New York Times = France


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.

NEXT: You Want Fries with That Corporate Greed?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Does anyone remember a time when it was the “left-liberals” who supported the perpetual warfare state and American hegemony, and it was the Right that opposed foreign entanglements and Empire? As Rothbard pointed out, the so-called “New Right” results from Cold War Liberals like Truman and his ilk taking over the GOP.

    Believe it or not, there really WAS a time when “conservatism” didn’t equate to mindless cheerleading for the State and its wars. And there are some libertarians (who now apparently have to qualify themselves as paleo-libs) still around who DON’T trust the government.

  2. So… if Iraq is in violation of U.N. Security Council resolutions….
    and the U.N. doesn’t want to do anything about it…
    Where is the United State’s issue again?

    Oh yeah, he tried to kill daddy.

  3. >>”Even that knee-jerk stalwart Mary McGrory says she’s “persuaded” that war with Iraq may well be the only reasonable option.” — why don’t we start listening to the nation’s professional military class…people like Gen. Zinni, or Gen. Schwartzkopf, or the former head of the Australian military, Gen. Peter Gration. They all think that war with Iraq is dumb, that containment and Inspections make more sense for now. If I were Blix, my reaction to Powell wouldn’t be “send in the bombers”, but “let’s send a few inspectors down the road to track down that US concern”…why should we be listening to any warblogging pundits and armchair generals, whose increasingly shrill pronouncements and lust for war can usually be safely disregarded?

  4. is this piece a joke?

  5. EMAIL:
    DATE: 01/21/2004 07:24:09
    We are the master of

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.