IN one of the most extraordinary editorials ever published in an American newspaper, The New York Times on Sunday publicly and even proudly abdicated all political, moral, social and journalistic responsibility in the most vital matter now facing the nation.
The supposed newspaper of record took a long and hard look on Sunday at the coming war with Iraq. And after thousands of words, the editorial board finally came out with the following editorial position: We’re for war, except when we’re against it. And we’re against war, except when we’re for it.
Perhaps the Times editors migrated from Midtown to the floating island of Laputa, the land of self-satisfied geniuses in Jonathan Swift’s great satire “Gulliver’s Travels.” Swift described the Laputans thus: “They are very bad reasoners, and vehemently given to opposition – unless they happen to be of the right opinion, which is seldom their case.”
The Times expresses a great deal of opposition in its huge editorial. It opposes the Bush administration. It opposes the French and Germans. It opposes Saddam Hussein. It opposes the idea of war. It opposes doing nothing to disarm Saddam Hussein. It opposes the United Nations putting the responsibility for waging war on the shoulders of weapons inspector Hans Blix.
It opposes President Bush’s “coalition of the willing” on the French-like grounds that “many of them are newcomers to the world of high-stakes diplomacy and few have much to offer in the way of troops or financial support.”
What does it support? Blather.
“More discussion is the only road that will get the world to the right outcome – concerted effort by a wide coalition of nations to force Saddam Hussein to give up his weapons of mass destruction,” the Times writes. “We need another debate.”
Note, here, that the Times acknowledges Saddam possesses weapons of mass destruction. It even expresses concern that Saddam may use those weapons against American forces during a war.
Now, those who oppose the notion of war with Iraq – like France and Germany – claim Saddam possesses no weapons of mass destruction. Those nations are not making that claim honestly: They know Saddam has weapons of mass destruction. The New York Times knows it, too – and knows that France and Germany know.
So what on earth will more debate accomplish?
Simple. It will allow The New York Times to rest up a little.
The Times, you see, is tired: “The debate over Iraq has exhausted everybody,” it writes.
Speak for yourself, Howell Raines. Speak for yourself, Gail Collins. Some of us are not exhausted at all. We could talk about this all day, night and for the rest of the year and for good reason – we have a consistent argument, incontrovertible facts and an urgent sense of the vital importance of acting against Saddam Hussein before he develops nuclear weapons.
You’re tired, Howell and Gail, because you’ve trapped yourself in a logical maze and can’t find your way out of it. You say that a war to disarm Iraq should only be undertaken if the United Nations approves it.
But this argument makes no sense whatever. If it is necessary that Saddam be disarmed and deposed, then it cannot really matter in the end whether the United Nations approves or not. What matters is that he be disarmed and deposed.
If the Security Council opposes the Bush administration, what then for the Times? Can it seriously argue that France’s view of the matter must determine how America should act when the president believes Saddam poses a clear and present danger to the security of this country and the world?
On the other hand, maybe it’s not necessary for Saddam to be disarmed. Maybe the world can live with a Saddam Hussein who possesses weapons of mass destruction. There is an argument to be made on this score. It was the logical position toward which the Times has been leaning for months.
So what explains the Times’ willingness to consider war?
Simple: fear.
Fear of history noting just how wrong The New York Times was when it came to this fundamental issue.