Should We Go (Have Gone) to War?:  
Editorials Debate

Return to FAQs
Last updated 12/19/2005
Also see Should We/Columnists 

1.  Did the US (and UK) newspaper editorials support an invasion?

In general, The international press reacted to Powell's "material breach" accusation of December 19, 2002 and  reacted with variety after the UN resolution passed on November 9 and again on November 15. Excerpts from US, Europe, and Asia papers is also from before the President's UN speech and "what the papers say" in mid-February.

Official newspaper/magazine editorials in the fall include strong support from the The Weekly Standard and The Wall Street Journal. Increasing support for war came from The Washington Post, The Chicago Tribune. and during the fall of 2002, even the The New York Times. The New York Times has "taken flak" on the right for its coverage of the Iraqi debate (also see "Dissing the Dissenters") though The Economist makes similar arguments in "Making the Case."  In February the Christian Science Monitor gives pro and con answers to question on the war.

Also see "Recent Editorial/Articles" Link.  and "Best of Iraq" Web Links.

Return to Top

2.  What were the views of the Washington Post?
(See free and complete list/link of Post editorial back 9 months and all Commentary from the past 3  months.) The Post had 10 or more editorials every month from November 2002-May 2003.

In general, Washington Post editorials supported the President's policies but questioned some of his tactics and timing.  In the end, I was not surprised that they supported war in March. 

The Washington Post editorials during the summer of 2002 describe the U.S. policy "quandary" in "Weighing an Attack on Iraq..."  "The Iraq Debate" (8/4/02) warns that war will never succeed "unless the Bush administration can enlist support of the American public, Congress, and key allies abroad."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A38385-2002Aug2?language=printer

Also in the summer was "The Iraq Debate Continues" (8/18/02). The Post has a handy archive of their op-ed at "The Debate About Iraq". Also see "Recent Editorial/Articles" Link..  For dozens of  prior Post editorials (see complete list for past 9 months)  

After the President's September 12 UN speech came "Measured Pace on Iraq", the concluding that if President Bush "expects to gain domestic and foreign backing...he will need to treat Congress and [the UNSC] as partners and not as mere compliant bodies that can be bludgeoned into acting" (9/14/02). 

Soon came "Calling the UN Bluff" and "The Iraq Decision":  "The administration has failed to show that it is prepared to manage the daunting task of occupying and managing post-Hussein Iraq" (9/21/02).  Four days later, is uncharacteristically  harsh criticism leading up the war, The Post writes, "The Bush administration ...implied a nonexistent connection between AlQaeda and Hussein.  It suggested the imminence of an Iraqi nuclear capability that is hardly imminent.  It barged ahead unilaterally, pausing of the UN only after being forced to do so, and it shredded international law and precedent by asserting it can do whatever it wants in the name of self-defense.  This is not a doctrine; it's an impulse" (9/25/02).The next week's editorial advised,  "if inspectors go back in...only if full-scale inspections fail should the Security Council give final consent to the use of force"  (10/1/02, "Testing Iraq on Arms Inspections"). 

Return to Top

On the eve of the Congressional vote (10/10/02) the Post worried that Hussein will grow more dangerous so Bush should use the Congressional vote to build an international coalition ("Setting a Course on Iraq"). 

In a unique and detailed critique of the Post editorials, Op-ed, and regular commentator selections, The Nation's Michael Mussing looks at "Hawks on the Washington Post", (11/11/02):  Since mid-August The Post has been running editorials on Iraq about once a week, and they have unwaveringly supported military action...All in all, The Post's opinion pages represent a narrow slice of the U.s. political establishment [with few pacifist or anti-imperialist]".  Raspberry and McGrory have been "drowned out" by "Hoagland, Krauthammer...and Will." See "Individual Columnist" question below.

December editorials were "Judging Iraq's Response" (Dec. 8), "Beyond the Breach" (Dec. 20) and "No Exceptions" (12/29/02).  "Iraq's False Response", "A Firm Resolution",  and "A Postwar Plan", ("a narrow and unilateralist approach...could make an already-big postwar challenge harder than it needs to be")  "Setting a Course on Iraq" and "A Dialogue on Iraq"  which fears that the administration "committed itself to military action against...Hussein before inviting other opinions...Offering the world a precooked and nonnegotiable buildup to war could well doom an Iraq mission before it begins." 

See the past nine months of all Post editorials on Iraq.

Return to Top

The new year from the Washington Post brought "A Confluence of Crisis" (January 5) .  In "The Iraqi Charade" (January 12, 2003), the Post feels that the Security Council will probably need to act soon because the "false disclosures" in Iraq's weapons report combined with an incomplete list of scientists could add up to a material breach. (Since the editorial, Iraq has urged its scientists to talk to the UN "without minders present". The Post concludes that "the Bush administration must shoulder the obligation to make clear to America and the world what it knows about Saddam Hussein's arsenal." In "Mr. Blix's Irresolution" (January 16) the Post strongly criticizes Blix for moving too slowly.  "He would like to head off U.S. military action at any cost, even though such action clearly has been justified by Iraq's failure to comply...the Bush administration should insist that his freelancing end."  Letters in response to the paper express opposition to "pre-emptive military operations, unless an attack is imminent, which it is not...I hope Blix will continue to show courage and will fight any attempt by the U.S. to once again strong-arm the UN."   

The January 26 "Follow the Resolution"  looks at Blix's "mixed bag" report which "sounds to us like an awfully generous description of the facts" given four problems:  false declaration, scientists unavailable, blocked U2 flights, and warhead and illegal missiles finds.  "The French and Germans are right about war. It is always terrible, it can have unpredictable results, and democracies can embrace it only as a last resort."  The Post concluded that Iraq will now be likely to cooperate less, Hussein might be contained for a while, Bush may need to bypass a weak UN. 

Two days later, "No More Last Chances", spoke of the inspectors report the previous day, and argued that Blix and ElBaradei "dodged the obvious question their reports raised:  If Saddam Hussein did not accept voluntary disarmament, what purpose could be served by the continuation of inspections they both advocate?"  Iraq should at least "disclose the thousands of scientist's names it has withheld."  By way of conclusion, the terms of 1441 show they are in material breach. 

The next day's "Decisive Days" focused as much on North Korea and domestic issues as Iraq.  While critical of the President for revealing "little of the intelligence...on the Iraqi arsenal," and little of cost and postwar plans, the Post seemed assured that Powell would give details to the UN in less than a week. 

