The New York Times responds

The New York Times responds to Colin Powell’s U.N. presentation by admitting that the Administration has been right about Iraq all along: Powell “offered stark evidence that Mr. Hussein has not only failed to cooperate with the inspectors, as Resolution 1441 requires him to, but has actively sought to thwart them.” (The Times terms the evidence of Iraq’s links to al Qaeda “more tenuous,” but doesn’t explain why.)
However, admitting the Administration is right on the facts doesn’t sway the Times from its commitment to U.N. supremacy: “As the crisis builds, [President Bush] should make every possible effort to let the council take the lead….Because the consequences of war are so terrible, and the cost of rebuilding Iraq so great, the United States cannot afford to confront Iraq without broad international support.” Which means, apparently, that no matter how evident a threat to the security of the United States may be, France, Russia and China all have veto rights over our ability to do anything about it. The Times doesn’t try to explain why this principle makes sense, or why it never applied to the Clinton Administration.

Responses

Books to read from Power Line