Essay Question

Lakoff states that “Though politically useful for Bush and his minions, the 'war frame' never fit the reality of terrorism. It was successful at consolidating power -- but counterproductive in dealing with the real threat.”

Discuss Lakoff’s claim in regards to the way in which the ‘War on Terror’ frame has changed since September 11th 2001 in the New York Times coverage, highlighting the positive and negative aspects of news framing.

What are the key dimensions of the topic & what theoretical framework am I looking at my topic from?

I am looking at the topic of ‘Terrorism & National Security’ from the theoretical framework of framing which is discussed by Robert Entman in his chapter “Projecting Power in the News” from Projections of Power: Framing News, Public Opinion, and U.S. Foreign Policy.

What helped to frame September 11th and the War on Terror and what are the resulting consequences?

• The events were framed in particular by the continual use of phrases and adjectives such as “evil”, “deadly attacks”, “attacks against humanity” and “acts of war”. The fact that these descriptors were in constant repetition and use saw US citizens unite together behind President Bush and his response to the attacks. In his chapter Entman states that “…by conveying an unambiguous and emotionally compelling frame, Bush promoted assent from Congress and the media – and overwhelming public approval.
• However this advantage that Bush received early on was soon quashed when he was unable to maintain control over the framing policies regarding the War on Terror.
• Soft news programs are seen to have played an important role in the shaping and framing of news events regarding terrorism and national security. Matthew Baum in his chapter “War and Entertainment” in ‘Soft News Goes to War: Public Opinion and American Foreign Policy in the News Media Age’ states that “…far more viewers in turn regularly watch soft news programs that all of the all-news cable networks combined”. He also states that because soft news programs have won loyal viewers, those viewers will now watch politics of foreign policy news items even if they are not interested in them.
  
  What factors determine what type of frame is used?
  
  Hillel Nossek in his work ‘Our news and their news: The role of national identity in the coverage of foreign news” states that the frame that is applied depends on 3 factors:
  
  (1) The type of event (some form of political violence, namely war, terrorism, political assassination)
  (2) The location of the event (is the locality relevant to the domestic politics and foreign policy or international relations of the journalist and media’s nation state?)
  (3) The event context (the timing of the event and its local and international context)
  
  Pro’s and Con’s of framing
  
  Pro’s
• Frames provide a remedy because they either directly encourage support or opposition to public policy and foreign affairs
• By framing particular news items for different audiences the news media can educate, inform and create emotion in audiences by specifically targeting their needs
• Frames can unite the citizenry and create a sense of patriotism
• Frames can increase the political influence of the media
  
  Con’s
• Frames don’t encourage public debate but rather limit ideas and thought
• Frames can determine how audiences respond to all future stories on a particular topic
• The news media can become subjective if they simply continue to present the frames put forward by the elites
• Frames can increase the political influence of the media
• Framing can cause people to jump to conclusions – people easily accept that those of middle eastern appearance are capable/responsible for horrific attacks against civilians (promotes stereotypes)
  
  How can framing be identified?
  
  Frames can be identified by examining the specific images and words that are used in news items as these images and words will evoke particular emotions and either strongly advocate for or oppose a particular political agenda.
  
  How the framing of September 11th 2001 and the War on Terror was activated and spread
  
  Entman outlines 4 specific variables that influence the activation of frames:
  o Motivations
  o Cultural congruence
  o Power
  o Strategy
  