In February, 2003 on the day of Powell's Feb. 5 UN speech, came  "The Case for Action."  which emphasized that Iraq has not complied with 1441 and asks, "Is Iraq genuinely a threat to the U.S. security and must it be dealt with now?  It would be a mistake...to shrink again from decisive action...The U.S. should...locate and destroy its chemical and biological weapons and its nuclear program...Failure to act" shows "impotence" of the UN.  Inspectors in the '90s took four year to discover some weapons.  Quoting from Bill Clinton in 1998, 'If we fail to respond today, Saddam...will be emboldened tomorrow by the knowledge that they can act with impunity...'.  The Post concluded, "War is never to be welcomed."  But it may soon be "the only credible option for ending the threat of Saddam Hussein." 

After the Powell presentation was "Irrefutable" (Feb. 6),  continued its general support of the administration's position: "It's hard to imagine how anyone could doubt that Iraq possesses WMD...[Colin Powell] offered a powerful new case that Saddam Hussein's regime is cooperation with a branch of the alQaeda organization."  France and Germany cannot doubt threat every country' intelligence knows Iraq has WMD.  The French suggestion of more time and more inspectors "offers no credible path to Iraqi disarmament.' 

See the past nine months of all Post editorials on Iraq.

Return to Top

After their  (2/ 9) , "More to Do" and "Standing With Saddam" (2/11) [as France and Germany seem to be doing], came "The UN Endgame" (1/22)  urging use of UN if possible but if not the U.S. should go to war without UN support. Agreeing with President Bush's comment that "this looks like a rerun of a bad movie," the Post describes Blix as someone who "sees his mission as heading off a war at any cost...and is likely to duck the central issue.  That question is relatively simple:  Has Iraq agreed to immediately and voluntarily disclose and dismantle its [WMD] and to allow inspectors to verify those action?  The answer is equally plain:  It has not...the only way to avoid the conclusion that Iraq is again refusing to disarm, and that action must then be taken is to ignore all these facts [scientist interviews, false declarations] or recant the UN mission."  A letter to the editor in response suggests that since70% of Americans want inspectors given more time, "It's unfortunate The Post accuses us and the global majority of lacking nerve rather than having good reasons for opposing a rush to war" (1/26/03). 

"More to Do" advises Bush and Powell to be clear on costs and commitments, keep up the diplomatic work, and answer questions about post-war Iraq.  Surprisingly critical of Bush, the Post comments, "So far Mr. Bush has made little effort to explain the challenges, much less prepare the country to meet them. It is time for him to begin." 

 "The Perils of Passivity", (Feb. 13) argues that in the Muslim world "For two decades, the country tried a strategy of not poking the hornet's nest--a strategy of accommodation, half-measures, and wishful thinking." in Iran, Lebanon, and Somalia.  "The longer [Hussein] remains unchallenged, the greater the risk the [bin Laden] audiotape shows the Islamisists' willingness to set aside their disdain for Iraq's secular ruler in the greater global struggle against America...The U.S. must not back down." 

Arguing that the U.S. should not lose their nerve and to "face up to the responsibility" after the Blix/Baradei UN report of February 14, is "Sound and Fury." Two days later "Debating Points" looks at anti-war Senator Carl Levin (D-MI) of the Senate Armed Services Committee.  The Post labels some of his arguments "incoherent and groundless" but notes we should recognize Levin's desire for a broad alliance and timing/urgency issues.  Yet, the Post is ready for war, "to act...for global order."  "Democracy's Choices" (2/23) complements U.s. allies and criticizes those still hesitant about war.  "The toughest political act in the world today is being performed by...Blair...Aznar and their allies..."But if this clamor of opposition is making it harder for the Bush administration and its allies to go forward, that is probably for the better.  In a democracy, before any bombs fall, governments should be challenged again and again to explain why force is necessary, why the alternatives are not acceptable and why the outcome will be worth the always terrible costs.  The continuing dissent both here and abroad should inspire President Bush to make his case more clearly and strongly." 

Return to Top

"The Second Resolution" (2/26) spoke in favor of a second UN resolution and of the "advantage of simplicity" and "the inescapable conclusion" that Hussein has failed in his "final opportunity...Council members who oppose this text will not be resisting some unilateral diktat from the Bush Administration; they will be voting to repudiate a UN resolution adopted little more than three months ago...Yet now they unashamedly champion the plan, which calls for inspectors to draw up a list a 'remaining disarmament tasks' for Iraq, along with a timeline for accomplishing them." 

Their longest editorial in months, "'Drumbeat' on Iraq? A Response to Readers" (2/27) defends the paper's patience since 1997 on Iraq.  Mr. Clinton "understood the stakes" and described Iraq as "a rogue state with WMD, ready to use them or provide them to terrorists, drug trafficers organized criminals who travel the world among us unnoticed.'  The paper cites Clinton "in part to chide him and other Democrats who take a different view now that a Republic is in charge...to us, risks that were clear before seem even clearer now" and we have not "rushed to war."  A second complaints of readers regards "jingoism and drumbeating".

 The editorial replies, "the right question, though is not 'Is war risky?' but "is inaction less so?'...Nor is it useful to repeat that war 'should only be a last resort'" like France, Germany, and Russia.  So the real questions are "whether every meaningful alternative has been exhausted and if so whether war is wise as well as justified?  Clinton was right that we must not fail to act and lose our will because Hussein 'will conclude that he can go right on and do more to rebuild an arsenal of devastating destruction.  And some day, some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal."  The lengthy Post editorial concludes that hope for containment is not wise or safe.  "We respect our readers who believe that war is the worst option.  but we believe that, in this case long-term peace will be better served by strength than by concessions." 

March opened with the Washington Post's "Words and Deeds" (3/2) which spoke of wise postwar goals of democracy but concern that a repeat of "the pattern in Afghanistan...could trap the U.S. and its troops in a losing situation."  Success will come with an international civilian administration because "extended American rule of Iraq will provide a ready target for extremists throughout the region and likely impede the political liberation it is meant to promote." 

The following day's editorial "War Games", worries about the costs of war vs. the needs of the economy. Critical of the administration for refusing to put a price tag on the war, while passing a huge tax cut is "like parents with young children deciding not to save for college because they don't know which school their children will attend."

About a week before war and as the UN still considered a second UN resolution, the Post's "Are Inspections Working?" asked, "Why do the inspectors sound so upbeat?"  The fact is that "Iraq has still not disclosed its weapons."  The editorial wonders why inspectors should continue. (3/11). 

