Both of these articles seem to be arguing that we shouldn't go to war because Dubya botched the presentation. Neither addressed the actual issues brought up during the press conference. While I agree that the President could certainly use some help polishing the presentation ("nucular" springs to mind), I see these articles as mere ad hominem attacks, and little more.

The best quote from the Alter article is this:

"Smart diplomacy is about preventing other countries from embarrassment, not causing it."

That's certainly true. Bush lacks skill in diplomatic maneuvering. And I don't see how he can get out of this while allowing everyone to save face. But to me, that is an unconvincing argument against war.

The subheader for the Clift article was "How the president has skillfully used war with Iraq to advance conservative policies that in normal times would never survive legislative scrutiny". But only these were mentioned:

"Among the egregious provisions was one to eliminate a 30 percent tax on foreigners who gamble on American horseracing. Another would eliminate a 10 percent excise tax on fishing-tackle boxes, costing the Treasury $30 million over the next 10 years. "

Bush is going to war to swindle the Treasury out of $30 million? I don't think so.

The points Bush brought up were valid:

-Saddam was ordered by the UN to disarm 12 years ago.

-There have since been many squabbles about this.

-Resolution 1441, passed by the Security Council in November, required, again, disarmament.

-Iraq has not complied with these UN resolutions.

-The UN is making itself irrelevant if it doesn't back these resolutions up as needed.

Most of the anti-war commentary I have seen seems to favor a wait-and-see attitude. But I agree with Bush on that one. We have waited, and we have seen. Now everyone seems to think that a flurry of UN memos will solve everything. I am reminded of a joke (by Robin Williams, I think) about the unarmed Canadian Mounties:

"Stop! Or I'll say 'Stop!' again!"

I admit to being puzzled by the timing. We set out to find bin Laden, and are knocking at the door of Hussein. But timing and presentation are not valid reasons to allow Saddam to remain in power. Give me something more substantial.

Rhetoric does not constitute evidence.

You're right Mike "Rhetoric does not constitute evidence." and therin lays the problem. Rhetoric is ALL we've had from Bush et al. There has been zero proof of anything, only incessant repetition of unsubstantiated claims. In other words the Big Lie technique - repeat something often enough and forcefully enough and people will start to beliecve you.

Add in the right wing pundits and maniacs who scream at the top of their lungs (either on the air or on blogs) and you end up with bullies who push the agenda.

For instance, if you bring up that Bush stole the 2000 election, you're told one of a couple things:

1.) He won, get over it.

2.) Recounts show he won, so get over it.

3.) Clinton is the anti-Christ!

When shouted loudly and bullied repeatedly, the lies take on a life of their own.

The other problem, Mike, is that the administration (just last week) publicly stated that simply disarming isn't enough. Too lazy to look up exact quotes now, but something about regime change is the only way to be sure that they're completely disarmed.

Damned if you do, damned if you don't. Hussein could prostrate himself in front of GW, kiss his feet, give him the keys to all the presidential palaces, and it still wouldn't be enough.

As an aside -- anybody else worried that the administration is convinced that there will be "a diplomatic solution" in North Korea? Which talented diplomat will find that? More and more, it's becoming obvious that diplomacy is not their strong suit.

"diplomacy is not their strong suit." is probably the understatement of the year :-) Bush and Rumsfeld (anyone notice how invisible Cheney has been lately) have managed to piss away virtually all the goodwill built up since WWII. Now they have to buy cooperation or threaten economic retaliation to get cooperation, they do not have the force of a morally justified argument to win cooperation.

As much as the 50's and 60's were scary with the tensions between the US and the USSR most people understood MAD would probably keep the ultimate conflagration at bay, and it did. This is worse. We now have a lone superpower on the rampage headed up by a religiously motivated arrogant moron. He's drunk on power and unfortunately for all of us he's like that drunken idiot in a bar always looking to pick a fight. I think we are in more danger today of creating a WWIII than we have ever been except during the Cuban Missle Crises.

