Summary Of Unlike His Brother By Peter Baker

In May of 2015 Peter Baker wrote an article for the New York Times titled Unlike His Brother, George W. Bush Stands by His Call to Invade Iraq, that questioned whether former President Bush, and a host of other individuals would still invade Iraq if they knew that there were no weapons of mass destruction. This articles uses the decision made by former President Bush to invade Iraq both as a means to portray the views of candidates for the 2016 presidential election, and as an attempt to justify Bush’s decisions many years after the fact. The justification presented in this article comes in the form of all the benefits given to mankind by not having a dictator such as Saddam Hussein still in power. Baker’s argument although sound, fails to recognize the possibility that there truly may have been weapons of mass

It is more focused on conveying the views of individuals and their political ramifications, rather than confronting the facts that were brought to lights only a year earlier by the same publication. This kind of writing is detrimental to history, because it chooses to skew the reader to one side rather than show both sides of the argument.
Only a year earlier another author by the name of C.J. Chivers also wrote an article for the New York Times titled The Secret Casualties of Iraq’s Abandoned Chemical Weapons which took first hand accounts of soldiers running into caches of chemical weapons buried in Iraq that date back to Saddam’s reign. In this article it states there are at the least six incidents in which soldier came into contact with chemical weapons caches and needed to be brought into a hospital for treatment. These six times multiple individuals