I have read him each week for the past few months & formed the opinion that he doesn't do really deep research & is trying to tread a narrow line between honesty & not offending his editor-in-chief & the Republican admin.
His characterization of Hussien regiem is partly fair but also partly propaganda detail.
I know he is concerned about how the US is being seen by others. He does travel & he does seek to probe.
I will add more comments here as I digest more of the article (only got 1/4 way thru at this point.
##2
The 2nd & 3rd parts of the article are interesting. Parts are worth debating with him. In essence what I read as his botom line is my own argument that Bush-Cheney & Rumzfeldt have screwed up in handling their mission & that yes the US & its citizens will be in for a torrid time unless there is quick progress in restoring Iraq & finding a satisfactory settlement to the Palestinian question
This bit is interesting
>>
Yet none of these actions seems to earn him any good will. The reason for this is plain. In almost every case, the administration comes to multilateralism grudgingly, reluctantly, and with a transparent lack of sincerity. For a year now, President Bush has dismissed the notion that he should make any effort toward a Middle East peace process, even though it would have defused some of the anti-Americanism in the region as he sought to confront Iraq. Suddenly last week, to gain allies on Iraq and at the insistence of Tony Blair, Bush made a belated gesture toward the peace process. Is it surprising that people are not hailing this last-minute conversion?
<<
Doug