Winds of Change points to an interesting post at a blog called American Future (every day I discover a great new blog. Soon I won’t have any time to do anything but read blogs) about the New York times shifting attitudes towards Iraq since 1993 (which seem to parallel the shift in the White House from Democrat to Republican).

Here are some excerpts (with emphasis by me) but you really should read the whole thing. As one reader pointd out in the comments section of Winds of Change the switch in attitude wasn’t gradual but coincided almost immediately with Bush’s entrance of the White House.

Except for a brief period during 1994, The Times’ editorial position was distinctly hawkish during the Clinton presidency. At no time did the Times express any doubts regarding the credibility of intelligence information pertaining to WMD. Throughout this period, the paper’s editors insisted on an aggressive UN-directed inspection regime, which was their preferred means to disarm Saddam’s Iraq.

Notwithstanding their preference for inspections, the editors did not shy away from advocating the use of air strikes – including unilateral American air strikes – if the obstacles constructed by Saddam made it impossible for the U.N.’s inspectors to fulfill their missions.

The Times endorsed every U.S. military operation ordered by Clinton. None of the editorials insisted that the U.S. must obtain Security Council approval before undertaking a military action, nor did they require that military operations – unilateral or multilateral – be authorized by new Security Council resolutions.

When the editors criticized the Clinton administration, it was for being too dovish, not too hawkish.

China, Russia and especially France were taken to task for giving priority to their commercial interests over coming to grips with the threat posed by Iraq’s WMD.

Guess what? They also weren’t keen on Hans Blix:

(1/27/00) The United Nations Security Council’s compromise choice of Hans Blix as the new chief weapons inspector for Iraq is a disturbing sign that the international community lacks the determination to rebuild an effective arms inspection system in Iraq. Mr. Blix is a man of unquestioned integrity and tact. But he seems unlikely to provide the forceful leadership needed to keep Saddam Hussein from cheating on his arms control obligations and building fearsome unconventional weapons. The further the world gets from the gulf war, the more it seems willing to let Mr. Hussein revive his deadly weapons projects. Now, after approving a new inspection program that offers a minimally acceptable level of monitoring, the Security Council is turning the inspection work over to a man of uncertain resolve. Mr. Blix compiled a mixed record in his previous job as head of the International Atomic Energy Agency, including a decade-long failure to detect Iraq’s secret nuclear weapons program before the gulf war . . . In 1997 Mr. Blix suggested easing the standard for judging when Iraq has met its obligations to eliminate all biological, chemical and nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver them. He called for winding up inspections once U.N. investigators feel they have uncovered all the prohibited weapons they are likely to find, even if highly dangerous materials remain unaccounted for. That virtually invites Iraq, which has not yet agreed to admit new U.N. inspectors, to continue concealing its illegal programs. We hope Mr. Blix will reconsider his position now that he will lead the inspection effort.

Popularity: 2% [?]