  How the frames have changed over time (From my blog)
• George Lakoff's article 'War on Terror, Rest in Peace' discusses the idea of framing and how it has changed since September 11th.
• In his article on framing Lakoff states that "the war frame never fit the reality of terrorism". He goes on to say that "It was successful at consolidating power -- but counterproductive in dealing with the real threat."
• I think what Lakoff said is true and that a possible reason that the war frame was enacted was to band people together in support of the War on Terror rather than giving the public time to consider the long term implications and consequences of a global War on Terror.
• This idea of creating public support is upheld by Lakoff in his article when he states that "It evokes unquestioned patriotism, and the idea that lack of support for the war effort is treasonous."
• Lakoff states that "The phrase "War on Terror" was chosen with care. "War" is a crucial term. It evokes a war frame, and with it, the idea that the nation is under military attack", something which can put fear into the general public.
• The War frame in a sense can be seen as a blanket to throw over the side-effects of war. Lakoff says that the war frame is so consuming that it takes our focus away from the spending and casualties that are a consequence of war. "It takes focus away from other problems, from everyday troubles, from jobs, education, health care, a failing economy. It justifies the spending of huge sums, and sending raw recruits into battle with inadequate equipment. It justifies the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent civilians. It justifies torture, military tribunals, and no due process. It justifies scaring people, with yellow, orange, and red alerts. "
• Lakoff conveys the idea that it was effective for the US Govt. to use the 'War on Terror' frame rather than the 'Crime' frame because terror is not a tangible or fixed object. It is not something that can be directly captured or destroyed and because such a metaphor has been in constant use since Sept. 11th, there is subsequently no end in sight for the 'War on Terror' because it can be constantly adapted to whatever threat the govt. is facing at the time. A thought which some find slighly worrying now that they have been roped into supporting something that doesn't seem to have an identifiable end.
• Toward the end of Lakoff's article he describes how after the recent London bombings the 'War on Terror' frame was replaced with "global struggle against violent extremism" frame. He attributes the change to the fact that people believed that by fighting terrorism by going to war with Iraq would mean that their home soil would be conflict free - something which obviously changed after the London bombings.
  
  Lakoff, G. 2005, War on Terror, Rest in Peace, Alter Net, viewed 6 January 2005, <http://alternet.org/story/23810/>.
  
  Bibliography
  
  Entman, Robert M. 2004. “Projecting Power in the news” Ch. 1, Projections of Power: Framing News, Public Opinion, and U.S. Foreign Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

• The author, a political science professor who received his bachelor’s degree from Duke and his doctorate from Yale, gathers information from various scholars who have works on framing and also from past news items to convey ideas in regards to how the news comes to be framed and whether or not frames are beneficial or detrimental to the viewing public. This text will give my essay a good base as it allows me to learn more about the theoretical framework of framing.
  
  Nossek, Hillel, 2004, Our news and their news: The role of national identity in the coverage of foreign news, Journalism, Vol. 5 (3): 343-368.
  
• The author, Doctor and Senior Lecturer for the School of Media Studies at the College of Management Academic Studies Israel, compares three different news papers coverage of the same events and relates this to framing, the idea of journalists as ‘gatekeepers’ and the qualitative content analysis method to highlight how news is often quickly sorted or framed into one of two categories – ‘our’ news or ‘their’ news. Studying Nossek’s work in greater depth will allow me to gain a greater understanding of the processes that determine what frame a news item will take on.
  
  Baum, Matthew. 2003. “War and Entertainment” Ch. 1, Soft News Goes to War: Public Opinion and American Foreign Policy in the News Media Age. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
  
• The author, the Associate Professor for the Department of Political Science at the University of California, Los Angeles, compares statistics and historical references to test his hypothesis as to whether or not soft news programs are shaping news and society. Studying his work will allow me to see how soft news programs have played an important role in the shaping and framing of news events regarding terrorism and national security.
  
  Johnson-Cartee, Karen S. 2004. News narratives and news framing : constructing political reality, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Lanham, MD, United States.
  
• The author, Professor of Advertising and Public Relations in the College of Communication and Information Sciences at the University of Alabama, reveals insights into how the media’s use of framing affects all aspects of society. Johnson-Cartee highlights how the medias construction of news items forms our viewed reality and the way in which we view today’s world. Johnson-Cartee’s work will allow me to gain a greater insight into the effects that framing has upon a media based society.
  
  Norris, P., Just, M. R., Kern, M. 2003. Framing terrorism : the news media, the government, and the public, Routledge, New York, United States.
  
