Friday, November 25, 2005
The New York Times and the question of Iraq
American Future has analyzed the shifting positions of the editors of the New York Times
on the matter of Iraq and how to deal with it. The first of three promised posts covers the Clinton years
. The point is less to tweak the NYT (however entertaining that might be) than it is to show the twists and turns in thinking about Iraq during a time when George W. Bush was not
the president. The New York Times
is as close a bell-weather for the liberal internationalist perspective as there is. One cannot understand the arguments about the purposes of today's war without understanding the arguments during the Clinton years. American Future's excellent work is a great place to start.
Via The Daily Demarche
These editorial comments seem to reveal that the NYT was at least attempting to deal honestly with the big issue of the day, which was how best to confront Saddam's intransigence. I don't fault the paper's editorialists for expressing shifting positions; the situation itself was continually in flux. But I do fault the paper for not supporting a policy implemented to address concerns the Times editorialists themselves had so consistently expressed. That is not just inconsistency, it's hypocrisy.
Looks like they were for it before they were against it.
Shifting positions is, I guess, a luxury available to editorial pages and traders. Not so for a government and its military.