Intellectual Confusion on Terror(NY Times & the Middle East)

The Washington Times ^ | July 23, 2006 | staff

[kellynla]

Two days ago, the New York Times suggested an out-of-character response to dealing with the crisis in the Middle East should the U.N. Security Council fail to enforce Resolution 1559, which requires Hezbollah to disarm. "If the Security Council isn't willing to issue such explicit demands or link them to clear punishments," the paper editorialized, "the United States, Europe and key Arab allies, who are also eager to see the fighting and Hezbollah contained, will have to bring serious pressure on their own." Of course, the editorial continued, "[t]he United States will have to take the lead."

The NYT's argument that the United States may be forced to assemble and lead a coalition if the Security Council fails to act represents a remarkable change in perspective from just three years ago.

This is the same editorial page, after all, that claimed in March 2003 that it was "persuaded of the vital need to disarm Iraq. But it is a process that should go through the United Nations." The Times consistently chided President Bush for not being more patient with the United Nations, even when it became clear that no action could be expected from the Security Council. It's curious that the Times predicated the necessary action to resolve one dangerous situation on U.N. approval (an editorial, also in March 2003, declared that "[t]he threat of force... should not give way to the use of force until peaceful paths to Iraqi disarmament have been exhausted and the Security Council gives its assent to war") but is now willing to wave that condition in order to deal with Hezbollah. Friday's editorial fails to explain why the Times believes two situations should be handled so differently.

The editorial is correct, however,

[Samwise]

Rule 1 of Liberalism:

Facts, logic, and consistency are irrelevant.

Rule 2 of Liberalism:

Whatever Bush does is wrong.

[johnny7]

Rule 3 of Liberalism:

Don't sweat the mistakes... the MSM will always cover for you.

[sgtbono2002]

If the US did what the NYT suggests, They would be the first to turn on the Administration for doing it.

[rbmillerjr]

NYTimes: "If the Security Council isn't willing to issue such explicit demands or link them to clear punishments," the paper editorialized,..." Of course, the editorial continued, "[t]he United States will have to take the lead."

Hmm clear punishments...do they mean sort of like when Iraq violated about 85 UN Resolutions over a decade...and how the US took the lead for clear punishment...???

[Samwise]

We should write a book.

[coconutt2000]

"If the Security Council isn't willing to issue such explicit demands or link them to clear punishments," the paper editorialized, "the United States, Europe and key Arab allies, who are also eager to see the fighting and Hezbollah contained, will have to bring serious pressure on their own." Of course, the editorial continued, "[t]he United States will have to take the lead."

At first glance, I'd think that the NYTs was talking about the U.S. and our allies put the pressure on the terrorists. But knowing what I know about the NYTs, they're probably talking about the U.S., the Arab nations, and our Western allies putting pressure on Israel, up to and including punishing Israel.

Which wouldn't at all be inconsistent with the NYTs.