This was the subject of an interesting debate that Daniel Drezner decided. For those that want to read the debates first without knowing who won, read the first four links. For the final decision as to who won click the fifth link at the bottom. As far as bias is concerned, Drezner was an unpaid advisor to Cheney in the presidential election.

"Note what Holsclaw and Schwarz were not debating:

"Bush lied." -- What was in dispute was rhetoric and not intent -- so I ignored all the various hypotheses both authors proffered about why the administration did what it did.

"We only went to war because Bush said there was an imminent threat." That's patently false, but whether the Bush administration made other arguments justifying the use of force is irrelevant to the question of whether an imminent threat argument was used.

"The administration implied there was an imminent threat." To argue is to use the active voice to make a positive argument. To hint at something, or fail to correct misperceptions made by others, is not quite the same thing."

The post-war debate about the pre-war rhetoric -- part I
The post-war debate about the pre-war rhetoric -- part II
The post-war debate about the pre-war rhetoric -- part III
The post-war debate on the pre-war rhetoric, part IV
The post-war debate about the pre-war rhetoric -- the final chapter!!
The post-war debate about the pre-war rhetoric -- my decision