Andrew Sullivan vs. the NY Times - I think we have a clear winner. So let's get this straight. Even if Saddam has chemical and biological weapons; even if he is in clear violation of U.N. resolutions; even if he and his proxies amount to a dire threat against the lives of Americans, the U.S. president should do nothing unless the French, Germans and Russians agree. This isn't foreign policy. It's the abdication of foreign policy. And it's certainly a direct assault upon the credibility of the United Nations. [via IP]

UPDATE: The New Republic also has some harsh words for the NY Times editorial coverage of the Iraq situation. This article does a great job of comparing the Times editorial positions prior to inspections resuming and what they are now - it ain't pretty for the Times. For a paper that slapped down two sports columnists articles because they deviated from the editorial line of the paper regarding Augusta, the Times sure seems to be embracing a deviation from their own editorial line from just a few months ago.

« Making Up Stories | Home | Bad Analogy »