Facing Down Iraq (NY Times supports US-UK resolution!)

NY Times ^ | 2/25/03 | Op Ed

[finnman69]

Any lingering confusion about the fault line in the United Nations Security Council was erased yesterday by new American and French initiatives on Iraq. The United States wants a new resolution reaffirming the conclusion that Iraq has failed to disarm, effectively opening the way to a war sanctioned by the U.N. France, supported by Germany and Russia, prefers to give Hans Blix and his inspectors more time to see if they can disarm Iraq. The American resolution, introduced by Britain, deserves the Security Council's support.

A Council visibly moving toward authorizing force is the last remote hope of getting Iraq to disarm peacefully. Saddam Hussein reinforced that point himself yesterday by telling Dan Rather of CBS News that Iraqi missiles do not violate U.N. restrictions. That suggests he does not plan to carry out Mr. Blix's order to destroy missiles that exceed performance limits set by the U.N.

Winning majority support for this resolution and avoiding a veto will take deft diplomacy. Among the Security Council's 15 members, only the United States, Britain, Spain and Bulgaria have so far indicated their support. Wisely, Washington and London have decided not to push for a quick decision. Instead they are aiming for a vote by the second week in March. That will give hesitant Council members a further chance to gauge Iraqi conduct on core issues, starting with Baghdad's response to Mr. Blix's unambiguous instruction to begin destroying its illegal missiles by the end of this week.

The Security Council's previous resolution, last fall, opened two possible paths to disarming Iraq. One was peaceful, the other military. Regrettably, Iraq has let three crucial months go by without grasping what is clearly its last chance for peaceful disarmament. Instead of showing the inspectors its illegal weapons material and projects and cooperating in their destruction, as required, Baghdad has offered no meaningful cooperation.

It seems inconceivable that without the pressure of this latest resolution, Iraq will reverse itself and disarm. Yet that is the underlying assumption of the latest proposal by France, Russia and Germany. In the face of Baghdad's stonewalling, the Council needs to reunite and stand behind its firm warnings of last fall. What's needed is not more time but an entirely different attitude from Iraq.

[finnman69]

Hell has frozen over.

[PhiKapMom]

No kidding hell has frozen over! This is astounding from the NY Times!

[facedown]

I believe this is just CYA so that the Slimes can dump on W when the action begins. "Oh, we were all for this but Dumbya's doing it all wrong".

[PhiKapMom]

You are probably right but even supporting the resolution was a shock to my system! I figured they would side with the French!

[finnman69]

The Slimes can read the writing on the wall.

[over3Owithabrain]

Uhm, the NY Slimes isn't calling for war, they are merely saying this resolution will help Saddam get the message to disarm, thus allowing for many more moons to drag this out. In fact, this resolution does allow for that -it purposely left out a military option. It's bullcrap and the Times knows it - they like the fact that this charade is dragging out and embarassing Bush. If the resolution had any real teeth and called for war, they would not support it.

[Cap Huff]

This is a shocker! Someone on another thread, I don't remember who or where, said that this was likely the Times telling Dems that it would be very smart of them to get on board as quickly as possible. At the moment this is the only explanation that seems really plausible to me.

[Maceman]

Personally, I am rooting for a French veto. Destroying the UN is, IMHO, a very favorable and desirable outcome.

[Cicero]

They are calling on the French to support the resolution, but they are also calling on Bush, implicitly, to wait for the resolution to pass before going to war. So this is partly cover-your-ass, and it's partly more delaying tactics.

What's to stop the Security Council from taking their time debating? And what's to stop people from then demanding a third resolution before we act?

Duplicitous.

[PhiKapMom]

That explanation is as good as any! Being on the same side as the NY Times is not a comfortable feeling I must admit!

[HumanaeVitae]

I hope the "conservative media" (yeah right) doesn't let the NYT get off scott free on this humiliating climbdown on Iraq--especially after they led the charge against military action.

[HumanaeVitae]

Personally, I am rooting for a French veto. Destroying the UN is, IMHO, a very favorable and desirable outcome.

Your lips to Frogs' ears, maceman...

[Cap Huff]

Yep. The NY Times is the queen bee of the hive, and she's doing a dance for her worker bees and drones. If I'm right, we'll start to see more momentary buzzing to save the hive.

[conservativecorner]

BUMP!!

[Calpublican]

Will wonders, as they say, never cease.

With the recent nonsense and nonthinking emanating from the Left, it's good to see that the NYT editorial staff, at least in part, is doing some clear, logical thinking on this subject.

[colorado tanker]

The only explanation is alien abduction. Where's my tin foil?

[Snowy]

[RooRoobird14]

Rut Roah.

There's been a disturbance in The Force.

Actually, the NYT has probably concluded that "resistance is futile" at this point--they don't want to be on the losing side of this argument when Bush whips Sodomite Hussein's @ss. They've apparently decided to do a Rosie Perez "home stretch sprint" at the Boston Marathon (I think that was her name---you know, the chick who rode a cab for most of the Boston Marathon, then got out and ran the last quarter mile & claimed victory? ROTFLOL!)

[lesbianseagull]

Come on people - we NEED the UN. How else can we spell UNilateral?