Hutcheson, R. (2004) Bush evades Iraq WMD question, defends going to war. January 27th, 2004. The Kansas City Star.

It is somewhat captious to examine a piece of news concerning Weapon of Mass Destruction issue in Iraq after it has been disclosed about one month ago. Nevertheless, it is pretty interesting to observe the reaction Bush took then and make a comparison between his actions and what I have read in this week's assigned readings.

It is not simple a matter of time that the president of the strongest nation is supposed to give an explanation to the public when the justification of his declaration on Iraq war was greatly challenged. However, what Bush did-a four-day silence on the issue- obviously disappointed the public. In this case, Bush even didn't manage to make any extra explanation for the delay of his reaction, unlike what Reagan was claimed "had not been told until late on January 7 or early on January 8, the day of the announcement" (Miller, p. 64). It was difficult for the public to know what was happening in White House in the following days, but it is no doubt that the hopes of the public to be informed had been turned down. In this case, I think Bush has violated the one of the ethical standards for governmental communication that "keeping the public uninformed on matters affecting private citizens' well-being" (Johannesen, p. 32)

"There is no doubt in my mind that Saddam Hussein was a gathering threat to America and others. That's what we know��There is no doubt in my mind that the world is a better place without Saddam Hussein." This statement is ironic and sounds somewhat clumsy to be made by Bush after the truth of WMD had been discovered. It sounds like a big boy who bullied another little one was caught to keep defending "I wanna beat that guy just because it is him!" From the perspective of American value, the existence of Hussein regime is undoubtedly a threat to the nation. Yet the end doesn't justify the means. In this case, the ideological conflicts between the two nations don't give reason for one nation to invade the other in purpose of imposing its own ideology to the other, especially when there are still other peaceful solutions such as resorts to U.N.

Some of Bush's supporters contend that he was the victim of bad intelligence. Instead of blaming a scapegoat as what his processors had done, Bush said, "First of all, I've got great confidence in our intelligence community. These are unbelievably hardworking, dedicated people who are doing a great job for America." Here Bush employed the tactics of emotion appeals, which suggests to the public that the government is working hard to protect them and make their lives better. The emotion appeal became very effective since the terrorist attack of September 11th, after which the desire for security from the public had been greatly increased and thus the national security has become the governmental theme. Using this strategy can gain the sympathy and understanding from the public so that it can justify the invasion in some sense.

Bush repeatedly raised the specter of a devastating attack in last year's State of the Union speech." Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks to build and keep weapons of mass destruction," he said. "It would take one vial, one canister, one crate slipped into this country to bring a day of horror like none we have ever known." That it is--Bush's pretexts before his decision-making of Iraq war.