By not being willing to wait a few extra weeks to build a bigger alliance, as the Post had repeatedly urged, will only increase "the risks and potential costs of an Iraq campaign, as well as those of the postwar reconstructuion."  The page urges the Bush administration to listen "more to allies, showing flexibility in strategies and time-tables, and speaking to the world in a voice that sounds more reasonable than arrogant"  ("Damage Control", 3/16) http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A31110-2003Mar15&notFound=true).

In "Final Days"  (3/17), the following day, the Post explains that "military action has been made necessary" by Saddam Hussein. Yet they still worry that "the administration has refused to discuss these [postwar] costs...in pubic and its announced plans for the postwar period remain worryingly vague."  Bush needs to "honestly tell Americans" that the time to stay in Iraq "may well extend for years and cost the county tens if not hundreds of billions of dollars."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A35542-2003Mar16&notFound=true

As war loomed ever closer, the third editorial in consecutive days, "'A Question of Will,'" recapped President Bush's 48 hour warning to "eliminate Saddam Hussein's illegal arsenal of weapons and replace his brutal regime with a representative government."  Though many in the UN are against war now, the Post supported Bush's statement that "This is not a question of authority, it is a question of will."  The editorial concludes, "it is a cause worthy of the sacrifices that will now be asked of American men and women in uniform." 

For these and more Post editorials (see complete list for past 9 months)  

Return to Top

3.  What were the views of the New York Times?
Note:  The Times new policy does not make archived editorials available for as long as the Post so many of these  links have automatically been changed to a 1-2 paragraph abstract.

The New York Times was less supportive of the administration's policies than was the Washington Post.  In the end, they did not support going to war in March. Even so, the Times published a unique and thorough self-critique of their pre-war coverage in May of 2004.
http://www.nytimes.com/ref/international/middleeast/20040526CRITIQUE.html

A June 2002 argument included "Striking First": "The U.S. should not regard itself as being in the business of unilaterally invading other countries or toppling other governments."  They were concerned with the "carte blanche" of the new first strike, pre-emptive policy.

Other Times editorials from the summer were "Testing Iraq on Arms Inspectors," "A Measured Pace" , "The Iraq Test." , "Summons to War" "Sharing the Evidence", "In Defense of Deterrence",  "The Loyal Opposition"   and Letters in reaction.  

Before Bush's UN speech of September,  "Countdown to a Collision", which concluded that "These new steps toward consultation are welcome, but they do not substitute for a comprehensive Iraqi policy, much less make the case for war" (9/5/02).  

"A Road Map for Iraq", and  "The Iraqi Chessboard" (9/17) one week after the UN speech, spoke of Hussein's brutality and repression, while not inconsequential concerns", are less "what really counts" when compared to destruction of WMD.

Readers chimed in with their views, too.  For example, "To suggest that Saddam Hussein plays cat and mouse and may be up to his old tricks is tantamount to saying that no matter what his response, we could not trust him. Then why even present him with a list of conditions in the first place/  why even pretend to want peace?  Why not just attack?"

The Times was puzzled in late October when Bush changed course to suggest that Hussein could be disarmed peacefully.  Compliance with UN resolution would "'signal the regime has changed.'  This may have been aimed at mollifying nervous allies, but it added to the impression that Mr. Bush isn't sure what his goals are in Iraq (10/23/02). 

Other late-2002 Times editorials on Iraq, at times clearly more hawkish than the summer, are "Iraqi Stonewalling" (Dec. 20): "By any honest assessment, Iraq has failed to pass its most important test since inspections resumed...The most charitable grade it can be given is incomplete.  Without documentation to claim it has eliminated WMD...the failings do not by themselves constitute a reason to go to war.  The Bush administration has done well to recognize this...There is ample circumstantial evidence of Iraq cheating, but hard evidence is needed to clinch the case."  Earlier, we read Times editorials  "Iraq in the Dock" and "Decisive Days for Iraq":  "If careful scrutiny of Iraq's new report show defaulting on its promises, it will have forfeited the chance for a peaceful solution."  Amazingly, this New York Times editorial is more Hawkish that a statement by President Bush in the same week, when he said a false declaration will not automatically trigger war.  

A critique of "hawkish" Washington Post editorial and op-eds in The Nation complements the "dovish" New York Times:  "Its editorials have consistently questioned Bush's action and Nicholas Kristof dispatches from Baghdad have been [very] critical...Yet the Times run a number of sharp pieces in support of military action" (11/11/02). See below for more from Kristof.

Return to Top

During the year 2003, The Times compliments "Tony Blair's Keen Instincts" in mid-January. "The Iraqi Dossier" (January 10, abstract), seems to back away from war, urging that Bush show his compelling intelligence information "if Washington hopes to persuade the world."  Acknowledging that Iraq's report was not complete, inspections may have to last longer.  "The presence of tens of thousands of American troops in the region and the return of...hot weather in the spring are not reasons to start fighting before every diplomatic option has been exhausted."  The Times concludes, "Washington should share its evidence with the public."  "Tony Blair's Keen Instincts" (Jan. 15) consistently urge Bush "to be patient", not to rush into war,  and suggest the need to use the UN and gain "broad international support".  

After "The Iraq Report" (Jan. 28) comes "The Nation, The President, and The War" (1/29), the morning after to State of the Union address:  "No one watching the somber Mr. Bush' delivery could doubt his determination...He methodically recounted all the good, though circumstantial, reasons the administration believes 'the dictator of Iraq is not disarming...he is deceiving'...but the president has never been as effective in making the case for imminent intervention or for going to war absent broad international support.  While there is a natural fear that Iraq might give arms or biological weapons to terrorist, the administration has been been able to connect those dots, or even to demonstrate that Iraq has a history of aiding terrorism as clear as that of some American allies in the region...More threatening was his threat to attack Iraq even without Security Council support. The state of the union that the president leads is clearly laced with anxiety and doubt." 

"Lighting the Fuse on Iraq" (Jan. 22), urges Bush patience with inspections, listening to his allies, and avoiding risks of war.  "Mr. Bush should not be in a rush to got to war." 

After "An mprovised March to War" (Feb. 2) was "The Case Against Iraq," (Feb. 6), in which the Times called Powell's case "the most powerful to date" that Hussein is against the UN Resolution and "has not intention of revealing or surrendering whatever unconventional weapons he may have."  The paper thought Powell's best argument was how Iraqis "shielded" biological and chemical weapons program and his most "tenuous" argument was terror links.  "It may not have produced a 'smoking gun' but it left little to question that Mr. Hussein had tried hard to conceal one."  Yet, the Times is not ready for war without "broad international support" because "the consequences of war are so terrible and the cost of rebuilding Iraq so great." 