• The authors debate the importance of the media in regards to the events that they report. Earlier sections of the book highlight the importance of governments and terrorist organisations in shaping and manipulating the news while the latter sections deal with the journalistic construction of the news and how this can enact patriotism and can sway public opinion, especially at the polls. This book will allow me to find out more information about how the media and the way in which they present the news can influence public opinion.

While scrolling down the long list of world news items this morning looking for articles relating to my topic of Terrorism and National Security the 10th story (just to emphasize the seeming lack of news items on my topic over the last few weeks) on the list caught my attention.

The article from the Sydney Morning Herald describes the story of German hostage Susanne Osthoff, who was taken at gunpoint on a road outside of Baghdad. The article describes the mysterious circumstances surrounding her release and her failure to thank those in Germany who secured her release.

It is seen that the contempt that Germany supposedly feels towards the released hostage may not just be a creation of Osthoff's imagination. The article mentions the daily Muencher Abendzeitung which asked the question "How sick is Susanne Osthoff?" shortly after she appeared on television dressed in the traditional yashmak a veil covering all of her body except her eyes.

The conflicting evidence that Osthoff has given in regards to her kidnapping has fuelled speculation that Osthoff was in fact working for German intelligence in Iraq. Since these allegations surfaced all funds for her projects in Iraq were cut off.

I found this article interesting as it is somewhat of a role reversal from the usual 'victim' role that is portrayed of hostage victims. In this case Osthoff is portrayed as 'suspicious' and she subsequently is framed as a 'traitor' and 'criminal'. The article also serves to show how the actions of those in the media spotlight can easily be grouped together to frame an individual in a particular way.

While I was doing some research for my presentation on how the media portrays Terrorism and National Security, I came across a really interesting piece of writing on the Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal's website (strange name I know :P) which describes the nature of media coverage that came about after September 11th 2001.

The article asks the question as to whether or not the American news media failed the general public by not adequately providing coverage of global affairs. The author, Matt Nisbet, asks how can members of the general public remain both "skeptical and informed in the coming months if history suggests mainstream media coverage is likely to turn increasingly hegemonic and sensationalistic?"

In the section titled "The Nature of Media Coverage" Nisbet speaks of magazine journalist Andrew Sullivan who shortly after September 11st said that he had "been unable to think of anything substantive to write today. It is almost as if the usual conventions of journalism and analysis should somehow remain mute in the face of such an event. How can one analyze what one hasn't even begun to absorb?"

Nisbet goes on to talk about the framing of events that occured in the news coverage of the September 11th attacks. His article discusses how the events were framed in that the immediate coverage only "focused narrowly" on the reactions and opinions of high-profile leaders.

Nisbet then states how the frame shifted to view events in a historical perspective. He mentions CBS journalist Dan Rather who was one of the first within the media to introduce the context of the battle in relation to the September 11th attacks. Comparisons were then made between September 11th and Pearl Harbour which quickly allowed the attacks to be labelled an "act of war".

Nisbet condemns the news coverage of September 11th by saying that media networks misused the footage of the attacks and took advantage of the visual spectacle that had arisen out of the tragic misfortunes of the day. I think here Nisbet raises a very interesting point regarding to what extent such graphic footage should be used in news broadcasts. It also causes us to decide whether or not by showing such footage we are keeping the public informed or whether the overuse of such footage simply makes the public immune to the horror and tragedy of such highly carried stories.

Nisbet goes on to review coverage of the attacks from the Wednesday, and states that the news media turned their focus to the human tragedy side of the story since there was no new information surfacing about the event at the time. A section of the article reads:

"Though such human interest coverage in part may be necessary, it was mainly overemphasized. Missing in early coverage was proper attention to Congressional debate, Presidential planning, broader historical and political contexts, and international response. Only in a few elite media outlets, including NPR, the New York Times, and PBS could reporting be found that rose above the human drama."

In answering the question that Nisbet raised at the beginning of his article he comes to the conclusion that the American news media's obsession with entertainment-style stories has failed the American public by not adequately providing them with the "necessary international context and understanding that might help people cope with the terrorist attack, and enable the public to apply some level of differentiated knowledge in the assessment of an impending American military response."

