Take a hard look at their editorial this morning. It acknowledges that Colin Powell made an overwhelming case that Saddam is in material breach of Resolution 1441. But the Times then concludes:
As the crisis builds, [president Bush] should make every possible effort to let the council take the lead. The Security Council, the American people and the rest of the world have an obligation to study Mr. Powell’s presentation very closely and very seriously. Because the consequences of war are so terrible, and the cost of rebuilding Iraq so great, the United States cannot afford to confront Iraq without broad international support.
Meaning what, exactly? How broad? And what, precisely does the Security Council “taking the lead” mean? Leading us where? We usually look to the editorials of major papers for answers to certain difficult questions. If you want such a synthesis – of history, argument, consistency and principle – you have to go to a serious editorial paper like the Washington Post. Methinks the Times has already decided against war (largely because Mr Bush is president), now realizes how dumb its position seems, and is slowly turning back toward something like coherence. One of the consequences of that is today’s utterly empty editorial. It’s a platitude in search of a principle. Let’s hope Mr Raines finds one before M Chirac does.
The Dish 