Return to Top

The paper predicted on February 7, "Endgame", after Powell's UN speech, that "Mr. Hussein is a cagey despot, and he is certain to use the coming weeks to make a dramatic concession or two...Coercive diplomacy has its limits--it didn't budge Mr. Hussein from Kuwait a decade ago.  But it is well worth trying." In early February before Powell's UN speech, the Editorial page criticized the "unsettling sense of improvisation" from the administration.  "Washington's planning for how to govern Iraq after a war seems equally scattershot."  Others include "Divisive Diplomacy" with Europe critical of France not not agreeing to "fortify Turkish defenses" and criticism of the U.S. for "strongarming NATO.  Yet American very much needs broad European support in fighting terror and will need more of it in reconstruction Iraq." 

"Back to the United Nations" (Feb. 13), worrying of war without international support.  Only Hussein can avert war.  Debating a second resolution is useless unless Bush admits there is a circumstance he would not go to war and France admits there is a circumstance they would go to war.  "It simply cannot be perceived as 'America's war.'  However serious the crimes of Mr. Hussein, we do not find that the administration has made a compelling case that he poses an immediate danger to the vital interests of the United States.  We cannot countenance the manufacture argument that the United States will look impotent if it  does not got to war after dispatching tens of thousand of troops to the Persian Gulf region.  Saving face is not a sane rationale for war." 

Valentine's Day brought "Elusive Qaeda Connections", in which the Post felt that even after Powell's UN speech "There is little hard evidence" of such a connection and the administration "should stop peddling that line to the American people.  There are legitimate reason to confront Iraq.  Imagining a full-blown Baghdad chapter of Al qaeda is not one of them."  They classified Powell's case as "thin" and mostly "ambiguous clues".  Ansar al Islam bases are in "the Kurdish-controlled area of Iraq beyond the control of Saddam Hussein."  Zarqawi probably "could not have stayed for two months in Baghdad without the knowledge of the Iraq government, but that does not demonstrate operational ties between him and Iraq."

"Disarming Iraq" was more hawkish.  "The time has come for the others to quite pretending that inspection alone are the solution."  The Security Council needs a new resolution.  The inspectors in February offered a mixed bag for both sides to choose from.  "Baghdad's concessions are meaningless." 

Then, "Reuniting the Security Council" (2/18) talks of impatience of hawks to stay with the UN ("never wanted to bring the Iraq issue before the UN in the first place") critical of French and demands that sincere progress would include private scientist interviews, allowing U2 flights and destruction of missiles.  As it turned out, all three "demands" were met, to some extent, in the next few weeks.

Their longest editorial in months "Power and Leadership:  The Real Meaning of Iraq' (2/23) summarized the situation and the paper's preferences.  "Right now, things don't look promising for those of us who believe this is a war worth waging, but only with broad international support...This may be an administration intent of making war, but so far it has also shown itself willing to give the UN both time and space to make up its mind..."  If military victory is swift and without extensive casualties for the U.S. or Iraqi civilians, Bush's popularity will soar.  But things "could go terribly wrong, very quickly...Our own guess...is that war is likely to go well in the short-term but that the long-run will be messy, difficult, and dangerous.  If America acts virtually on its own, it is hard to image either the Bush administration or the American people having the staying power to make things right."  On "saving face" the editorial conclude that "we don't think the world' only surviving superpower should be making war to avoid embarrassment."  

The rather hawkish "Facing Down Iraq" (2/25) urges support for the second UNR as "the last remote hope of getting Iraq to disarm peacefully."  It concludes, "What's needed is not more time but an entirely different attitude from Iraq." 

Return to Top

The New York Times opened their March editorials with "The Rush to War", critical of the administration in light of Iraq's destruction of Al Samoud 2 missiles.  "The White House seems increasingly intent on attacking Iraq, whether or not Baghdad disarms and whether or not the Security Council endorses as war...A White House spokesman's statement...that Mr. Bush would be satisfied only with the departure of Mr. Hussein appeared to shift the rationale for war to fit new circumstances."  The paper concludes with worries of what could go wrong long-term, with Turkey, Kurds, Pakistan, WMD, and terrorism.  "None of these events will necessarily happen, but the odds that they are as good as the odds that a war will lead to the establishment of a peaceful, democratic state in Iraq." 

The  New York Times  editorial, "The Rush to War", (March 3) expresses pleasure in the Al Qaeda arrest but is not supporting war. 

Examining the French and Russian promise to veto, the March 6 "The Worst-Case Scenario Arrives" looks at the "crippling deadlock".  Cheney and Rumsfeld will see the impasse as "a vindication of their argument last summer that working with the UN would lead only to a diplomatic stalemate and further delay in disarming Iraq.  We see it differently.  The French and the Russian are not the only ones who brought us to the point. Mr. Bush and his team laid the groundwork for this mess with their arrogant handling of other nations and disarming attitude toward international accords.  Though they mended their ways to some extent after September 11, and initially tried to work through the Security Council on Iraq, the White House's obvious intention to got to war undermined that effort." 

"President Bush did not sound like a man searching for a diplomatic compromise", opened the Times' "The President Looks Toward War."  He seems insincere about a UN resolution and Iraq's destruction of their missiles.  While the U.s. can win the war, "it is highly unlikely that it can run Iraq after the assault and control the inevitable show a anger in the rest of the Arab world on its own" (3/7). 

By mid-March the Times was growing ever concerned about a war without broad international support ("Saying No to War", 3/9).  "Had Mr. Bush managed the showdown with Iraq in more measured manner, he would now be in a position to rally the UN behind that bigger, tough inspection program, declare victory, and take most of the troops home...He has talked himself into a corner where war or an unthinkable American retreat seem to be the only alternatives visible to the administration."  On the lack of evidence of al Qaeda connections, the paper writes, "The administration has demonstrated that Iraq had members of al Qaeda living within its borders, but the same accusation could be lodged against any number of American allies into her region...nations are not supposed to launch military invasions based on hunches and fragmentary intelligence...If the U.S. ignores the Security Council and attacks on its own, the first victim of the conflict will be the UN itself."  They conclude their anti-war argument with concern for optimistic post-war prediction, lack of international consensus and the lack of "the most compelling of reason when the purpose is fuzzy, or based on questionable proposition, it's time to stop and look for other, less extreme means to achieve your goal." 

One week before war "Diplomacy's Last Chance" (3/13) urged the U.S. to get behind the British proposal and adjust details.  Britain's proposal would "establish six disarmament bookmarks and a tightly limited time frame." but the time frames were "unrealistically short"...The possibility of broader international support, if attainable, is worth waiting for." 