I thought that the pro-war MSNBC critique of the Bush conference was very good, except where the short pro-war argument was presented. The basic idea is--the most dangerous kinds of terrorism require state sponsorship (forget about 9/11 for a minute now). If we take out the states that sponsor Al-Qaida, then we take declaw superterrorism. But all that begs the question--if a country actively and knowingly cooperates directly with a terrorist attack against the U.S., then military action is likely already justified, whether or not sponsorship is essential to the terrorists or not. But if a country is "helping" in a merely indirect way, without a deliberate strategy of cooperating, then we have no business invading them whether that help is essential or not.

dende blogger's post here makes me curious. Was the US military action in Afghanistan justified?

Chris--my comments were meant to leave that question open. It is a good question; personally I think that some military action was justified, given the fact that in retrospect it is pretty clear that the Taliban had no problem given haven and help to Al Qaida in its war with most of the world. At the same time, I could agree with someone who claims that we had a duty to allow more time for Afganistan to comply and hand over Al Qaida leaders; we also probably should have done more to establish how much the Taliban knew about the terrorism. Even if you equate the Taliban's actions with an act of war, simple invasion is not always the most just (or most prudent) response to attacks. Moreover, then and now we can't justify war (supposedly the terrible last resort) by the fact that we are 'losing patience' (Bush's repeated term) or that we are tired of being jerked around by bad people. The Taliban and Saddam's regime are dishonest and tyrannical, but that doesn't change our responsibility to assure that we have a very firm justification for war.

I appreciate everyone’s comments. Sorry about not getting back to this sooner, but yesterday I was off doing things in Real Life ™. It’s a rather interesting game. The interface is a bit awkward to get used to, but the resolution and frame rate are outstanding.

I still find myself leaning toward supporting war against Iraq. I am posting in this anti-war forum because I can think of no better way to test my beliefs than to subject them to critical review. And I certainly have no monopoly on knowledge or intelligence.

But I will not debate this issue on stylistic points. Not only could I never win such a debate, given Dubya’s utter lack of diplomatic sophistication, but I’m one of those strange people who prefer to decide a case on merit. Which is why I disliked the two Newsweek articles that started this discussion. The Clift article in particular would never have survived the scrutiny of my 10th grade English teacher; it simply failed to back up its primary thesis with anything realistic. A tax on fishing-tackle boxes is ludicrously irrelevant.

In a similar vein, I am not happy that the President keeps using War On Terror buzzwords to make the case for invading Iraq. This is a separate issue. Whether we need to attack Iraq is unrelated to the War On Terror.

Recent polls indicate a wide gap in public support depending on whether we can get UN approval. In my opinion, the UN has already supported this action with Resolution 1441, and it needs to reaffirm that now. If that body is unwilling to back up its words, then its words lose any real meaning.

The Blix report was equivocal, and has been used by both sides. On this, I agree with the President: we needed something unequivocal, and we didn’t get it.

If we’re going to discuss this issue, then this would be a better starting point than the administration’s clumsy handling of the situation.

There is also room for differences of opinion regarding how to handle noncompliance. There are those who believe war is never the solution. If that is your belief, then I have little hope of changing your mind. However, I do not subscribe to that. I don’t believe in absolutes. I don’t believe that war is always the answer. But in this case, I do. Hussein is a petulant, defiant child who does not think we mean what we say, even as we build up to war.

About what Robert said:

"Hussein could prostrate himself in front of GW, kiss his feet, give him the keys to all the presidential palaces, and it still wouldn't be enough."

That reminds me of an editorial I saw shortly after Desert Storm. Saddam had been given a deadline for withdrawal, and probably the smartest thing he could have done would have been to comply. Then all the troops would be all dressed up, but with nowhere to go.

In my opinion, given the twelve years of active defiance we have witnessed, overthrowing the current regime is warranted. But I wonder how this would play out if your scenario came to pass. (Figuratively, of course. Although Saddam prostrating himself before Dubya would make for fabulous television entertainment.)

Also from Robert:

"As an aside -- anybody else worried that the administration is convinced that there will be 'a diplomatic solution' in North Korea? Which talented diplomat will find that? More and more, it's becoming obvious that diplomacy is not their strong suit."

I have to admit that I cringed when Bush called this a “regional issue” during the same press conference he was using to justify the Iraq war. This certainly seems to be a case where intervention may be required. The UN needs to address this, and then back up their words with action should it become necessary.

Don't you love the 'regional issue' catch-phrase? When applied to N. Korea, he implies China, S. Korea and Japan, yet forgets one thing:

By dint of having missiles that can hit the US, we're part of the 'region.'