Perspective from the 19^th Hole is the title I chose for my personal blog, which is meant to give me an outlet for one of my favorite crafts – writing – plus to use an image from my favorite sport, golf.  Out of college, my first job was as a reporter for the Daily Astorian in Astoria, Oregon, and I went on from there to practice writing in all my professional positions, including as press secretary in Washington, D.C. for a Democrat Congressman from Oregon (Les AuCoin), as an Oregon state government manager in Salem and Portland, as press secretary for Oregon’s last Republican governor (Vic Atiyeh), and as a private sector lobbyist.  This blog also allows me to link another favorite pastime – politics and the art of developing public policy – to what I write.  I could have called this blog “Middle Ground,” for that is what I long for in both politics and golf.  The middle ground is often where the best public policy decisions lie.  And it is where you want to be on a golf course.

In what he said was his final effort before retiring from the New York Times, long-time columnist Paul Krugman wrote this as he tried to understand the difference between optimism 20 years ago and resentment today:

“Back in 2002 and ’03, those of us who argued that the case for invading Iraq was fundamentally fraudulent received a lot of pushback from people refusing to believe that an American president would do such a thing.  Who would say that now?”

Now, I know what follows does not deal directly with Krugman’s column.  He is concerned about what fuels so much resentment and discord. 

My point, however, is to take what he wrote and, then, highlight the difference between the benefits of hindsight and the reality of the information you had at the time when you had to make a decision.

Regarding Iraq:  I would not find fault with the decision by President George W. Bush to look for weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.  Based on the information he had at the time, including intelligence from reputable officials working for him, he made the best decision he could make.

It is easy to look back at Bush’s decision to invade Iraq and say it was a mistake because, of course, weapons of mass destruction were not found.

True — and none other than Bush himself, in hindsight, has admitted his error.

But, for me, this highlights a still-active tendency:  Look back and criticize decisions any public official has made based on new information.  But, if you look at the facts and perceptions available at the time of the decision, you might have made the same decision yourself.

Am I biased as I write this?  Yes.

I worked in government for about 15 years, including in relatively high-profile positions.  All of us made the best decisions we could at the time based on the information we had at the time, though we also knew that later, when analysts and critics had more information, they might find fault with those decisions.

For me and my colleagues, the stakes were not as high as they were with the “weapons of mass destruction” issue facing Bush, but they still were important.

So, I say two things:

• Give government officials room to make decisions based on the information they have at the time of the decision.

• And, if by hindsight, you criticize those decisions, give those officials credit for doing they best they could at the time.