Friday Aug 1, 2003
To the Editors of the New York Times,
After hearing Gail Collins on Washington Journal this morning,
claiming that the New York Times news department never dabbles in
opinion, it is illuminating to read Michael Gordon's coverage of
the "latest theory": If Saddam did destroy his weapons, he must
have had some evil design anyway. This is a particularly twisted
way to rationalize the shock and awe that has been delivered. The
theory may be the brain child of some other "expert" in denial.
Nevertheless Gordon's analysis is not news at all: "Why did Iraq
only grudgingly accede to inspections under the threat of military
invasion if it had nothing to hide?" At least Mr. Gordon, unlike
the President, is aware that Hussein did accede to inspections.
Still it is remarkable that despite being reported widely, the fact
that the CIA exploited UNSCOM does not come to mind when asking
such a question. Tariq Aziz was quoted a year ago saying that
regardless of how Iraq responded to coalition demands, it would be
attacked. Under such an interpretation, which now appears to be
quite accurate, why wouldn't a bit of grudging be in order? Excuse
me, but the only conclusion I can draw from Gordon's analysis is
that it was essentially an opinion piece.
Andy Deck
Lecturer, School of Visual Arts
|