OxBlog

# Posted 1:45 PM by Ariel David Adesnik

MEA CULPA: When confronted with Donald Rumsfled's periodic assertions that Iraq and Al-Qaeda have been working together, I tended to assume that the SecDef was grasping at straws. It seems that Colin Powell shared my suspicions. According to the NYT,

Until about three weeks ago, Mr. Powell was said to be reluctant to go before the Security Council with a case connecting Al Qaeda with the Iraqi leadership.

But now all that has changed. As the evidence shows

"Al Qaeda affiliates, based in Baghdad, now coordinate the movement of people, money and supplies into and throughout Iraq for his network, and they are now operating freely in the capital for more than eight months."

The best indications of how convincing the evidence are the brand-new justifications for avoiding war that the administration's opponents have rolled out. According to a NYT news analysis,

"Mr. Powell did not appear to make an airtight case that the Saddam Hussein regime is plotting with Al Qaeda to attack the United States and its allies."

If not, then what are Al Qaeda's forces doing in Baghdad? Back when there was no public evidence that Saddam and Al Qaeda were cooperating, it made sense to argue that there were no joint attacks being planned. To deny it now is absurd. In the same analysis, the author cites an arms control experts who says that

"Just because there is a terrorist cell in Iraq, [it] does not prove that Saddam Hussein is ready to transfer mass destruction weapons to Al Qaeda for use against the United States."

Alright. I can agree with that. But Al Qaeda did not rely on chemical or biological weapons on September 11th, either. Now who's grasping at straws?.

Last of all, we come to the NYT editorial board's justification for delaying an invasion of Iraq. It is that

Because the consequences of war are so terrible, and the cost of rebuilding Iraq so great, the United States cannot afford to confront Iraq without broad international support.

Yes, the consequences of war are terrible. But they will not be any less terrible if the French and Germans support the war. Yes, the cost of rebuilding Iraq will be great. But it pales in comparison to the cost of being on guard against Iraqi aggression for another decade.

What is most striking about these arguments is what they don't say. What has happened to the NYT's insistence that war cannot be legitimate without UN support? What has happened to its insistence that the arms inspectors have an actual purpose other than to delay a conflict?

If the Times had admitted that its opposition to the President -- as well as that of the Germans and French -- had been based on tenuous assumptions about the efficacy of inspections and the willingness of the Iraqi government to cooperate, I might have developed a newfound respect for its editorial board.

Rather than exempting itself from the critical analysis to which it subjects public figures, the Times must acknowledge that its own behavior ought to be subject to investigation. In short, it is time for the appointment of an Ombudsman.

(0) opinions -- Add your opinion