British, Spanish, and U.S. talks on the Azores were labeled "The Summit of Isolation", described as "an apt symbol for failure...to draw the world around its Iraq policy."  Admitting that Bush was "dealt a bad hand" by Baghdad's lack of full cooperation with inspectors and France's unwillingness to make a "credible threat", the Times also expressed that "The Bush admistration's erratic and often inept diplomacy has made matters immeasurably worse.  By repeatedly switching its goals from disarmament to regime change to broadly transforming the Middle East, and its arguments for weapons to Al Qaeda to human rights, the White House made many countries more worried about America's motives than Iraq's weapons.  Public arm-twisting of allies like Turkey and Mexico backfired, as did repeated sniping at Hans Blix...Instead, the Bush administration now gives every appearance of going through the motions of diplomacy as a favor to Mr. Blair without really believing in ti.  By allowing that perception to grow, Mr. Bush finds himself about to embark on an uncertain course of war and nation-building in one of the world's most dangerous and complex regions, with an alliance for too narrow for comfort."

Return to Top

"The U.S., nearly isolated, is about to wage a war in the name of the world community that opposes it," opens the March 17 "President Bush Prepares for War."  "This page remains persuaded of the vital need to disarm Iraq.  But it is a process" that should go through the UN.  "The current path is reckless...Mr. Bush said he would spend today pursuing on last opportunity for diplomacy [by flying to meet with leaders of UK and Spain].  Given the administration's bellicose rhetoric over the weekend it is hard not to suspect that the president is simply going through the motions...It makes no sense to assert...that there is really nothing Saddam Hussein can do short of resigning that would stave off attack...overstating threats and dismissing the concerns of friends does not build a strong alliance.  No matter what happens today, that is exactly what we will need tomorrow."

Just the day before war began, the Times' March 18 editorial "War in the Ruins of Diplomacy" continued to emphasize that "this war crowns a period of terrible diplomatic failure...Allies have been devalued and military force overvalued....This page has never wavered in the belief that Mr. Hussein must be disarmed.  Our problem is with the wrongheaded way the administration has bone about it."  Bush as a candidate had urged humility in foreign policy.  The editorial concludes, "the result is a war for a legitimate international goal against an execrable tyranny, but one fought almost alone.  At a time when America most needs the world to see its actions in the best possible light, they will probably be seen in the worst.  The result was neither foreordained nor inevitable." 

The New York Times special was "Standoff with Iraq", (renamed "Struggle for Iraq") with articles, editorial, video, and more.

Return to Top

4.  What were the views of the Wall Street Journal?
The Wall Street Journal consistently argued against the usefulness of weapons inspectors and in favor of regime change.  Editor Robert Bartley argues in September that "the anti-war movement is dead, but it hangs like an albatross around the neck of the Democratic Party" (9/30/02). Their  December 19 editorial, "Saddam's Burden of Proof", suggests that Hussein could be behind the 9/11 attacks and/or the anthrax scare in the U.S. during the fall of 2001. The January 17, 2003 "The Not Quiet 'Smoking Gun'" wonders, "What explains the apparent desire of the UN team to downplay their fortuitous find [of 12 missile shells in mid-Jan]?  Quite simply, they have come to consider their main job not as disarming Saddam Hussein but as averting war and are willing to rewrite UNSCR 1441 to do it." The Journal's "An American Resolution" and others can be found at their free "Opinion Journal" Page.

Ever critical of France and Germany, the Opinion Journal web page describes Schroeder as "Germany's weasel-in-Chef" (2/3/03).  For The Weekly Standard, see individual columnists below.

In March the Wall Street Journal examined "the grandeur of French hypocrisy."  The French "could argue that...President Saddam has been a good friend of France and a good customer of French business.  But ...de Villepin has not had the nerve to make that case, perhaps because it isn't particularly good politics."

Return to Top

5.  What were the views of the Chicago Tribune?
The lack of links in this section is due to the Tribune editorials of older than one week being for pay only; however the New Trier H.S. Library can provide access to archived Tribune articles at 
http://www.nths.newtrier.k12.il.us/library/default.htm 
Tribune is at left side of page

The Chicago Tribune, hesitant about war during the summer, changed its editorial views in September and was, like the Washington Post, generally supportive of the administration for the next six months and into the war.  On September 2, the paper had suggested that "the threat is serious but not imminent." The paper cautioned in "Insufficient Evidence on Iraq": "Bush and his aides...have done far too little to explain why it is essential that the Iraqi leader be removed...We risk...war...without the clear public support that is crucial for success" (8/5/02). After months of hesitation from The Chicago Tribune, on September 20 they came out in favor of the President's war resolution. During the period of August and September,  its most lengthy article on Iraq analyzed how one defines the threat:  "Until that case [grave and imminent threat] is made, the U.S. should not go to war to remove Saddam Hussein from power" (8/23/02).  

Before the October 2002 Congressional vote, "Don't fall for Iraq's shell game" worried over Iraqi proposal (later dropped) that Presidential palaces be off-limits, as they sometimes were in the '90s.  "Can diplomacy still work?  Quite possibly...The diplomatic trick for the U.s. is to press for the strongest resolution possible, without sending the message that the U.S. is merely humoring the UN while it prepares for inevitable war" (10/4/02). 

The Tribune's editorial (Dec. 13) is about keeping the pressure on Iraq.  In late January (1/28/03) they echoed the President by urging the UN to search for its spine:  "Iraq's game is deception not disclosure." Contrary to the New York Times of mid-January, the Tribune editorializes that "The Bush administration has shown patience and restraint" by going through the UN and using the inspectors. 

On February 6, after "Powell's compelling case", the paper wrote: "Iraq continues to flout the UN's demands to disarm...Most troubling, he flushed out evidence that Iraq harbors an active terrorist network linked to AlQaeda,:  

The Tribune's Feb. 8 editorial, "The end of the affair", hawkishly proclaims that "A few concessions [scientist interviews, U-2 spy planes] are not what the world demands in 1441.  The world demands complete disarmament..."  Iraqi promises and symbolic compromises are "far too little.  And it will soon be too late."

"Axis of Appeasement" appeared on Feb. 11, stressing that Hussein was not obeying 1441, that expanding inspectors would be "a continual exercise in futility", and that Hussein has other nation "playing his game--delay, deny, delude, divide." 

