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.