A Clip from Sullivan:
RAINES WATCH"
How the Times spins:
You can, I suppose, defend the New York Times' editorial position on Iraq, which is that we should hand over the problem to the Security Council and wait for a Democratic president whose war they could support. But it's hard to defend their attempt to minimize international support for the war. Last week, the biggest news around the world was the European split between France and Germany and all the surrounding nations. That story was allowed to miss a news cycle and then buried. Then yesterday, we have the Times' usually sensible Judith Miller saying the following in an online chat:
"I think that for many Americans, Secretary Powell's presentation will be persuasive. But I doubt that it will be convincing to much of the world, and especially the Europeans who are historically conditioned, given their own horrendous experiences, to oppose war. Arabs will continue to fear that unpredictable side effects of a war against Iraq. So far, only Britain and some 7 other smaller eastern European states firmly side with the U.S.. I don't see that changing because of his presentation, but we'll have to see."
Only Britain and seven other smaller eastern European states? How about Italy, the fourth biggest economy in Europe? How about Spain? And Australia? How about the 10 new countries that signed on to war on Wednesday night? In the E.U. a clear majority of member nations back the United States. And in the Security Council, the vote on Resolution 1441 was unanimous. The Times knows that the only way it can keep Saddam in power is by minimizing foreign support for the coalition to disarm him. So minimize it does. |