Then, on Feb. 16's "The UN Iraqophobia", the paper complained of "Saddam's game of deny, deceive, and delay," and wondered "when does 'final' mean final?"  or as President Bush pondered, "When you say something does it mean anything?" 

"Dealing with dissent on Iraq" (2/23) advised the president to strengthen his support by viewing mid-February protest as "evidence that his case for pre-emtpion hasn't been as convincing as his case that Iraq will never voluntarily surrender its deadly weapons.  There is a time for this administration and its allies to better explain the dangers of [ignoring] the security council's unambiguous demands.  But there is not much time." 

Like the Washington Post and New York Times, a late February/early March editorial was their longest in months.  "The case for war" urged "swift war" if the UN won't pass a second resolution.  The paper quoted Clinton's warning of 1998 ("someday some way, I guarantee you he'll use the arsenal") and suggests the "The missiles that would rain down on him if he ever uses nuclear bombs can't leave him any deader than the threat he faces today.  "  Weapons inspections aren't working.  Though some European point to "min-concessions" they show that "a man cornered by the mightiest military on Earth will do as little as he can to make that threat go away, and thus burnish the coin of his realm:  his survival."  The editorial concludes, "The Tribune's reluctant but unavoidable conclusion today echoes the final two sentences of the editorial that appeared here in 1990: "If there is a war, the U.S. and its allies will pay a heavy price.  But the price of stopping Saddam Hussein isn't going to get any smaller." 

The Chicago Tribune's "The UN faces a gut check" (3/7) examines weapons inspectors, allies, UN resolve, and history.  Countering Blix and el Baradie's rosy report to the UN, The Tribunes reminded readers that weapons inspectors are verifiers not investigatory.  "Around the world opinions are divided between nation determined to make sure that he doesn't launch horrific attacks, and those who note that he hasn't attacked any other country lately.  between those that have long memoirs, and those the evidently have none."  

Return to Top

6.  What were the views of other U.S. newspaper and magazine editorials?
Time Magazine ran a point-counterpoint in late February, 2003:  "Do You Want This War?"  The "Yes, a War Would Be Moral" argument included the ideas that war can be legitimate without the sanction of the UN.  "War is an awful thing.  but is isn't the most awful thing....[War is] a moral imperative."  The counter essay, "No, This War Would Not Be Moral" admits that Hussein is a brutal dictator but "at the same time, we must insist on being told the truth about why this war seems so inevitable."  

Time magazine's Joe Klein (2/24) concludes his commentary as a candidate for the "wavering" camp:  "War maybe the correct choice, but it can't be an easy one.  The world might have more confidence in the judgment of the President if he weren't always bathed in the blinding glare of his own certainty."

Time's March 10 edition concludes, "Bush has set himself a high challenge.  He has made the riskiest commitment by his country in a generation.  He has promised Americans that this war will do more good than ill.  The President sounded uncommonly confident as he spoke, but wishes are one thing and reality another, especially in a region accustomed to mirages." 

The Christian Science Monitor voiced "Why not do nothing?" in July 2002. 
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0731/p09s02-coop.html 

The Nation editorializes against the attack in their special section, "No War with Iraq" :  "The White House has been long on innuendo and very short on evidence" ("War on Iraq is Wrong").  Other disadvantages of invasion are argued in The Nation's "The Rush to War", "Iraq:  The Doubters Grow"  and "MacBeth in Mesopotamia." The misinformation and political games are described carefully in "Capital Games". 

Examining the "'White Man's Burden'" argument of President Bush, "Dissent and Disconnects" sees Bush updating the White Man's Burden:  "Bush shifted his rationale for war away from disarmament and argued that it is the moral duty of America to liberate Iraq and usher in a new era of regional democracy--albeit at gunpoint" (3/24/03). 

Return to Top

The Progressive also editorializes passionately and in detail about "The Case Against the Iraq War." and more recently in "Desperate for War".  The Progressive's "The Boy King and His War" commented on the inevitability, the threat, Congress, and bin Laden:  "The whole issue of getting inspectors into Iraq, even the goal of disarmament, was a ruse. What Bush has wanted all along is to overthrow Saddam Hussein.  He was honest about hat originally, though he used the hideous neologism 'regime change.'  But when that wouldn't fly diplomatically, he reverted to disarmament.  Then when it became obvious that Saddam was cooperating, at least to some extend, with the inspections. Bush pulled the 'regime change' card out of his sleeve again."  The editorial pondered how Iraq could be such a "growing, mounting, and gathering threat" under four conditions:  UN inspectors were going when and where they wanted, Saddam was destroying his Al Samoud missiles, the IAEA said there is "no evidence of the revival of a nuclear weapons program" and allied planes pass intelligence on to the inspectors. "This is not how democracy is supposed to work.  Congress itself committed a horrendous blunder when, last October it abdicated its responsibly under the Constitution...[Bush] has shown utter contempt for the views of the vast majority of people in nation after nation who have opposed this war...The costs of the policy are already mounting.  Bush has done grievous damage to Washington's relationship with its traditional European allies."  On the Middle East, the editorial worries of more trouble.  "Bush has argued that invading Iraq will solve just about every problem in the Middle East except male pattern baldness.  The central argument that Bush made--that installing democracy (as if it were a spare part) in Iraq will bring peace to the Middle East--doesn't stand up.  The Bush Administration actually fears democracy in Iraq because a majority of Iraqi are Shiites, who are likely to ally with Iran.  Bush also is opposed to self-determination for the Kurds, much to their consternation.  he ahs already promised Turkey that the Kurds will not get a state of the own." 

On the eve of war, the Atlanta Journal and Constitution wrote that "The ramifications of the president's decision will take years to play out and will do so in ways that no one can anticipate.  We will not know its true costs, or its benefits, for perhaps a generation.  But we must do all we can to make it succeed...Again last night, the president justified this coming war as an effort to bring justice, prosperity and democracy to an Iraqi people deprived of all three by a tyrannical bully.  We are obligated, morally and in our own national interest, to make good on that promise. It will not be easy, and it will not be cheap.  But if we fail the Iraqi people, we fail ourselves, because that failure will encourage the international terrorism we fight to quell."  

The San Francisco Chronicle feels that mid-February is "a moment for the U.S. to be persuading its allies, not alienating them."  

