A Pause for Hindsight (Yet ANOTHER NYT Mea Culpa on the Iraq War)

During the run-up to the war, The Times ran dozens of editorials on Iraq, and our insistence that any invasion be backed by "broad international support" became a kind of mantra. It was the administration's failure to get that kind of consensus that ultimately led us to oppose the war.

But we agreed with the president on one critical point: that Saddam Hussein was concealing a large weapons program that could pose a threat to the United States or its allies. We repeatedly urged the United Nations Security Council to join with Mr. Bush and force Iraq to disarm.

If I read this correctly, The Times seems to be of the opinion that even when they feel threatened, they would take no actions to defend themselves unless some third party gave them premission.

I don't know what you call that thinking, but it surely isn't logical.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.