Replies

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

Maybe they want to live to print another day.

I think even some of the lefties are beginning to realize that Saddam is not just some nut "over there" torturing his own people, but that he has big-time aspirations. I wish other lefties would have this same revelation.

"What's gotten into the Times?"

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 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

"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.

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.

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!