The summary:
A war can be lost because public opinion turns against its continued prosecution. The New York Times – the self-described “newspaper of record” – is among the world’s most influential opinion leaders. As shown by the cited quotations, the newspaper’s stance on Iraq underwent a complete transformation during the decade separating 1993 and 2003. While its editors never lost their fear of Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD), their prescription for countering the threat posed by the weapons was altered beyond recognition. In 1993, by arguing that cease-fire violations nullified U.N. protection, the Times affirmed the right of a victorious party to resume hostilities at its sole discretion if the party it defeated did not abide by the terms of the agreement to which it affixed its signature. Ten years later, the Times reversed its stance, asserting that the United States should not go to war without the approval of the United Nations. In so doing, the Times implicitly argued that going to war with the approval of a multilateral institution took precedence over the use of military force to expeditiously eliminate the threat posed by Iraq’s WMD.
Unless somebody want to argue that Iraq evolved from a Saddam-led threat to a happy kite-flying paradise over those ten years (I mean other than Michael Moore--may his Twinkies always have dried cream fillings), the only fact that changed is that a Republican rather than a Democrat called Saddam's Iraq a threat.
On the bright side, I do wonder how much longer the NYT will be the self-styled paper of record. I find that since they put up the Great Wall of the Times to protect their columnists from the criticism of the pajama-clad hordes, I hardly ever even read their news. I used to read some of their columnists (though never that economist fellow--his name is honestly escaping me) and then read the news as long as I was there. Without the draw of at least Brookes, I don't even read the news. I wonder if this is a common reaction?
But how you can call this evolution of opinion other than shamefully partisan is beyond me.
Krugman! Ah, my memory isn't failing. I remembered before I hit "publish post." Man, he is an idiot. Far worse than Frank Rich. I mean, Rich is the guy who comments on plays for goodness sake, who can take him seriously?
