WASHINGTON — In the campaign debate over Iraq, one constant has been the divide between the presidential candidates on the issue of inconsistency.
President Bush has stressed his resolve while accusing Sen. John F. Kerry of sending "mixed messages" on the war in Iraq. He pounded that point on Monday in his latest sharp attack on Kerry, saying, "For three years, depending on the headlines, the poll numbers and political calculation, he has taken almost every conceivable position on Iraq."
Yet an analysis of Bush's statements on Iraq show that he also has sent differing, if not necessarily conflicting, signals on a key war-related question.
Bush's shifts have come not on the decision to overthrow former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, but why that action was justified.
Both before and after the invasion, Bush built his case for war on basically the same set of elements. But the prominence placed on each element has clearly shifted.
Before the war, the major chord was security and terrorism. Bush continually warned that Hussein could provide weapons of mass destruction to terrorists.
As the evidence has accumulated that Iraq did not possess chemical, biological or nuclear weapons, Bush increasingly has argued that building democracy in Iraq would inspire democratic change across the region in a domino effect. That argument was part of, but secondary, in the administration's case before the invasion.
In effect, Bush has never wavered on the verdict about Iraq, but he has reordered the counts in his indictment.
"I don't think there is any argument we've made after the war that we hadn't made before the war," said one senior GOP strategist familiar with White House planning. "But there has been a difference of emphasis."
To critics, the focus on democracy is an after-the-fact explanation for the war that Bush is promoting only because his original justification collapsed.
"It was only because we didn't find any [weapons of mass destruction] that you had to find a new rationalization for the war," said Ivo Daalder, a former national security aide under President Clinton.
But David Frum, a former Bush speechwriter, said that although the president has made "tactical" adjustments in his arguments for the war, the guiding principle in his decisions remained the same.
"The consistent theme is that he believed even before Sept. 11 that Saddam Hussein was a danger and the policies of the 1990s had failed," said Frum. "Bush decided from the start that he was going to do something about this."