I think Nisbet's article raised some really important points regarding the news media's ability to frame events and his analysis of the post-September 11th coverage effectively highlights how the media can use events to their own advantage and can frame them according to the information and footage they have received. It also shows us the degree to which the news media can forget to stand back and look at the bigger picture and effectively cover broader aspects of a story.

Over the Christmas/New Year break there were a variety of lighter news stories that were coming out of war-torn Iraq. One such example of this is the story that was covered by the Sydney Morning Herald on the 31st December 2005 which describes the travels of an American teenager by the name of Farris Hassan.

Farris Hassan decided that Iraq would be his case study for his school assignment which allowed students to choose an international topic with which they would write articles about.

Hassan chose "the Iraq war for immersion journalism" and took it upon himself to travel to the country un-accompanied and without the permission of either his school or his parents.

Despite the fact that both of Hassan's parents were born in Iraq, they had since lived in the United States for the past 35 years, subsequently raising a full fledged American teenager who would stand out in Iraq like a sore thumb.

US officials were suprised at just how lucky Hassan was. A US embassy official from the hostage working group spoke to Hassan inside the safety of the green zone and told him that:

"This place is incredibly dangerous to individual private American citizens, especially minors, and all of us, especially the military, went to extraordinary lengths to ensure this youth's safety, even if he doesn't acknowledge it or even understand it."

Hassan's journey continued as he approached the Associated Press stating that he had come to Iraq to do humanitarian work and research. The concerned staff members of the Associated Press called the US embassy which eventually organised to have the teenager flown back to the United States.

I think the fact that this light, entertaining story surfaced and was covered during a generally quieter news period, (whilst everyone is enjoying the Christmas break) serves to show how the news is in a sense created to suit different occasions. Perhaps if an important breaking news story arose during this period it would have received little attention due to the fact that people's minds are on their families and friends during the Chirstmas period, showing why such a story might be chosen during this particular time of year. This idea also serves to highlight the mythology that exists behind the news, an idea which was brought up ealier in the semester in our course reader.

An article in today's Sydney Morning Herald declared that the number of troops that are currently serving in Iraq will be reduced.

"Mr Bush said about 7000 combat troops would be pulled out of Iraq from a force of 138,000. In Afghanistan about 3500 troops would be cut from 19,000."

The Sydney Morning Herald article reported that it is the first time that Bush has specifically outlined the approximate number of troops that will be returning home over the coming months.

It also cites the reason for the troop withdrawal, stating that the US military will move into a position of training and advisory roles as opposed to their previous combat roles.

The story was also reported in a New York Times article which took a slightly different take on the story that saw the Sydney Morning Herald article compare the recent violence related deaths in Iraq to the number of troop withdrawals.

The New York Times article on the other hand focused more closely upon how the improvement in Iraqi police and armed forces is the reason behind the troop pullouts. I think it is interesting to note the contrast between the way in which two different newspapers focused upon different aspects of what was ultimately the same issue.

The Sydney Morning Herald article placed more importance on the fact that the roles of US troops would be changing whilst the New York Times article went deeper into this idea to cite a more specific reason as to why the the US military sees the current situation in Iraq safe enough to pull out specified numbers of US troops.

Bush "...spoke about how the Iraqi Army had taken the lead in protecting polling places during the Dec 15 parliamentary elections and about the halting steps since then toward the creation of a permanent Iraqi government. He discussed a new program under which American forces were working side by side with Iraqi police trainees, much as they have with Iraqi military units."

Despite this US President George W. Bush stated that large numbers of troops will only be allowed to return home after Iraq has stabilised and that this can be maintained by Iraqi troops.

George Lakoff's article 'War on Terror, Rest in Peace' discussed the idea of framing, which I aim to focus my presentation and final essay upon.

In the reader Robert M. Entman states the definition of framing as "selecting and highlighting some facets of events or issues, and making connections among them so as to promote a particular interpretation, evaluation, and/or solution."

