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.

[WOSG]

you say "I am surprised you are not rebutting this stuff"
hey, I wrote a rebuttal, then found out you cant post without signing up for their '50plus' club, which is screensful of personal data input. gag. ... well here is the rebuttal to yorkmember, unsent:

-----

you obviously live on fear and not on facts nor reason. Bush and the US government is about to liberate Iraq from a tyrant that has developed weapons of mass destruction, used them to committ genocide on nearly a million Kurds, warred against 2 nations, attempted to control the worlds' oil, engages in brutal repression through torture, kills political opponen
Saddam does all this, and has aided, abetted, harbored and trained terrorists to boot. And - no, you dont feat this man, nor the men who had Ricin in Manchester, nor the terrorist-loving tyrants like Mugabe, Castro, Saddam or North Korea's Kim il sun - no, you fear the leader of the country that has done more than any other nation on earth to defend freedom, democracy and human rights. It makes one wonder what you really fear, our power or our ideals actually triumphing?

[billl]

I read this editorial this AM and was shocked. I posted this at that time after I couldn't find it on FR. Got locked as a dup about 5 mins later. Here it is just to keep in the thread ...

I get this rag delivered every day - so my wife can do the crossword puzzle. Otherwise I just pick the science times out of the recycling at the train station on Tuesdays. Since I wrote them off long ago, when I opened to the back editorial page today I expected to laugh at their weasel-words. Instead they say the UN better be serious or else George will do it. Interesting.

Wait - they haven't disappointed me - the front page of the Travel Section is all about going to Paris and there is a big picture of the Arab Institute!
Maybe they are being ironic or they assume it is the responsibility of the right-thinking to support their Allies in this dark time - bwahahahaha !

[The Electrician]

this is because the real Times, (not the kitty litter one) in London, really blasted the whole farce.

By any chance do you have a link to that?

[RobFromGa]

Great 2 cents, JH2.

Any day now the Yanks will liberate Iraq.

[Grampa Dave]

The last check that the NY Slimes got from their cash cow, Soddomite must have bounced or is it snowing in hell with this editorial?

[pgkdan]

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.

Nonsense. While I'll admit that this is tough talk for the panty waists at the NYT, but the for deadlines and threats has passed. That boat sailed a long time ago.

The Security Council gave Iraq the kind of deadline the NYT is talking about here...they had 90 days to disarm, in 1991...by my reckoning more than 4,015 days have past since that deadline expired and we're still looking at a chemically and biologically armed Iraq.

President Bush is right, it's time for action and the UN can step up to the plate or they can fade into oblivion. My guess is that they've got less than 2 weeks to make up their minds.

[RobFromGa]

Insecurity Council (London Times)

I think this is the London Times op-ed piece he was referring to.

[pgkdan]

What's gotten into the Times? This is a complete turnaround for them.

No it's not. Not really, they're still hoping to tie President Bush's hands with a new resolution, giving Saddam a new deadline...maybe 90 days. That would put us in to the summer when action in chemical suits would be impossible, so in effect it would put the action off for the rest of this year until at least October or November and by then our attention might be rivetted elsewhere and this damn thing never ends!

[Southack]

No Grampa, this is a Saturday trial balloon for the Left to see if it is a better idea to run on the "Bush isn't warlike enough" platform rather than on the tired old "Bush is rushing too fast into war" program (that seems to have stalled ever since someone on the Left figured out that Bush has been pursuing diplomacy in Iraq for more than a year now).

[mware]

Morning summer,

This is astounding coming from the NYT.

[pgkdan]

Dennis Miller said that the way to get the NYT....

Miller was brilliant on Donna-who? last week! I tried to get on to Free Republic while it was on but couldn't log on/ I was very impressed with the sharpness of his thinking, his grasp of the essentials and his familiarity of the facts. He was sharp! A little potty mouthed, but sharp. And BTW...the point he made about f'ing the sheep was exactly spot on.

[Travis McGee]

Only UNamericans put the UN before America!

[VRWC_minion]

Memo to self: Rethink my posistion on Iraq.

[broomhilda]

Perhaps New Yorkers feel differently about things since 9/11

[livius]

I'm surprised that you guys are not out there rebutting this crap.

I think a lot of people have been caught off-guard by the left, particularly its level of organization. I went to my City Council meeting to object to a proposal to proclaim Gainesville a "peaceful city," and found that some 700 people organized by left-wing groups had turned up. Those of us who spoke against the resolution were few and not organized - just individuals who had read about this and were opposed to it.

We did succeed in getting the City Council to decide not to vote on the resolution (although this didn't stop the organizers from adding Gainesville to the list of "peaceful cities" on their website anyway). But I realized then that somehow, the pro-American side has got to get better organized. I'm not sure where to start, but I thought maybe I'd contact the local Republican party chairman, who spoke at the meeting, and see if he has any ideas.

[JohnHuang2]

Thank you, friend -- and Good mornin' to ya from Florida.

[headsonpikes]

Your 'chose the U.N.' post #5 is my nominee for post of the day.

Bravo! ;^)

[CyberAnt]

THE NYT - are there pigs flying anywhere ...??

[summer]

Thanks for your post on this thread. I was not really surprised to read this editorial, as there have been prior editorials in the NYT, from non-GOP writers, taking a pro-war stance. One recent column, posted here on FR, was titled something like "I Can't-Believe-IO'm-In-The-Hawks-Club."

There seems to be two distinct conclusions being reached by people who are not pro-Bush, and that is (1) either we go to war or we engage in wishful thinking; and (2) either we go to war or we do one of many, other, numerous, worthy actions, none of which are wishful thinking.

This is pretty much how Howard Dean, a Dem prez candidate and the governor from Vermont, also deliniated the on -going debate, as he took issue with Rumsfeld implying there is nothing else we can do but go to war.

I happened to think Dean and all those who agree with him are wrong in this debate. What they are characterizing as a list of many, other, useful, non-war remedies, is, in fact, wishful thinking. And, the NYT writers and RUmsfeld are both correct. After 11 years of waiting, and this current dance around the UN Security Council, we are simply being played for fools by Iraq.

[summer]

Thanks for your post on this thread. I was not really surprised to read this editorial, as there have been prior editorials in the NYT, from non-GOP writers, taking a pro-war stance. One recent column, posted here on FR, was titled something like "I Can't-Believe-I'm-In-The-Hawks-Club."

There seems to be two distinct conclusions being reached by people who are not pro-Bush, and that is (1) either we go to war or we engage in wishful thinking; and (2) either we go to war or we do one of many, other, numerous, worthy actions, none of which are wishful thinking.

This is pretty much how Howard Dean, a Dem prez candidate and the governor from Vermont, also deliniated the on -going debate, as he took issue with Rumsfeld implying there is nothing else we can do but go to war.

I happened to think Dean and all those who agree with him are wrong in this debate. What they are characterizing as a list of many, other, useful, non-war remedies, is, in fact, wishful thinking. And, the NYT writers and RUmsfeld are both correct. After 11 years of waiting, and this current dance around the UN Security Council, we are simply being played for fools by Iraq.