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.

RE: Mr. Bush's Version (of History? of the Present? of Reality?)