from SLATE's news summary:
>The NY [TIMES] has gotten an enormous amount of heat over the past few months for pushing various agendas, including what's seemed to some to be an anti-war, peacenik position. There is a touch of truth to those arguments, but the Times isn't exactly going around passing out love-beads. Consider this editorial in today's paper: http://www.nytimes.com/2002/12/10/opinion/10TUE2.html
"Iraq is entitled to no presumption of innocence. It has arrived at this point after invading, occupying and looting Kuwait and then failing to honor the cease-fire terms it accepted after that conflict. Had Baghdad kept its word then, its unconventional weapons would long ago have been destroyed and the sites where they were developed permanently monitored. If careful scrutiny of Iraq's new report shows it to be still defaulting on its promises, it will have forfeited the chance for a peaceful solution." <
Meanwhile, at US National Public Radio, Daniel Schor (who once received unwanted attention from President Nixon) a launched a similar hawkish editorial statement.
The chattering classes are uniting behind Bush's war?
------------------------
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
