This is How We Do It
If they had Pulitzers for blogs, this would get one. Marc at "American Future" dives into the archives and lays it out: What the New York Times said editorially about Saddam Hussein, WMD, and the use of American force in Iraq, dating back to 1993. It's not an assassination of the Gray Lady, but a perspective on editorial policy that will allow those of us who care about such things to discover if there's method to the journalism, or mere political trimming.
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. They frequently made note of Saddam’s efforts to thwart the inspectors, and insisted that Iraq must fully cooperate before the sanctions implemented at the end of the Gulf War should be lifted. The Times’ objective was the elimination of Iraq’s WMD, not regime change. Bringing democracy to Iraq was not a topic in its editorials.
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. They leveled similar criticisms at the U.N. Security Council. 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.
The single exception to the Times’ hawkish stance stemmed from Iraq’s November 1993 decision to cooperate with the UN arms inspectors. In an editorial dated August 1, 1994, it was stated that Iraq was “now close to meeting the Security Council’s requirement that it destroy its stocks of biological, chemical, and nuclear weapons and accept long-term international monitoring.” For France, Russia, and China, this was sufficient for lifting the oil sanctions. The U.S. and Britain "opposed any acknowledgement of progress," and the Clinton administration, "which insists on retaining sanctions as long as Mr. Hussein remains in power, has been reduced to strained reinterpretations of the cease-fire’s resolution’s clear language ..." The editors sided with France, Russia, and China. It wouldn’t be long, however, before the Times would be disabused of the notion that Saddam had changed his colors.
