Where America's Papers Now Stand on War

By: Ari Berman Updated at 5:10 p.m. Eastern Standard Time, March 17

At his primetime press conference, President Bush declared that after weeks of equivocation, it was time for the nations of the world to stand up and be counted on the question of going to war with Iraq. One week later, many of those nations still seem undecided, but most American newspapers finally took a clear stand on the issue -- and the latest E&P survey of the top 50 newspapers' editorial positions continues to show a slight shift in the dovish direction.

Looking at the papers' most recent editorials from the past week, we found that 18 newspapers support war now while 24 want to give diplomacy more time. Seven did not editorialize on the war this week. The Boston Globe still has not made up its mind.

Of that cautious group of 24, 11 support extending the deadline for war for a short period, while 13 believe that inspections deserve much more time.

The press, like the American public, may be divided -- but even so, it is doubtful that America has ever been poised on the brink of a major military action with a majority of top newspapers urging caution and delay.

Perhaps most notable in this regard, the Los Angeles Times and The Washington Post, previously on the hawkish side, seem to have shifted course, arguing that diplomacy deserves a few more shots. "Bush and his advisors bear much responsibility for the impasse that threatens to wreck the system of collective security that emerged out of World War II," the L.A. Times said on March 7.

The Post wrote on March 9: "If a few more weeks of diplomacy will serve to assuage the legitimate concerns of undecided council members, the effort -- even at this late date -- would be worth making."

The Boston Globe's editorial stance, meanwhile, remains the only one that can not be discerned. It is summed up in the title of its March 11 editorial: "Warring impulses." The Globe seemed to place itself along with "a lot of Americans" in what it called "the muddled middle" swinging between positions "daily, sometimes hourly... " before arriving at this conclusion: "There are no right answers yet."

Strongly Dovish

Among the other notable changes, The New York Times, after much criticism for sending mixed signals, finally took a clear antiwar stance. "We believe there is a better option involving long-running, stepped-up weapons inspections," the Times wrote on March 9. "If it comes down to a question or yes or no to invasion without broad international support, our answer is no."

In a sharply worded editorial on March 11, The Star-Ledger of Newark, N.J., agreed with the Times. "This rush to pre-emptive war is not in keeping with our best traditions," they opined. "Without significant international support, we will be seen as an arrogant colonial power in the Muslim world, and we will have a hard time putting together what we break apart."

The San Francisco Chronicle also emphasized the importance of global cooperation before war. "Bush's threat to make the United Nations irrelevant is a reckless and arrogant diplomatic act," they wrote on March 11. "In the midst of rapid globalization, we need the world just as much as it needs us."

"Bush says he will respect innocent Iraqi lives, even as his Pentagon appointees cheerily advertise a strategy of 'shock and awe' intended to leave Iraq's vital infrastructure blasted and its population bloody and dazed," the Houston Chronicle said on March 7. "Even Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has wiped the cocky grin off his face in recognition that there can be no joy in sending U.S. troops into battle."

The St. Petersburg (Fla.) Times, in a lengthy and passionate March 9 editorial, said the March 17 war deadline "sounds less like a deadline than a launch date." The Times claimed that Bush's war would set a dangerous precedent and risk undermining the broader war against terrorism.

Other papers espousing similarly skeptical views included The Columbus (Ohio) Dispatch, The Sacramento (Calif.) Bee, The Hartford (Conn.) Courant, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, St. Louis Post-Dispatch, The Sun of Baltimore, and the Orange County Register in Santa Ana, Calif.

Dovish, for Awhile Longer

Twelve papers opposed to immediate military action still believed a firm deadline would help spur Iraq's disarmament.

The Plain Dealer in Cleveland said the U.S. should compromise on its wording of the resolution while the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel on March 8 advocated Canada's proposal for a March 28 disarmament date. On the same day, the Minneapolis Star Tribune said "between 10 days and 60 or 90 days, there must be a number that would prove satisfactory to most members of the Security Council."

In their Sunday March 9 editorial, The Charlotte (N.C.) Observer justified setting a date. "The purpose of new deadlines would be to allow Iraq one last opportunity to fully, actively and unconditionally uphold the agreement to disarm it made a dozen years ago," the paper said.

USA Today, The Kansas City (Mo.) Star, The Philadelphia Inquirer, Detroit Free Press, Orlando (Fla.) Sentinel, and San Jose (Calif.) Mercury News agreed.

Hawks Ready to Fly

Eighteen other papers disagreed -- arguing that time had run out for Saddam Hussein -- although these papers sometimes differed in approach.

"It is with great reluctance, serious misgivings about the unintended consequences of an invasion and deep unease about President George W. Bush's egregious mishandling of the run-up to such a war that this newspaper will support a decision to take military action against Iraq, even without UN consent, " Newsday of Melville, N.Y., wrote on March 9.

"America must make its own decisions on safeguarding national security -- even if that means acting with a narrow 'coalition of the willing,' or alone," The Buffalo (N.Y.) News said on March 8.

The Seattle Times and The Courier-Journal in Louisville, Ky., also supported the war while raising questions about costs and mismanaged diplomacy.

Others struck more hard-line positions. "When dealing with the likes of Saddam, peace is a gamble," a March 8 Tampa (Fla.) Tribune editorial said. The Boston Herald, The Detroit News, The San Diego Union-Tribune, and Rocky Mountain News of Denver concurred.

Certain hawks could barely contain their glee at dismissing the French. The New York Post praised a New York restaurateur's decision to pour more than $1,000 of fine French wine into a toilet in a March 10 editorial entitled "Weasels at Work." The Post's pages have been overrun by weasels in the last few weeks, as the paper has taken a hard line against the French and Germans, who've been dubbed the "Axis of Weasels." The tabloid ran an unforgettable front-page photo on Feb. 14 that substituted photos of the furry mammals for the French and German delegates at the U.N. And Post columnist Cindy Adams' column ran last month with a photo of a weasel wearing a beret.

"Bash the French?" the Chicago Tribune asked in a March 10 editorial headline. "Mais oui!"

The Arizona Republic in Phoenix, Chicago Sun-Times, The Dallas Morning News, The Indianapolis Star, New York Daily News, and The Oregonian of Portland all deemed war necessary.

Yet, while a few newspapers -- left and right -- seemed to offer knee-jerk reactions to the latest developments, most papers seemed to struggle with their decisions.

"We are under no illusion that our opinion will carry weight in Washington or beyond," the St. Petersburg Times admitted. "However, it is the highest calling of every citizen in a representative democracy to speak out as clearly as possible in matters as grave as war and peace. Now is the time for every American to be heard in calling upon our government to uphold the values that historically have guided us in times of crisis. Voices of reason and screams of horror will be drowned out once the bombs start falling."

---

See E&P's complete coverage of Iraq and the Press.