The Washington Post's Scott Wilson has a piece (12/13/11) looking back on the Iraq War, where he writes of  the "arc of the American experience in Iraq" being "from hope to barbarity, from swaggering invasion to quiet departure."

When it comes to the rationale for the entire war, things get a bit fuzzy. Like we pointed out recently about CBS Evening News, the main driver of the invasion--the threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction--is reduced to something like a footnote:

The premise was contested from the start, a new doctrine of preemptive war tailored to an era in which stateless militants could batter the once-distant United States with the everyday tools of modern society--commercial jets as missiles, cellphones as triggers, trucks as bombs.

The neoconservatives at the Pentagon and in the West Wing argued that the invasion of Iraq was necessary. Hussein, the longtime U.S. nemesis who once tried to kill then-President Bush's father, was openly encouraging Palestinian militancy at a time when Hamas was blowing up cafes and pizzerias in Jerusalem. A model of democracy in the Middle East--imposed by the U.S. military--would inspire change in its neighbors or frighten them into reform.

Besides, Hussein had murdered hundreds of thousands of his own people in the Anfal campaign against the Kurds, and in the aftermath of the 1991 Persian Gulf War to put down a Shiite rebellion that the United States failed to support after pledging to do so--a broken promise that helped fill the mass graves of Hilla, south of Baghdad. And he supposedly had an arsenal of some of the world’s nastiest weapons that had to be found and destroyed before they ended up with Al-Qaeda.

In this bizarre re-telling, Saddam Hussein's support for Hamas and a plot to kill George H. W. Bush seem to matter more than the bogus stories about Iraq's WMDs. Perhaps all you can say about this is that it makes a certain kind of sense for the U.S. government and elite media to want people to forget the falsehoods that launched the war.

The headline in today's Post, previewing Obama's speech tonight:

Obama’s challenge: Leaving, but not too quickly

Funny how it's not the other way around-- leaving too slowly would seem to be a larger political problem, given the state of public opinion.

The Post reports:

President Obama will face a stiff political challenge Wednesday in presenting his plan for a gradual end to the U.S. military involvement in Afghanistan. His prime-time address must remind a skeptical electorate and a concerned Congress that the country’s longest war remains worth fighting — and funding — for several more years.

Why is it that Obama must "remind" the public that the war is worth fighting--and not convince? You can't really remind people of something they disagree with.

Now this is a head scratcher. "As Arabs Protest, U.S. Speaks Up" is the headline today over a story by Scott Wilson and Joby Warrick in the Washington Post. The story attempts to argue that the Obama administration is backing protests in Tunisia, Egypt and Lebanon--in the first two cases, regimes backed strongly by the United States (Egypt to the tune of more than $1 billion in annual military aid).

As the lead puts it:

The Obama administration is openly supporting the anti-government demonstrations shaking the Arab Middle East, a stance that is far less tempered than the one the president has taken during past unrest in the region.

The Post adds that the White House has "thrown U.S. support clearly behind the protesters, speaking daily in favor of free speech and assembly even when the protests target longtime U.S. allies such as Egypt."

The support for demonstrations against Hezbollah, which the U.S. government deems a terrorist organization, is to be expected. In Tunisia, though, the White House approach seemed quite "tempered," in fact. As NYU's Mohamad Bazzi wrote:

As the uprising spread in Tunisia, the administration of President Barack Obama stayed largely silent until the day Mr. Ben Ali fled. That was when Mr. Obama issued a statement condemning the use of violence against peaceful protesters and applauding "the courage and dignity" of Tunisians. By then, it was too late: The U.S.-backed dictator was gone, and the Arab world chalked up another example of how Washington favors stability over democracy.

So where is the evidence that the Obama White House is openly supporting democratic protests? Here is what the Post offers:

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton said Wednesday that "the Egyptian government has an important opportunity ... to respond to the legitimate needs and interests of the Egyptian people." She urged "the Egyptian authorities not to prevent peaceful protests or block communications, including on social media sites."

Well, that's rather mild. Since the Egyptian government would seem to be continuing precisely what Clinton "urged" them not to do, what's been the official response?  The Post also has this:

Asked whether the administration supports Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs replied only: "Egypt is a strong ally."

But the most revealing example might be this (emphasis added):

"Some of the confidence and assertiveness comes from having spent time in government, and now we've identified ways where we want to make our push," said a senior administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss White House thinking on the Middle East developments.

And later, presumably from the same "senior official":

"Democracy had been characterized in some quarters as the United States seeking to control countries," said the senior official. "What we've made clear in the last few years is that democracy is important to the United States because of who we are, but not as a means of controlling governments. Quite the contrary, we're supporting a process in Tunisia now that we do not know how it will end or who will emerge as leader."

It's hard to take the premise of the article seriously when the most definitive statements of support for democracy come from anonymous government officials.

A Washington Post piece this weekend by Scott Wilson (3/14/09) centered around this "gotcha":

In his inaugural address, President Obama proclaimed "an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas that for far too long have strangled our politics."

It hasn't taken long for the recriminations to return--or for the Obama administration to begin talking about the unwelcome "inheritance" of its predecessor.

Over the past month, Obama has reminded the public at every turn that he is facing problems "inherited" from the Bush administration, using increasingly bracing language to describe the challenges his administration is up against.

The vapidity of this observation has been noted by, among others, Steve Benen of Political Animal (3/14/09):

The problem, if I'm reading the article right, isn't that the president is saying anything untrue. Rather, we're dealing with a dynamic in which one president hands off a catastrophe -- several catastrophes, actually -- to a successor, and the successor isn't supposed to talk about it.

It's worth looking at Wilson's logic as to why Obama shouldn't be pointing out that he inherited an economic disaster--even though he did. Wilson wrote:

Upon entering the White House in 2001, Bush pinned the lackluster economy on his predecessor, using the "Clinton recession" to successfully argue in favor of tax cuts that won some Democratic support. But for Obama, who built his candidacy on a promise to rise above Washington's divisive partisan traditions--winning over many independent voters and moderate Republicans in the process--blaming his predecessor holds special risks.

He will need support beyond his Democratic base as he begins lobbying for his $3.6 trillion budget, which proposes sweeping changes in health care, the energy sector and the public education system. The president did not receive a single House Republican vote for his stimulus plan, prompting some in his administration to view his bipartisan outreach efforts as having little hope of success.

And Republicans have seemed only more emboldened in their rhetoric. Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), for example, recently called the borrowing needed to fund the president's economic recovery plans "generational theft."

So when George W. Bush blamed Bill Clinton for his economic situation, that successfully gained him Democratic support for his policies. But for Obama, blaming his predecessor has "special risks"...because he needs Republican support for his policies. If you can't see why criticizing the previous president should gain support for Bush but cost Obama support, then I'm afraid you don't have what it takes to be a big-league Washington journalist.

I suppose you could read Wilson as saying that the special risks come because Obama promised to rise above Washington's divisive partisan traditions--just like Bush did. Remember "I'm a uniter, not a divider?" Or maybe it was the fact that Obama won a majority of the popular vote--i.e., he won over "many independent voters and moderate Republicans"--that puts his presidency at "special risk."

Update: Steve Benen's first name corrected.