The WaPo Continues to Bang the Pro-War Drum

As RJ Eskow points out, an editorial in today's Washington Post castigates the critics of the war in Iraq for "routinely and glibly" describing it as a "catastrophe." But a catastrophe is what the war in Iraq undoubtedly is -- and the only thing glib and routine is the Post's editorial position on the war. And it's been this way since the run up to the invasion. A few choice examples:

"After Secretary of State Colin L. Powell's presentation to the United Nations Security Council yesterday, it is hard to imagine how anyone could doubt that Iraq possesses weapons of mass destruction. ... And he offered a powerful new case that Saddam Hussein's regime is cooperating with a branch of the al Qaeda organization that is trying to acquire chemical weapons and stage attacks in Europe." (2/06/2003)

"[Saddam] shelters terrorists who have killed Americans and who would like to kill more. He owns large stocks of chemical and biological weapons and has considerable experience in their use. To allow him once again to outmaneuver the United Nations and continue his quest for nuclear weapons would subject Americans to unacceptable risks. It would also show other terrorist sponsors that, brave 9/11 rhetoric notwithstanding, they still have nothing to fear. The longer he remains unchallenged, the greater the risk." (2/13/2003)

"[Saddam] might be contained for a while, but in the post-Sept. 11, 2001, world, another failure by the world's powers to enforce Iraqi disarmament would be a disaster even worse than war: It would touch off a rush by rogue states for nuclear weapons." (1/22/03)