The LA Times editorials/commentary on Iraq are listed at their site, "Conflict with Iraq".  The Baltimore Sun chose to reprint Mark Twain's "The War Prayer."  A mid-March LA Times worried that "The U.S. risks being branded as the aggressive and arrogant superpower that disregards the wishes of the international community...The UN, then, had better come up with a viable alternative, and fast." Another LA Times editorial warns, "The administration ...wants Hussein out of power. so does just about everyone; he's been a global menace and murder for more than a dozen years.  But Bush wants Hussein out now.  Diplomacy proved too frustrating and moved too slowly for an urgency still undefined.  So the U.S. is moving in with the few allies who are willing to share in the gamble that this impatience  was to disarm and remove Hussein and occupy and rebuild Iraq really will make this nation and the world safer...We desperately hope to be wrong in our trepidation about the consequences here and abroad.

The Madison Times criticized both Hussein and Bush in a mid-February editorial:  "Neither can change course now without admitting defeat.  Both sides, will, therefore, rush headlong into conflict regardless of the real reasons that led them to this point" (The Guardian, 2/11/03). 

Return to Top

7.  What were the views of British editorials?  
The Guardian has easy links to hundred of articles on Iraq from 1917-present.

The Guardian (UK) , though they supported the Gulf War and the war in Kosovo, is less Hawkish than The Washington Post, as exemplified in a September 2002 "Surviving Hussein" Leader (top editorial).  "Not yet in breach" (Dec. 20) includes: "Mr. Bush lacks just cause.  If he means what he says about peace, and if he wants to show brave and decisive leadership, eh should persevere with the UN process and call off the war." In "If it's war, it has to be legitimate," (12/22) they conclude, "...If there is to be war, it must be the UN that triggers it, not President Bush."  Another Guardian article commented, "Who knows whether, instead of stopping future terrorist attacks, this will provide motivation for more." 

"Call off the war" started 2003 followed by "Under pressure."   "Blair toughs it out" (Jan. 14) predicts that "it seems obvious that Mr. Blair has a card in his hand that he has not yet revealed--some egregious break of Iraq's obligations, presumably."  On January 18, The Guardian's Leader urges "no rush to judgment" after the 12 warheads were found in Iraq.  Blair and Bush must be constantly reminded that, "in their own words, war is a means of last resort, when all other remedies demonstrably fail."  On January 22, they urged convincing the public:  "This is not a problem of communication, of getting the message across, as thwarted politicians often condescendingly assume.  Rather, it appears that most people, here and abroad, have indeed heard, understood, and pondered his arguments--and reject them."  

Often coordinating with The Guardian is The Observer, who in mid-January take a stand for "decisive action" if Hussein does not yield. After Blix's Feb. 14 report they urge "We must not rule out war"  Britain should say "not yet" to military action partly because al Qaeda links are "unconvincing." "Our patience is wearing thin" was their March 9 contribution, urging Hussein to finally comply and the UN to stand united. 

Return to Top

On Jan. 27 The Guardian quoted Blair on BBC as saying that UN inspectors "should have whatever time they need" but then explained that would mean only a few extra weeks. "Despairing of conclusive proof and losing the battle for public opinion, the US and Britain are not just moving the goalposts.  They are widening the goalmouth and doubling the size of the penalty area.  After all, the WMD sites pinpointed in Mr. Blair's dossier last year have now been inspected; nothing incriminating has been found.  The US has been feeding its famous intelligence to the inspectors; nothing incriminating has been found.  Palaces have been raided, scientist interviews, defunct warhead seized--and while there is much that remains unsatisfactory, nothing that remotely justifies a resort to war has been uncovered." ("In a bind over Iraq") 

Three days later, after the State of the Union, "Speak for this nation" (1/30/03) looks at an old movie, history, and British opinion polls:  "Mr. Blair goes to Washington today.  Unlike Mr. Smith, the famous Frank Capra movie hero who made a similar journey in 1939, Mr. Blair will be no naive newcomer, no greenhorn in the corridors of power.  Yet like the James Stewart character, Mr. Blair is an idealist.  His desire is to do the fright think.  For Mr. Blair, doing good makes for good politics:  more viscerally, his instincts flow from moral imperatives.  Our prime minister is not lacking pragmatism...Did history somehow stop on September 11?  Are we, the British people, so vicariously panicked by the Bush administration's global fright that we forget the lessons of reconciliation, humility, tolerance, and common sense belatedly grasped at the close of our own imperial era?  This is not to be 'anti American'.  It is to be pro-American in that country's best, egalitarian tradition."

Later Guardian Leaders include "Burden of Proof" (February  5) which expresses three concerns:  the views of Blix vs. Powell and Bush, unaccounted for weapons and link to international terrorism.  The Guardian looks at Powell and other's assertions against Blix's statement:  "Blix's "report last week did not allege systematic obstruction.  He disputes claims that the Iraqis are moving evidence around on a large scale.  He rejects suggestions that his organization has been infiltrated.  He knows of no convincing evident that Iraqi scientist have been spirited out of the county or prevented from meeting his team, and George Bush asserts."  Their February 9 Leader speak of deception and "The dossier that shamed Britain."  and two days later label as "dishonest" to urge a second UN vote authorizing force yet simultaneously vow to attack if one is not agreed" ("The Widening Atlantic").

Return to Top

"A moment of truth" was The Guardian's Leader on February 14:  "Mr. Blair thinks people should trust him.  but it is not that simple as the polls have repeatedly shown."  Tony Blair is "fighting a lonely battle to persuade a doubting nation that George Bush ahs the British people's best interest at heart." 

The next day in "No grounds for war," they gave a positive spin on the Blix Feb. 14 report. "Will the US reconsider?  It certainly should...While Mr. Blix's report undercuts the US position...it considerably increases the chance that the US will act unilaterally, dragging Britain in its wake."  

"Message to Baghdad" (2/19) complains about "right-wing tantrums" and "verbal violence" as opponents of war have recently been called "wicked, naive, cowardly, ignorant, malevolent, unpatriotic...They are accused of...anti-Americanism, of betraying Iraqis; of being 'Saddam's useful idiots' and Chamberlain-style appears; and of reckless immorality."  

Then, examining Blair and the bishop of Britain, Feb. 21 Leader includes the idea that "Mr. Bush may be so confident in his own intellect, rightness and levels of support that he does not feel the need to engage in respectful dialogue with his critics any longer.  But Mr. Blair is not in the dubiously luxurious position." 

