Are We Still Arguing About This? Part II

A certain John S. Koppel writes a letter to The New York Times Sunday Book Review opposing the war in Iraq. Ho hum. What is interesting is why he's opposed. Not because he thinks it's turned out badly (I guess that's just a given to him) but because BUSH LIED! He then gives the whole laundry list of why we didn't go in to bring Democracy to Iraq; most of his arguments are either meaningless or long-disproven, and he doesn't address the nagging point that Bush et al argued for Democracy by name many times before the war started.

Are we still gonna argue this? Imagine if I said that only reason John S. Koppel writes letters is when he's published in The New York Times, he can lay the Book Review on his coffee table, open to the appropriate page, and impress women he invites over. Would this mean because he writes letters for the wrong reason that their content can't possibly be any good? No, you actually have to read them to refute them (or, more likely, understand they refute themselves).