Quote:
Originally posted by sgtclub
But the author isn't really making judgements. Rather, em is just setting out questions/assumptions that underly the arguments/conclusions on both sides of the issue. For example, IF you believed we needed 95% proof, you probably would have concluded . . .
|
I'd disagree with you on that. F'rinstance, this passage:
"Still, critics of the war argue that it has distracted American attention and resources from the real enemy, which is al Qaeda; that it has complicated diplomatic efforts with Arab governments (and Iran) to quit sponsoring terror and to aid the West in its efforts; and that it has inflamed anti-American sentiment in the Middle East.
But these arguments don't seem convincing.
Part of the war on terror is chasing terrorists, but the main task is inducing Arab and Muslim governments to stop harboring and supporting terrorists. It isn't a shortage of troops that prevents us from getting al Qaeda leaders in Iran; it is the failure to convince the Iranian government that it is too dangerous to harbor terrorists.
The test of whether Iraq advanced or hindered our war against terrorism is whether it increases or decreases actions against terrorism by Middle Eastern governments."
That sure looks like a judgment to me on a point that is certainly up for debate. The author apparently agrees with the admin that state sponsors of terror are the key enemy in this war, while many of us critical of the Iraq project see the terror groups themselves being the proper target. He later gets into the "if you think this....if you think that..." stuff, but the underlying idea on the other side of the argument has already been neatly dismissed.
The column is less strident than the usual article of this type, so maybe that's what you mean by objective. But in my view it reads less like an objective evaluation of the two sides of the argument and more of a David Brooks-style "Repubs are wholesome, Dems are different" piece, with the clear implication (or explicit statement, as above) that one side of this debate is just wrong.
