Russ Smith said in part:  "To be honest, I think having a couple of beers
with Denys and Wirt would be a hoot
almost entirely *because* of their nearly polar perspectives on many topics
and their ability to argue effectively and respectfully.  (They both have
the scholar's propensity to be abusive of the other's source material, but
hey....)"

Wirt is fond of quoting from The New York Times a newspaper that I consider
so biased I think of it as the DNC newsletter.  They now have not one, but
two ex-Clinton speechwriters on the editorial board.

But, what does the NYT say about the present situation, let's find out.  I
am showing here the link to last Saturday's NYT editorial.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/02/15/opinion/15SAT1.html

Now, because the NYT requires a free sign-up and some may not want to do
that, I am taking a page from the Wirt Atmar school of propaganda and I am
reposting the article in its entirety.  I solemnly promise to never to that
again.

Disarming Iraq
s much as the feuding members of the United Nations Security Council might
like Hans Blix and Mohamed ElBaradei to settle the question of war or peace
with Iraq, these two mild-mannered civil servants can't make that fateful
judgment. All they can do, which they did again yesterday, is to tell the
Council how their inspection efforts are faring. So-so was the answer. It's
up to the Council members - especially the veto-wielding quintet of the
United States, Britain, France, Russia and China - to decide whether Iraq is
disarming.
In our judgment, Iraq is not. The only way short of war to get Saddam
Hussein to reverse course at this late hour is to make clear that the
Security Council is united in its determination to disarm him and is now
ready to call in the cavalry to get the job done. America and Britain are
prepared to take that step. The time has come for the others to quit
pretending that inspections alone are the solution.
The Security Council, as we said the other day, needs to pass a new
resolution that sets a deadline for unconditional Iraqi compliance and
authorizes military action if Baghdad falls short. Without that, the French
proposal that Mr. Blix and Dr. ElBaradei report again in mid-March is the
diplomatic equivalent of treading water. It practically invites President
Bush to take the undesirable step of going to war without the support of the
Security Council.
Just as they did last month, the inspectors offered a mixed picture that
allowed all sides to draw sustenance for their arguments. What should not be
missed is that the positive aspects of the reports dealt largely with
secondary matters like process and access. On the essential issue of active
Iraqi cooperation in the disclosure and destruction of prohibited
unconventional weapons, the inspectors could find little encouraging to say.
That leaves the fundamental picture about where it was last weekend, except
that another week has passed without Iraq doing what it urgently needs to
do. It's easy to see where France's wishful thinking leads. Baghdad could
continue dribbling out meaningless concessions such as yesterday's laughable
decree that the development of weapons of mass destruction is now prohibited
in Iraq.
Mr. Blix and Dr. ElBaradei cannot be left to play games of hide-and-seek.
This is not like Washington's unproved assertions about an alliance between
Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden. There is ample evidence that Iraq has
produced highly toxic VX nerve gas and anthrax and has the capacity to
produce a lot more. It has concealed these materials, lied about them, and
more recently failed to account for them to the current inspectors. The
Security Council doesn't need to sit through more months of inconclusive
reports. It needs full and immediate Iraqi disarmament. It needs to say so,
backed by the threat of military force


Denys

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *