The New York Times: Harshing your mellow

I've just read tomorrow's (Sunday's) New York Times main editorial and, oh boy, is it a doozy. Military success in Iraq has triggered the whole gamut of death-spiral emotions at West 43rd Street: disbelief, anger, and depression. There's no guarantee that acceptance will follow.

We did not like the combative doctrine when it was formally unveiled last September because it seemed to walk away from America's historical inclination to work with other nations to preserve the peace and to rely on force only when its security was directly threatened. The overthrow of Mr. Hussein does not make it seem any more valid.

To the NYT, "other nations" = France and Germany. Also, I'd desperately like to get Howell Raines to go over to Baghdad and say: "Sure, Saddam is gone, but was it worth the damage caused to the integrity of the United Nations?" Hilarity is sure to ensue.

The yearning to right wrongs has a noble tradition in American foreign policy, and few could oppose those portions of the Bush doctrine that would extend the benefits of freedom, democracy, prosperity and the rule of law to the far corners of the globe. Unfortunately, these goals were overshadowed by an arrogant, go-it-alone stance and an aggressive claim to the right to use pre-emptive action against threatening states.

Yeah, whatever. Do they even remember 9/11 over at the Times? Do we have to wait until we're attacked again before we take action? Let Iraq develop nuclear weapons? Should we seek out permission from Europe every time we want to protect ourselves? Morons – back to the ivory tower for you.