Who is doing the posturing and could it be that some have principles.
(from Feb. 6th, 2003)

William Safire had a seemingly brilliant piece, "It’s better to err on the side of Iraq hawks" covering the "I told you so" posturing that will occur "post-war". His conclusion is indeed very serious, reflecting the benefits or casualties that will occur, if either side is wrong.

However his analysis reflects a bias in two ways. His assumption that this occurs post-war, and his characterizations and breaking down. He assumes that "Iraq hawks" will prevail and that those who "express reservations about removing him from power at this particular moment, or without U.N. approval" will fail. Hence allowing him to put the ifs on the side of the opposition and more certainty if not flexibility on the side of his argument. It could not help but have a justified point, the way he has postured.

The characterizations are further misconstrued. Given the assumptions it is fine to leave "hawks" as is, but those who have "reservations"? The many views that are held in opposition to the war are reflected throughout his argument. The concern that war be "at this particular moment" and "without U.N. approval" does not seem to be addressed. If this were not confusing enough, his thinking hints at the argument that one would be better off without the other. Post-war it would only make sense that some will hold on to their principles and appear as posturing. But pre-war where would the "hawks" be without the "opposition"? Will those willing to work for peace get anywhere with "hawks" that won’t address notions of patience or approval?