The Grey Old Lady has gotten a bit senile...

American Future has a long, but well-worth reading chronology of the evolution of their editorial stance toward Iraq:

The New York Times on Iraq, 1993-2005

Baghdad forfeits the protection of the U.N. cease-fire resolution every time it violates the cease-fire terms. [January 21, 1993 editorial]

This page remains persuaded of the vital need to disarm Iraq. But it is a process that should go through the United Nations. [March 17, 2003 editorial]

A war can be lost because public opinion turns against its continued prosecution. The New York Times – the self-described “newspaper of record” – is among the world’s most influential opinion leaders. As shown by the cited quotations, the newspaper’s stance on Iraq underwent a complete transformation during the decade separating 1993 and 2003. While its editors never lost their fear of Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction (WMD), their prescription for countering the threat posed by the weapons was altered beyond recognition. In 1993, by arguing that cease-fire violations nullified U.N. protection, the Times affirmed the right of a victorious party to resume hostilities at its sole discretion if the party it defeated did not abide by the terms of the agreement to which it affixed its signature. Ten years later, the Times reversed its stance, asserting that the United States should not go to war without the approval of the United Nations. In so doing, the Times implicitly argued that going to war with the approval of a multilateral institution took precedence over the use of military force to expeditiously eliminate the threat posed by Iraq’s WMD.

I wonder if the wind will blow in yet another direction when the president has a "D" after her name.

h/t to Heartland.

(Filed under Iraq, Moonbat Adventures)