I think it is also helpful to note Entman's technique for identifying framing within the news by looking at the following paragraph from his chapter "Projecting Power in the news" from the book Projections of Power: Framing News, Public Opinion, and U.S. Foreign Policy.

"The words and images that make up the frame can be distinguished from the rest of the news by their capacity to stimulate support or opposition to the sides in a political conflict. We can measure this capacity by cultural resonance and magnitude. Those frames that employ more culturally resonant terms have the greatest potential for influence." (From p. 6)

In his article on framing Lakoff states that "the war frame never fit the reality of terrorism". He goes on to say that "It was successful at consolidating power -- but counterproductive in dealing with the real threat."

I think what Lakoff said is true and that a possible reason that the war frame was enacted was to band people together in support of the War on Terror rather than giving the public time to consider the long term implications and consequences of a global War on Terror.

This idea of creating public support is upheld by Lakoff in his article when he states that "It evokes unquestioned patriotism, and the idea that lack of support for the war effort is treasonous."

Lakoff states that "The phrase "War on Terror" was chosen with care. "War" is a crucial term. It evokes a war frame, and with it, the idea that the nation is under military attack", something which can put fear into the general public.

The War frame in a sense can be seen as a blanket to throw over the side-effects of war. Lakoff says that the war frame is so consuming that it takes our focus away from the spending and casualties that are a consequence of war.

He states that:

"It takes focus away from other problems, from everyday troubles, from jobs, education, health care, a failing economy. It justifies the spending of huge sums, and sending raw recruits into battle with inadequate equipment. It justifies the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent civilians. It justifies torture, military tribunals, and no due process. It justifies scaring people, with yellow, orange, and red alerts. "

Lakoff conveys the idea that it was effective for the US Govt. to use the 'War on Terror' frame rather than the 'Crime' frame because terror is not a tangible or fixed object. It is not something that can be directly captured or destroyed and because such a metaphor has been in constant use since Sept. 11th, there is subsequently no end in sight for the 'War on Terror' because it can be constantly adapted to whatever threat the govt. is facing at the time. A thought which some find slighly worrying now that they have been roped into supporting something that doesn't seem to have an identifiable end.

Toward the end of Lakoff's article he describes how after the recent London bombings the 'War on Terror' frame was replaced with "global struggle against violent extremism" frame. He attributes the change to the fact that people believed that by fighting terrorism by going to war with Iraq would mean that their home soil would be conflict free - something which obviously changed after the London bombings.

Lakoff's article is definately the most interesting and thought-provoking article that I have read during my blogging for NACAF.

I was looking around on the net recently for writings about how the Iraq war can come to be seen as a form of entertainment and I came across the piece by James Westcott who talks about the way in which the media is representing the Iraq war. Westcott states that the media's portrayal of the event can do one of two things. It can either a) desensitize us to the horrors of the war; or it can b) lead to 'a real reckoning'.

Westcott states that the types of digital footage that are surfacing are too horrific to watch and that we should all be asking ourselves whether or not we should be even watching it in the first place.

He raises several important ideas in his article including the idea that "different genres of representation are melding together" whereby the news items that are produced by the big media networks are favouring the raw, in-your-face type footage that is streaming out of Iraq and being posted on the internet. (Like the footage of hostage executions etc).

I think the move towards this sort of in-your-face media suggests that viewers are seeking more reality in news broadcasts as opposed to more structured, edited, and agenda-based news pieces that can be seen on some more commercial networks. I do however agree with Westcott when he states that increased exposure to the horrific styles of raw footage that are coming out of war torn Iraq can desensitise viewers to violence in its many forms, something which has been previously studied by looking at how viewers react to violent video games and films.

Westcott goes on to talk about several forms of entertainment such as films and documentaries that have been created about the war in Iraq. He picks apart each fictional project including that of Gunner Palace which he states is patronizing to those currently serving in Iraq. Westcott states that "Nearly every shot shows them goofing around in Uday and Qusay's old playboy mansion, which has been converted into a Spring Break-style frat house. The young men and women frolic in the pool, freestyle to the camera, or grope inarticulately for something profound in response to a rushed, unearned question."

