Just like the raids on Lackawanna, NY; South Florida; and any where and every where else in the United States---or the World---where terrorists homes, hidey-holes, and caves have been found and the terrorists arrested.

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.

"We're in the ideological struggle of the 21st century," he told a California audience this month. "It's a struggle between good and evil."

Vice President Dick Cheney takes it even further: "The hopes of the civilized world ride with us," Cheney tells audiences.

Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. And, yes. The War in Iraq is, and always has been, about all of these things. No one ever said that WMDs were the ONLY reason to go to war. As far back as I can remember, the justifications for taking down Saddam included all of the above. Can anyone realistically disagree that Saddam Hussein was a horrible and brutal man (stupid question, as obviously the Libs haven't got a clue about it all)?

We are in "the ideological struggle of the 21st century," "a struggle between good and evil." Just as last century, we fought against the twin evils of Nazism and Communism. Iraq and Afghanistan are only large battlefields in this global war. Many better come to this realization, or they will be doomed to fall under the sharp swords of the Fanatical Muslims who don't care who they have to kill. Can anyone on the Left really, actually say that what these Muslims are doing isn't evil? I think we have a bit of Stockholm Syndrome going on here.

Yes, Liberals, there are some of us who still believe in GOOD and EVIL. WE are the GOOD. THEY are the EVIL. Don't get confused. Your lives depend on it. If we do not fight the EVIL with all we have, then we will perish.

The "hope of the civilized world" DOES "ride with us." The United Nations is good for talking and spending money and corruption, but not much else. If WE do not keep ourselves safe, by preemptively striking the evil wherever it lurks, then we will be dead. The UN doesn't care. Europe doesn't care. China and North Korea and Russia don't care.

But, "We few, we happy few, we band of brothers," namely the United States, England, Australia, Japan, Poland, and other civilized and brave countries, will continue to fight the foul and loathsome threat that is Islamic Terrorism.

Bush has insisted U.S. soldiers will stand down as Iraqis stand up. He has likened the war to the 20th century struggles against fascism, Nazism and communism. He has called Iraq the "central front" in a global fight against radical jihadists.

Having jettisoned most of the earlier, upbeat claims of progress, Bush these days emphasizes consequences of setting even a limited withdrawal timetable: abandonment of the Iraqi people, destabilizing the Middle East and emboldening terrorists around the world.

This struggle is like standing up to fascism, Nazism, and communism, except that these terrorists do not fight in uniformed armies, with battlefields clearly drawn and rules of engagement clearly stated. They strike anywhere and everywhere, old people, children, churches, temples, crowded malls, everywhere. They are uncivilized barbarous primitives.

Abandoning Iraq or Afghanistan now would be a terrible decision. WE are not cowards, though those on the Left who suggest retreat and withdrawal are certainly so.

Should President Bush simply list the justifications for the war every time he mentions it? Every single, solitary justification? Or mightn't he just do what all politicians do: address the subject that is the focus of the event or the one that weighs heaviest at the moment?

Liberals are either criticizing George W. for having only one reason for going to war or critcizing him for having too many. He simply cannot win with them.

So much for journalism being objective. Do read the rest of this atrocious article and see for yourself.

UPDATE: You'll find another example of Media Bias at Wake Up America.

Technorati Tags: Bush, MSM, Media Bias, War On Terror, Politics,