Write 5 pages with APA style on Newspaper’s editorial evaluation. Bush’s repeated and emphatic claim that Hussein had already developed WMDs, which he possessed and was prepared to use-a bogus claim that the mainstream media, led by the Times’ own Judith Miller, largely accepted as an article of faith and bolstered with credulous reports based on faulty information.The purpose of this editorial article of the New York Times is to convince the audience that the revision of stance by the New York Times with respect to the Iraq War does not absolve them from the culpability of misleading their readers of their initial position. The editorial article attempts to show that the arguments expounded by President Bush that Iraq had nuclear weapons were not compelling. There are other ways to prove and investigate to determine if Iraq indeed had nuclear weapons.The argument appeared as an opinion piece in the New York Times and is written in a familiar style appropriate to that context. The style is formal and the author rarely adopted emotionally charged language, writing in a mostly composed, brief and judicious style. Its simplicity and clarity is a veritable proof of strength of the argument, since many readers will have varied views on the Iraq War. This text was written in a respectful way that will not annoy the key officials of the Bush Administration.The use of persuasive language is well-defined and well-chosen. The argument is neither bombastic nor incendiary in its approach of the subject matter. For instance, the use of the phrase “Iraqi WMDs as a “possibility” is a way of making the mistake of NYT stand on the Iraq War less horrendous.

The main argument has three premises. The first two premises present the stand of President George Bush, the UN Security Council, former British Prime Minister Tony Blair and the New York Times on the justification for the invasion of Iraq. The third premise focused on the change of stand by the NYT on the Iraq War brought about by the lack of physical evidence of the Weapons of Mass Destruction WMD). This is a positive premise since the article bases its argument on the subsequent UN reports on the presence of WMD in Iraq.

However, these three premises are still weak. They do not support the conclusion that NYT and US President George Bush are culpable for their stand.