An ominous editorial fissure as opened between the two leading organs of establishment opinion in the United States, the New York Times and the Washington Post. The New York Times' editors declare, "The Security Council, the American people, and the rest of the world have an obligation to study Mr. Powell's presentation very closely and very seriously." This ostrich-head-in-sand position is favored by France and Russia. Meanwhile, the Washington Post declares Powell's presentation "irrefutable" and warns that if the Security Council does not authorize military action against Iraq then, "[b]y choosing such a course, the Security Council would send Saddam Hussein the message that it remains the ineffectual body that shrank from enforcing 16 previous resolutions." The Times seems to falling behind left-liberal opinion here. Even that knee-jerk stalwart Mary McGrory says she's "persuaded" that war with Iraq may well be the only reasonable option.
The FBI Returned This Innocent Couple's Safe Deposit Box. It Refuses To Give Back Many Others—and Is Trying To Seize $85 Million in Cash.
"It makes me feel like the government is preying on the vulnerable and the weak to line their own pockets."
Indiana Said the Government Should Be Able To Take Everything You Own if You Commit a Drug Crime. The State Supreme Court Wasn't Having It.
After eight years, Tyson Timbs finally gets to keep his Land Rover—once and for all.
Why is it so hard for him to just admit he was wrong?
Arkansas cops love this insane practice they call "precision immobilization technique"—slamming into moving vehicles, sometimes over simple traffic stops.