|
Sunday, August 15, 2004
UprisingsFareed Zakaria, one of the few reasons to read Newsweek, has a fine column on the war so far. He argues that Kerry's sophisticated public fudging on whether to invade Iraq hides a serious answer:
The ... intelligent question is, given what we knew at the time, was toppling Saddam's regime a worthwhile objective? Bush's answer is yes, Howard Dean's is no. Kerry's answer is that it was a worthwhile objective but was disastrously executed. For this "nuance" Kerry has been attacked from both the right and the left. But it happens to be the most defensible position on the subject.
Where Zakaria doesn't go is whether Bush knew there were no weapons to fight over in Iraq. This article argues he did. I think so, too. At least Bush wasn't serious about learning the truth, which makes the "pre-emption" idea that Kissinger took so seriously a silly and dangerous game.
posted by Michael Scott Moore |
6:50 PM
|  |
|
|
|
|
Too Much of Nothing, a novel
Politics and Prose
about our editor
The Underground Grammarian
current Berlin blog page
 |
