Saying No to War. Not that it matters to the Cabal, and it certainly is a day late and a dollar short, but the Paper of Record comes out against the war. Citing the evidence of Iraqi cooperation with the inspection process under duress, the editorial notes,

“By adding hundreds of additional inspectors, using the threat of force to give them a free hand and maintaining the option of attacking Iraq if it tries to shake free of a smothering inspection program, the United States could obtain much of what it was originally hoping to achieve.. Had Mr. Bush managed the showdown with Iraq in a more measured manner, he would now be in a position to rally the U.N. behind that bigger, tougher inspection program, declare victory and take most of the troops home.”

Of course, this takes at face value that it is disarming an imminent threat that Bush seeks in Iraq; the Times does know better. It acknowledges that Bush’s demand for regime change paints him into a corner where he cannot accept Saddam’s compliance under duress, although the tone of the editorial suggests it thinks this was an indication of Bush’s lack of skill rather than what is more likely, that it is with full intent. Bush’s only mistake may be that he is not craftier at hiding his intent.

Similarly, The Times notes dysadministration waffling on the rationale for the invasion among

• self-defense against imminent danger (which the Times dismisses),
  
• Iraq’s refusal to obey UN orders to disarm (an argument that obviously cannot be made when the UN itself believes disarmament is occurring),
  
• and the transformation of Iraq into a showplace democracy that will inspire the rest of the Middle East to follow suit (a notion so ridiculous that it is not worth the column inches the Times spends addressing it).
  

Again, it appears that the Times takes this waffling simply as an indication of confused thinking and lack of clarity to our intent rather than simply an ineptitude about what the dysadministration tells us when it can’t fully disclose what it is really after in Iraq. Will we ever see a NY Times editorial with a headline like “If You’re Going to Lie to Us, Mr. President, At Least Get Your Story Straight”?

The piece concludes by citing the longterm damage to our alliances and the irreparable weakening of the United Nations. No mention is made of several other important important potential consequences. Pity; when midtown Manhattan is taken out by the next massive terrorist backlash against this latest US arrogance, the New York Times might no longer be there to remind Bush that it was his fault.