By February 26, still not convinced for war, the paper opines that "There must be no illusions.  Despite its deliberately roundabout wording, the Anglo-American resolution is a war-enabling text.  If endorsed by the security council in the coming fortnight, it will end the inspections process.  It will end diplomacy.  It will in effect authorize the US to launch a pre-emptive attack next month.  If the European proposal, backed by Russia and China, is adopted, Saddam will not be under any less of an obligation to disarm.  There will be mandatory talks and targets and three-weekly Blix reports.  but inspection will continue for at least four months."  The editorial concludes, "Far from undermining the UN, this approach is the only one that can unite it.  Far from betraying future generation, it could become a model for collective conflict resolution.  If these means are honestly tried and ultimately fail, the use of force as last resort many gain a legitimacy it now lacks.  but this is a time for wisdom, resolve, and above all, patience  This is not the time for war." 

Return to Top

Concerned with "the paramount importance" of international legitimacy, the March 2 The Guardian Leader examines that Parliamentary vote:  "The Prime Minister won a clear mandate for his position.  However, he also suffered the biggest revolt of any governing party for a century.  This makes his political position extremely fragile, particularly if a second UN resolution backing military action against Iraq is not secured." 

Five days later, the Leader worried about linking war in Iraq to creating momentum for Middle East peace.  "The path to an Israeli-Palestinian settlement does not run via Baghdad...Without greater care, war and reconstruction in Iraq will simply become the latest reasons for continuing, hypocritical neglect."  

The next day's Leader, cleverly titled "The dismarming Mr. Blix", criticized Powell for seeing the latest Blix report as overly negative.  "It is certainly true that Iraq can and should do more, faster.  But Mr. Powell, if he were as objective as Mr. Blix and not politically committed to war, would surely also admit that this report, like its predecessors, provides no basis or justification for a resort to military force at this time."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4620928-103682,00.html

"New World Order" shows the British press more concerned with UN approval and with international law.  "Both sides claim to act in the UN's best interest.  US and British officials say the UN must act on Iraq now or be rendered irrelevant, perhaps permanently.  This argument ignores the fact that the UN is already acting, principally through the inspections process.  What they really mean is that if the UN odes not deliver the outcome they want, they will ignore it."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4622495-103682,00.html

March 13 brought "The need to get real", which is critical of Blair, Bush, and Chirac.  "Mr. Blair seems to have such faith in his own powers of persuasion that he continues to think he can persuade the public to take a different view of the crisis...George Bush, acting as though he is not part of a multilateral UN process, and Jacques Chirac, acting as though he did not sign up to the enforcement of UN resolution 1441, are not the only players in this process who are in denial of reality." The editorial then goes on to suggest initiatives each side should take.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4623919-103682,00.html

Return to Top

On the eve of war, The Guardian On timetables and inevitability came "Blair's moment of truth", again harsh and Bush and Blair. Excerpts include:  "The deliberate scuppering of the UN diplomatic process and the leaching of war against Iraq in the next few days without explicit UN authorisation cannot be supported...Blair's glum, pinched face at the Azores summit said it all.  His worst nightmare has come true.  Despite Mr. Bush's assurances about nation-building in post-war Iraq, and his vow to re-engage with the UN for that purpose, it is he, and Mr. Blair, who are pre-emptively cutting short the UN proves and turning their backs on the UN's authority...It has been plain for weeks that the US military timetable is dictating events...The inspections process is still ongoing...If Mr. Blair and Mr. Bush arbitrarily wreck this process now, as seems certain, they will  e branded warmongers by most of the world.  And they will make their own peoples targets for terrorist retribution.  Whatever the attorney general may say in the [House of] Lords today, the pretense that the US and Britain are acting legally in circumventing the UN is preposterous...1441 specifically did not authorise the use of military force."  The lengthy piece concludes, "Rarely has war been launched from such shaky ground.  Rarely have a war's proponents been so blind, so wrong and in such a rush." http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4626449-103682,00.html

Two days later the British paper describes "Iraq's ultimate option", as "surrender to the UN" and have Hussein go into exile.  Seeing this overthrow as "far from ideal" and concerned with "the precedent of this pre-emptive action", the editorial concludes, "Iraqis must surely be saved from the horrors of [the odious] Saddam's last stand--but saved, also, from their saviors." (3/19)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4627948-103682,00.html

Also from the UK, The Independent is skeptical about war, editorializing on February 6 that containment is a better choice than war.  On the policy of containment, they commented, "General Powell did not tell us why we must abandon it."  In contrast, The Times of London reacted to Powell's UN speech of February 5, by commenting, "Containment has failed to prevent him building and hiding weapons that, he must be assumed to believe, would make him ultimately impossible to restrain.  Even if it ultimately takes war, he must be stopped." (NYTimes, 2/7/03). 

Return to Top

8.  What were the views of Canadian newspapers?

Among Canadian papers, The Toronto Star, in mid-January's "Weak U.S. Case For War",  emphasizes polls that only 3/10 Americans would "go it alone" [without a second UN resolution] .  "Despite a huge military buildup, Bush has failed to put forward a compelling case for attacking Iraq, a full year after making his 'axis of evil.' speech."

 "That's remarkable," the Star explains, given 5 reasons, "America's tendency to rally to the president in war, the 9/11 effect, the power of the presidential bully pulpit, the reach of U.S. intelligence services and a largely complaint American media."  The majority of permanent Security Council members think Bush is "overly dismissive of Iraq's cooperation so far" (1/21/03). The Star's Feb. 3 "The Iraq frenzy builds," anticipates Powell's UN speech:  "The drum roll of cynicism, hype, hyperbole, and theatric aims to persuade skeptical American--and reluctant allies--that war is inevitable.  It is hurting America's image...The council should base its judgment on facts, not frenzy." 

In mid-February the Star doubted that millions of Canadians, American, and European peace marchers are appeasers. In "Peace Activists Aren't Appeasers", the editorial opened, "Are millions of Canadian, American and European peace marcher 'appeasers' because they want Iraq disarmed by means other than war?.  They continued, "Canadians would willingly fight again if Saddam thwarts the inspectors.  If he's found hiding banned weapons.  If he befriends Al Qaeda.  Or if he threatens a neighbor....So 'appeasers' aren't Bush's chief problem. His slipping credibility is...A year ago Bush officials claimed Saddam was rearming.  No evidence has been offered."

"Bush deserves credit for re-focusing on UN" but he is too impatient. Proof and evidence has not been provided that Hussein is re-arming or actively aiding Al Qaeda.

The Sun of London took a different approach.  "The UN weapons hunter says there are holes in Iraq's list of doomsday weapons.  He's not kidding.  There are holes you could said an air carrier through--and the Americans will, very soon." 

The Toronto Sun, in mid-December, thought war would be more legitimate if the u.s. "could point to a weapon Saddam does have" rather than the lack of accounting for weapons he once had ("Saddam courts a crisis").