With "reporting" like this, who needs an op-ed page? You have to wade through all the commentary--"the methodical march toward war", "hostilities . . . increasingly portrayed as inevitable", "sought to assure doubters . . . that . . . U.S. goals . . . are not imperialist", "U.S. officials struggled to build support", etc.--to find out what the President actually said.


This one really leaves me wondering what their editors do for a living: "Bush, speaking in a business suit before an audience of 1,400 at a black-tie dinner held by the American Enterprise Institute at the Washington Hilton"--Not like the fashionable bib overalls worn by the Democrat nominee wannabes at their speeches to the poor farmers on hay bales in Iowa--offered few specifics that he and his deputies had not already mentioned in recent weeks.--So why this report?


Note the scare quotes in the following:

While linking Hussein's ouster to a peace settlement between Israel and the Palestinians and pledging his "personal commitment" to reach such a peace,

and this clever display of the writers' liberal arts education:

Bush also presented a neo-Wilsonian view of the imperative to spread liberty and democracy in the world, [What, no quotes on liberty and freedom?] challenging a panoply of experts and diplomats who say a U.S. attack would foster instability and backlash. (Emphases on impressive vocabulary added.)

Come on, guys! Can the snotty attitude and dismissive asides and just report the story! If we wanted to be told what to think, we would have read the New York Times.

I'm so glad there's no bias in the media.