Disarming Iraq [The NYT editors support GW's tough stance; and blast France, Blix, et al.]

The New York Times ^ | Saturday. Feb. 15, 2003 | NYT Editorial Board

[summer]

Disarming Iraq

As much as the feuding members of the United Nations Security Council might like Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei to settle the question of war or peace with Iraq, these two mild-mannered civil servants can't make that fateful judgment. All they can do, which they did again yesterday, is to tell the Council how their inspection efforts are faring. So-so was the answer.

It's up to the Council members — especially the veto-wielding quintet of the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China — to decide whether Iraq is disarming. In our judgment, Iraq is not.

The only way short of war to get Saddam Hussein to reverse course at this late hour is to make clear that the Security Council is united in its determination to disarm him and is now ready to call in the cavalry to get the job done. America and Britain are prepared to take that step. The time has come for the others to quit pretending that inspections alone are the solution.

The Security Council, as we said the other day, needs to pass a new resolution that sets a deadline for unconditional Iraqi compliance and authorizes military action if Baghdad falls short. Without that, the French proposal that Mr. Blix and Dr. ElBaradei report again in mid-March is the diplomatic equivalent of treading water. It practically invites President Bush to take the undesirable step of going to war without the support of the Security Council.

Just as they did last month, the inspectors offered a mixed picture that allowed all sides to draw sustenance for their arguments. What should not be missed is that the positive aspects of the reports dealt largely with secondary matters like process and access. On the essential issue of active Iraqi cooperation in the disclosure and destruction of prohibited unconventional weapons, the inspectors could find little encouraging to say.

That leaves the fundamental picture about where it was last weekend, except that another week has passed without Iraq doing what it urgently needs to do. It's easy to see where France's wishful thinking leads. Baghdad could continue dribbling out meaningless concessions such as yesterday's laughable decree that the development of weapons of mass destruction is now prohibited in Iraq.

Mr. Blix and Dr. ElBaradei cannot be left to play games of hide-and-seek. This is not like Washington's unproved assertions about an alliance between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. There is ample evidence that Iraq has produced highly toxic VX nerve gas and anthrax and has the capacity to produce a lot more. It has concealed these materials, lied about them, and more recently failed to account for them to the current inspectors. The Security Council doesn't need to sit through more months of inconclusive reports. It needs full and immediate Iraqi disarmament. It needs to say so, backed by the threat of military force.

[pkpjamestown]

"Whoever conquers a free town and does not demolish it commits a great error and may expect to be ruined himself."

-- Niccolo Machiavelli, "The Prince," 1513

[dennisw]

I read that editorial earlier and thought I had mistakenly hit the button for the NY Post or something. What's gotten into the Times? This is a complete turnaround for them.

NYTimes remains perfidious and unAmerican. Here they're just going with flow. Why, I don't know or care.

You best believe they'll continued to slant the news they carry and toe the liberal Democrat mouthpiece line by omission and by commission

 

[libertylover]

Do the French take their marching orders from the NYT? It'll be curious to see if the French and the Democrats change their tune. Dashcle was still pretty much pro-saddam as of yesterday, Liberman was not.

[JohnHuang2]

hehehehe

[ricpic]

"Maybe they want to live to print another day."


Bingo! Nothing like the threat to you and me, not that guy behind the tree, to clarify the mind.

[syriacus]

Maybe Aziz's public expression of anti-semitism, yesterday, did the trick.

The Jews of Iraq [Iraqi anti-semitism]

[mewzilla]

The worm has turned...

[speedy]

Punch Sulzberger must be taking the long weekend off and one of the guys in the ad display section snuck in and wrote this.

[alnick]

The Old Gray Whore is doing penance for its sins against Agusta National.

Dennis Miller said that the way to get the NYT on board is for Saddam to open an all-male golf club.

[NewLand]

"What's gotten into the Times?"

That's easy. The New York City and national Jewish readership.

It is sad that so many Jewish people in the US still count themselves as D-Rats...when their party is openly betraying them on Israel, Palestinians, Iraq, etc.

On this issue, war with Iraq, the majority of American Jews fear Saddam and thus support military action, although not necessarily President Bush. Figure that out!

In summary, The NYT is merely bending, not changing, based on a single issue from a single, but significant, constituency.

[Jim Noble]

New York, February 15, 2003 (Reuters):

In a stunning climatic development, calling into question the entire global warming hypothesis, Hell froze over last night. Initial signs of the big Hadean freezeup were noted on West 43rd Street, where the New York Times editorial board endorsed the Bush Administration view of war in Iraq.

[CatoRenasci]

This is positive. What I think it means is that The New York Times owners realize that further opposition to the war will see (1) The Washington Post replace the Times as the newspaper of record in this country (IMHO, it should be the Washington Times) and (2) the administration really shutting down the Times' access to government.

[TwoStep]

What a nice surprise! **Bump**

[WOSG]

I think the NY TIMES has been "POWELLIZED".

It is said that a neo-conservative is a Liberal who's been mugged.

Powell got mugged by the French on this. He thought he could make he UN act sereiously on this and force disarmament without war. He was wrong, because others like France would rather see US embarrassed than force Iraq to disarm.

The NYTimes is similarly embarrassed. They advocated this UN path since August. When Bush/Powell got 1441, they arogantly said that they were glad Bush/Powell came around to their view. Now the strategy has come a cropper because of the feckless members of UN security council who deep down really dont care about Iraq's WMD program, who would rather continue a farce than force the issue (and risk war). The NYT needs to save their own face by reminding the UN to force disarmament.

Since Bush has only mentioned this about a dozen times since semptember 12, 2002, i doubt their words will matter now.

It is a good sign for US unity on this, as NYTimes tells brainless Democrats what to think. We will go to war, and for good reason.

[Amerigomag]

Being of the tinfoil hat mind set the jury is still out for me.

Placing a "balance" editorial comment of a Saturday morning is an old publishing ploy.

I'll wait until after the talking heads chew over the editorial on Sunday morning and then evaluate how the Gray Lady responds next week.

[scriblett]

so do I, but they are not: check this out for extreme left wing anti US raving:

http://discuss.50plus.com/ubb/Forum45/HTML/000321.html

check out the other threads..sometimes I think I'm not in Kansas anymore. In one thread, they are now saying that there is no proof that Saddam gassed the Kurds...
I'm surprised that you guys are not out there rebutting this crap.

[RJL]

They had to decide between rescuing an enemy of the US or rescuing the UN. They chose the UN. I'm sure it wasn't an easy choice for them.

I think you nailed it here.

[WOSG]

Thanks for the link.

Very sobering.

[skinkinthegrass]

DO you remember the movie "INVASION (sp?)OF THE BODY SNATHERS." -1961?...Who is controlling him...logic and/or fear? :)

[skinkinthegrass]

The NYT have shown that they'll revert to form... anti-american/pro-liberal DNC Bootlickers...or worse.