This idea of the war as entertainment is illustrated by Matthew Baum's reading entitled 'War and Entertainment' in the reader which states that in addition to the nightly news bulletins covering the story the news of the missle strike against Afghanistan and Sudan was also covered by "a variety of entertainment-oriented, soft news programs" and "the late-night talk shows".

Baum discussed whether or not it is important how or where people received the news regarding the missile strike and states that "while the networks focused heavily on the tactics and strategy of the attacks, as well as on their likely ramifications for the fight against global terrorism, soft news coverage focused primarily on a single theme: the uncanny parallels between real-world events and a relatively obscure movie called Wag the Dog.

I think both Westcott and Baums articles are a very interesting take on the effect that the media has on the portrayal of terrorism, the war in Iraq and national security matters and the importance of the governing bodies who control what can and cannot be publically broadcast.

I found this press release this morning on the US Dept of State website which talks about how lawmakers are trying to create a healthy balance between national security and privacy for US citizens.

I thought it was interesting to note the PR way in which the changes approved by congress are reported as opposed to the traditional objective style of way in which news organisations would report such news items.

I watched a really interesting story earlier this week on either A Current Affair or Today Tonight (I can't remember which one it was and I can't seem to track it down on either of their websites unfortunately) which linked in really well with ideas about civil liberties which have been mentioned alot on the terrorism and national security front in the media over recent weeks.

The story was about how defamation laws are being abused by the rich and powerful to silence the free speech and protest rights of the general public, subsequently restricting the public's civil liberties.

The story also discussed how Australia is the only Western country without a Bill of Rights to govern and protect our human right to free speech.

The story mentioned an association called "Free Speech Victoria" which is "an organisation of concerned individuals committed to fighting censorship in all its forms."

As the story mentioned, the group is particularly concerned with changing defamation laws within Australia so that citizens rights to free speech are protected.

The websites page on Democracy and Free Speech states that:

"Citizens, who are doing no more than exercising their right to protest, dissent and object, these days run the risk of being sued for defamation – usually by politicians, corporations, business people, public servants and local government officials."

Something that I think is being neglected in an age of terrorism.

Free Speech Victoria is also involved in a plan which aims to campaign for changes to defamation laws within Victoria.

Their website outlines a four point plan which they seek to implement in the Victorian legal system:

Freedom to Speak About Corporations

1. No corporation shall be entitled to sue for any cause of action in defamation, and no person shall be entitled to sue for any cause of action in defamation in reliance on any imputation arising from any statement made about a corporation.

Freedom to Speak on Matters of Public Interest

2. In the absence of malice, which the plaintiff must prove, no cause of action in defamation shall lie where the statement complained of was made in the course of public debate in relation to a matter of public interest.

Freedom to Speak about the Performance of Public Officers

3. No politician, public servant or public official shall be entitled to sue for any cause of action in defamation arising from statements relating to his or her conduct in office or, in the absence of malice, which the plaintiff must prove, fitness for office.

Freedom to Speak without the Fear of Unspecified Damages

4. In the absence of malice, which the plaintiff must prove, no general damages shall be awarded for defamation.

Alot of articles on terrorism lately have brought up the issue of civil liberties. This editorial from The Philadelphia Inquirer discusses how President Bush and his co-workers have justified their reductions of civil liberties by proclaiming that 'the nation is at war'.

This article follows up on one of my earlier posts about how Bush used the post September 11 climate to spy on US citizens allegedly involved in terrorist activities without the need for a warrant.

The editorial states that while some American citizens applaud restrictions in regards to their civil liberties if it means that they will be living in a safer world, others see Bush's actions as a clear result of his "quest to expand executive power secretively and without accountability" rather than to quell terrorism.

