Washington Post endorses Bush Doctrine (Hell Freezing Over?)

The Washington Post ^ | Feb 5, 2003

[11th_VA]

'Mr. Clinton said while he still occupied the White House. "If we fail to respond today, Saddam, and all those who would follow in his footsteps, will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity, even in the face of a clear message from the United Nations Security Council.'

Yet Mr. Clinton did fail to respond. Saddam Hussein had four years to strengthen his arsenal, even as the sanctions effectively collapsed.

'War is never to be welcomed. But a decade of failed diplomacy and containment has brought the nation and its allies to a point where war may soon be the only credible option for ending the threat of Saddam Hussein.'

[11th_VA]

Whoa ... is this a dream ?

[Semper Paratus]

The Washington Post is now to the right of the democratic party.

Kate Graham would really get her T**S in wringer over this.

[Huck]

President Bush's move toward action on Iraq has not been a bolt from the blue or a departure from past U.S. policy, though the administration's clumsy handling of its arguments and allies has sometimes made it look that way. Nor must it be seen as an exercise in Mr. Bush's new doctrine of preemption, though ideologues on both sides would portray it as such. Rather, it is the completion of a vital mission of international security repeatedly confirmed by the U.N. Security Council, by a Democratic president and by bipartisan majorities of Congress.

Nope. It's not a dream. It's spin.

[stocksthatgoup]

Now that hell has frozen over ....... we can all walk on water. Sweet Jesus!!!!

[billorites]

Teddy's gonna have to pour a stiff one when he reads this.

[Keith in Iowa]

I don't know about hell freezing over...but this does explain the winged swine flitting about the sky...

[skinkinthegrass]

Whoa ... is this a dream ?

NO...Ice water, Soft-serve ice cream & Ice Skating are now Available ih Hell :-)

[billorites]

mon Dieu!

[anniegetyourgun]

"President Bush's move toward action on Iraq has not been a bolt from the blue or a departure from past U.S. policy...

The article even mentions "a decade of failed diplomacy"....PINCH ME!

[Arkie2]

I see your point. They attempt to portray it as a continuation of Clinton's policy. Trying to get the Dims on the right side of the equation before it's to late.

[stocksthatgoup]

[Keith in Iowa]

[jigsaw]

....this does explain the winged swine flitting about the sky...

Has Hillary™ begun campaigning in Iowa already?

[Russ]

The New York Times is going to be sooooo mad at them!!

[skinkinthegrass]

Your Right...after reading the article in total...'Rat spin control, thougth it was too good to true :-(

[Catspaw]

I think there was a previous WP editorial that held this same position (and it was stunning to me then) in the past couple weeks. If it's not in the paid archives, I'll see if I can find it.

[cpdiii]

It really means that the Post has gotten acess (probably from the White House) about some really bad s--t in Iraq and they want to be on the right side of this when it becomes public. Look for the LA Times and NY Times to be on board in a couple of days.

[Boot Hill]

--Boot

[MinuteGal]

Don't everybody get all excited and bemused. The Washington Compost finally connected the dots. It's trying to save the United Nations, not President Bush's policy. If Saddam and terrorism survive, the UN becomes more useless than it is. Simple as that. Our president did a brilliant job of tying one with the other a long time ago.

Leni

[Catspaw]

Here's the URL to the editorials on the WP's special report on Iraq. They've been pretty consistent:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/world/mideast/gulf/iraq/editorial/