Decius wrote:
] I say: This oped is sharp.

I say: It sounded like just another anti-Bush piece to me. It has a few good points, but also trots out some other tired and unproven accusations. For example, accusing the Bush administration of wanting to invade Iraq pre-9/11. And again misquoting Kay's report.

Different readers, different views (shrug).

To really get my attention, an essay has to be able to list both good things and bad things about a particular event. That would tell me that the writer was trying to honestly present both sides of an issue. This editorial was focused almost exclusively on pointing out negatives, so, personally, I file it away under "More election year crap."

Elonka wrote:
] I say: It sounded like just another anti-Bush piece to me.
] It has a few good points, but also trots out some other tired
] and unproven accusations. For example, accusing the Bush
] administration of wanting to invade Iraq pre-9/11. And again
] misquoting Kay's report.
]
] Different readers, different views (shrug).
]
] To really get my attention, an essay has to be able to list
] both good things and bad things about a particular event.
] That would tell me that the writer was trying to honestly
] present both sides of an issue. This editorial was focused
] almost exclusively on pointing out negatives, so, personally,
] I file it away under "More election year crap."

You are correct that this article is very one sided.

I think it is sharp because it calls bush on one clear problem with his story. He is skittish on the WMD issue; within the same interview he offers multiple different perspectives on what has gone on or what we might find. There is some inconsistency there that I failed to point out when I commented on the essay.

Invading Iraq was definitely on the table before 9/11. We've had a sustained military situation for years there. Furthermore, I do not have a problem with that.

] Invading Iraq was definitely on the table before 9/11. We've
] had a sustained military situation for years there.
] Furthermore, I do not have a problem with that.

(nod) I hear what you're saying...

And I agree that invasion has been an option that was considered. The specific problem that I have with that part of the piece is that it's trying to reinforce the "Bush wanted to invade Iraq from Day 1" story, which I don't believe is true. It *is* true that regime change in Iraq was an early priority, but that's not solely a Bush thing -- multiple Presidents from both sides of the aisle have wanted Saddam gone. Not to mention the leaders of nearly every other nation on the planet.

My belief is that if Bush could have found a valid non-military option of removing Saddam, he would have taken it. But the piece doesn't say "Bush wanted Saddam gone." It says, "Bush wanted to invade". So that's one of the keyphrases that makes me lose interest. Any editorial or argument that tries to make the Iraq war sound like the result of some sort of personal problem that Bush had with Saddam, makes me lose respect for the author, because I feel that they're either (a) pushing an agenda; (b) irrational; or (c) uninformed.