I think the editorial raises a very important point when it states that "Civil liberty is the only area where the President seems to think sacrifice is required." The editorial uses Hurricane Katrina as a current example of how the US administration had little sense of urgency in the natural disasters regard.

The editorial then becomes quite personal when it attacks Brown the then-director for FEMA who "seemed more worried about Baton Rouge restaurants filling up before he could get a meal than he was about New Orleans filling up with water."

It even mentions how US President George W. Bush only received a 'B' from a panel who judged his ability to strike a healthy balance between security and civil liberties within the US, something which the editorial notes was voted upon before the recent news of spying without warrants.

The editorial ends very strongly by saying that:

"Let those who seek to curb our privacy and liberty in the name of war first show some wartime urgency to do their jobs properly on fiscal policy, emergency preparedness and homeland security."

** On a more personal note I think I will now concentrate more on how civil liberties interact with terrorism and national security as I think it is a very interesting topic which has been debated alot in the media recently.

There has been some very interesting coverage this week regarding George Bush's decision to enter into the war on terror.

The Washington Post covered the story and focused mainly upon the fact that the intelligence that Bush originally used to justify the invasion of Iraq was incorrect. The article states that:

"It is true that much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong," Bush said. "As president, I'm responsible for the decision to go into Iraq."

Bush quickly counters this argument and defends his decision by stating that:

"Saddam was a threat and the American people and the world is better off because he is no longer in power."

Despite this Bush offered little insight into the fact that no weapons of mass destruction were ever uncovered in Iraq. The article discusses how Bush said that international intelligence agencies had strong beliefs that Saddam Hussein was in possession of weapons of mass destruction, even though nations that believed this was true, still did not back Bush's decision to enter into war with Iraq.

"And he said his administration has begun making changes to the U.S. intelligence apparatus to head off future errors.The president also contended the Iraqi president had intended to restart weapons programs."

This article seems to back the decision of Bush to a certain extent as it seems to create an air of sympathy around Bush's speech. The article notes that weapons of mass destruction was not the sole piece of evidence upon which the war against terror was based.

Bush goes on to say that "My decision to remove Saddam Hussein was the right decision."

The article also states that:

"...he has acknowledged for more than a year that most of the intelligence behind the claims of Saddam's weapons programs turned out to be faulty. But he has never linked the two so clearly and so personally."

The article is nicely balanced and objective with later sections of the article discussing those who are opposed to Bush's decision to go to war with Iraq.

"There was no reason for America to go to war when we did, the way we did, and for the false reasons we were given," said Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass.

Similar issues were also covered in both the Sydney Morning Herald and by BBC.

The SMH paints a very strong picture of sympathy for George Bush with emotive quotes like:

""I'll never forget making the decision in the Situation Room, and it affected me," he told The News Hour with Jim Lehrer.

"I got up out of the chair and walked around the South Lawn there and I thought, you know, I knew the decision I had just made - by the way, that I had been wrestling with for months - was the right decision," Bush said.

The BBC article addresses a different issue, regarding how Bush admitted in his radio address that he authorised the constant monitoring of communications throughout the US since September 11th 2001.

Bush stated that:

The monitoring was of "people with known links to al-Qaeda and related terrorist organisations."

The US president was irritated that potential terrorists had "learned information they should not have" he said in a live address that was undertaken after his pre-recorded address was discarded.

A section of the article states that:

Senator Russell Feingold, another Democrat, called it a "shocking revelation" that "ought to send a chill down the spine of every senator and every American".

Bush defends the so-called 'communications spying' by stating that September 11 hijackers had communicated with one another prior to the attacks, something that the US didn't find out until it was much too late.

"The American people expect me to do everything in my power, under our laws and Constitution, to protect them and our civil liberties," he said. Monitoring was, he said, a "vital tool in our war against the terrorists".

The article also digs deeper into ideas that were brought up in the Judith Miller case, seen in Bush's harsh criticism of the New York Times leak that made the monitoring of communications within the US public.

Bush said that "Revealing classified information is illegal. It alerts our enemies."