My friend Dodd objects to the term "rush to war," noting, correctly, that Bush's repeat trips to the Security Council and protracted negotiations with allies like Turkey hardly seem "rushed."
Dodd has a point, but a commentator on Matthew Yglesias' blog summed up exactly what gives the term such resonance:
To me, the "rush to war" isn't about a schedule, it's about a state of mind, namely the fact that they had already decided when they started that there is going to be a war. The rest is just details.
That's a point I made in the comment thread to Dodd's post, when I conceded that "rush" isn't a technically accurate term; I tend to favor "march to war," because, as Craig pointed out in Mathterw's comment thread, it seems like Bush has long since decided on war, regardless of arguments, circumstances, developments, or consequences.
Dodd has a point when he says "it would rather have to seem inexorable for it to work as coercion...Bush's public stances would look the same whether he really wants to go to war no matter what the circumstances or is just determined to do so if he must," but it really boild sown to a matter of trust. As I've said, I don't trust this administration's motives, credibilty or competence WRT Iraq. It also presumes that the course Bush is leading us on is the one most closely aligned with our natinal interests, and given the fact that inspections have failed to reveal much in the way of an Iraqi WMD program--an certainly demonstrated that Saddam is much farther away from having nukes than the Preaident has suggested--I'm leaning toward the idea that invading Iraq is not going to be worth the cost in international goodwill if nothing else.
I still need to develop these thoughts with a couple of posts on my cost/benefit analysis and my alternatives...rest assured they will appear.