On Saturday* the AP published an utterly un-newsworthy article about President Bush’s “shifting justifications” for the war in Iraq. As Tony Snow points out, Bush cited these “shifting justifications” — such as the liberation of the Iraqi people — prior to the invasion. The anti-war trade publication Editor & Publisher takes the AP’s side and moves the goalposts, writing, “The question, however, remains: While it’s true that Bush always mentioned multiple reasons for the war, what did he really emphasize at the time?”

E&P’s defense is unintentionally damning, because it admits that Bush did not “shift justifications,” as the AP alleged, but rather shifted his “emphasis” from one justification to another. As E&P itself might put it, the question, however, remains: What makes this a newsworthy story as opposed to a regurgitation of a very old criticism of the Bush administration prior to an election?

* CORRECTION: Originally said “Yesterday.” What day is today anyway?

UPDATE: Tim Graham e-mails with a great point:

The news media adopting the “shifting justifications” line against the Bushies? The people who were like….Plame will get them! No….shift your tactics…..Woodward! No? ….Mark Foley!…..No? David Kuo….How many shifting justifications have they made to argue Bush has to be defeated at every turn?

“Shifting justifications” is one way to look at it. Another way is that they’ve just kept adding more.