Clearly, this is what the administration was after all along. No back-pedalling, or changing goals, or anything other than unfettered success here...

but Saddam is an evil man
but Saddam can't be trusted
but the failure of Clinton and the U.N. (and poppy bush, not that they actually name him) is that they trusted Saddam. They brokered a deal. Diplomacy= Appeasement.
Did I imagine the last 2+ months? Or were these things not said by this same man?

You would rather have war? If the threat of war has moved us away from war then the President has done a magnificent job worthy of the Nobel peace prize if that award hadn't been so degraded.

You do not have to believe me, but I saw it coming... The wording "regime change" is much less defined than "Saddam's ousting"...

Joshua Micah Marshall is simply making a fool of himself. He is something of a neo-Liberal. What is a neo-Liberal? It is someone who senses that the Left is wrong on many issues, but is terrified of no longer being invited to the Liberal white wine and brie cheese get-togethers.

The Bush administration has been fairly consistent on the need for a regime change in Iraq. It is silly to pretend that Saddam Hussein will actually allow a thorough inspection. Thus, we will be compelled to oust him from power.

Let's be honest: the Left hates George Bush more than Saddam! A Third world tyrant is perceived to be less dangerous than the leader of the United States. Those on the Left embrace a skewed vision of the world.

>>the Left hates George Bush more than Saddam! A Third world tyrant is perceived to be less dangerous than the leader of the United States. <<

These two sentences do not imply each other and only the second is true.

I don't think analysis of Bush's motives can mitigate the point Marshall is making. Suppose Bush is simply posturing at the moment for pragmatic reasons, with no real intentions of stopping short of genuine regime change in Iraq. Surely he could find a more graceful way to do it than to make a mockery of his own chosen mantra. Or suppose instead that Bush's statements reflect a genuine (if perhaps temporary) shift in policy: surely there is a more graceful way to do it than to make a mockery of his own chosen mantra (such as admitting that you've changed your mind). No matter how you slice it, this comes across amusing to the left and awkward to the aware right.

By the way, my personal read is that Bush's statement is a real attempt to backpedal - that's the harder situation to sell (particularly for this unapologetic administration) and so it's more plausible that this situation led to such an awkward statement.

I still don't perceive any contradiction in the Bush administration's attitude toward Saddam Hussein. The only thing I see is a nitpicky attempt to make something out of nothing. The tyrant of Baghdad is simply not going to allow a thorough inspection. Thus, we will have to take the next step. A regime change is the likely outcome. Why is that so hard for some people to comprehend?

It's a huge contradiction. the policty used to be were are gion gto forcibly remove this man from power, and now it's we are going let him stay. Two totally different policies.

"It's a huge contradiction. the policty used to be were are gion gto forcibly remove this man from power, and now it's we are going let him stay. Two totally different policies."

No, it is not. The price for Saddam to remain in power is perceived by him as too expensive. He will never permit a thorough inspection of Iraq. Thus, we will be forced to "remove this man from power." What is so hard to comprehend? Has your hatred of George W. Bush hindered your ability to think and follow a logical argument?