« Media as Weapon, not Theatre | Main | Law Review Online »
November 15, 2005
The Old, Gray Lady Has Alzheimer's
The New York Times continues to rewrite the history of how the war began.
The White House continues to set the record straight.
Meanwhile Robert Kagan at the Washington Post reminds us of where the NYT editorial page stood on Iraq and WMD between 1998-2000. The significance of these years? It was after weapons inspectors left Iraq and before George W. Bush was elected.
From 1998 through 2000, the Times editorial page warned that "without further outside intervention, Iraq should be able to rebuild weapons and missile plants within a year" and that "future military attacks may be required to diminish the arsenal again." Otherwise, Iraq could "restore its ability to deliver biological and chemical weapons against potential targets in the Middle East." "The world," it said, "cannot leave Mr. Hussein free to manufacture horrific germs and nerve gases and use them to terrorize neighboring countries."
Times editorials insisted the danger from Iraq was imminent. When the Clinton administration attempted to negotiate, they warned against letting "diplomacy drift into dangerous delay. Even a few more weeks free of inspections might allow Mr. Hussein to revive construction of a biological, chemical or nuclear weapon." They also argued that it was "hard to negotiate with a tyrant who has no intention of honoring his commitments and who sees nuclear, chemical and biological weapons as his country's salvation." "As Washington contemplates an extended war against terrorism," a Times editorial insisted, "it cannot give in to a man who specializes in the unthinkable."
Another Times editorial warned that containment of Hussein was eroding. "The Security Council is wobbly, with Russia and France eager to ease inspections and sanctions." Any approach "that depends on Security Council unity is destined to be weak." "Mr. [Kofi] Annan's resolve seems in doubt." When Hans Blix was appointed to head the U.N. inspectors, the editors criticized him for "a decade-long failure to detect Iraq's secret nuclear weapons program before the gulf war" and for a "tendency to credit official assurances from rulers like Mr. Hussein." His selection was "a disturbing sign that the international community lacks the determination to rebuild an effective arms inspection system." The "further the world gets from the gulf war, the more it seems willing to let Mr. Hussein revive his deadly weapons projects." Even "[m]any Americans question the need to maintain pressure on Baghdad and would oppose the use of force. But the threat is too great to give ground to Mr. Hussein. The cost to the world and to the United States of dealing with a belligerent Iraq armed with biological weapons would be far greater than the cost of preventing Baghdad from rearming."
So between 1998-2000 the Times was greatly concerned about Saddam's desire and ability to create more WMD's and the systems with which to deploy them. The Times was adamant that Saddam's acquisition of WMD's would be terribly dangerous to the United States and the world. The Times was worried about the UN's lack of resolve for keeping the sanctions in place. The Times had little faith that the UN was determined to have an effective inspections process.
My how the Times has changed!
What else has changed since then? Everything the Times was concerned about was still relevant prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom. Nothing had changed to make us believe Saddam wasn't still trying to acquire WMD's. His possesion of WMD's was even more dangerous to the US and the world following the events of 9/11. There was still ample reason to doubt that the UN inspections process was effective.
But there has been one rather important change since the 1998-2000 time period - the election of George W. Bush.
President Bush used pretty much the exact same arguments of the NYT in the runup to Operation Iraqi Freedom. But the Times would have you believe that the history of Iraq and WMD began with the election of Bush - that Bush created this Iraqi menace out of whole cloth to justify war. He misled us all; he lied.
But as Mr. Kagan concludes:
As we wage what the Times now calls "the continuing battle over the Bush administration's justification for the war in Iraq," we will have to grapple with the stubborn fact that the underlying rationale for the war was already in place when this administration arrived.
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.caerdroia.org/MT/mt-tb.cgi/620