NY Times op-eds question: were any clearly against the war before start?

[Eric J in MN]

Before the start of the Iraq War, the editorials-by-the-editors-of-the-NY-Times said we should wait.

Did any of the regular op-ed writers in the NY Times either say we should wait or that we shouldn't invade Iraq at all?

[RafterMan]

1. I don't have links,

but I've got to believe Bob Herbert and Paul Krugman were against it from the start. I don't remember specific opposition bits, but either of those two going over would have been so shocking that I'm sure it would have stuck in my mind.

[Quetzal]

2. I don't remember Maureen's posistion

She seemed to reluctantly support it.

[charlie]

3. Frank Rich

I don't recall if he was against the idea of deposing Saddam some day, but he wasn't at all bashful about expressing his distrust and dislike of Dubya's crew of chickenhawks.

[gandalf]

4. Here are two studies

analyzing the coverage of major US newspapers before the war. NY Times is discussed also. They are worth reading, because they prove how even supposedly "liberal" items like NY Times were involved in the Iraq war marketing campaign.

1) Michael Massing, Now They Tell Us, The New York Review of Books, Volume 51, Number 3,
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16922

2) Chris Money, Columbia Journalism Review, Issue March/April 2004
http://www.cjr.org/issues/2004/2/mooney-war.asp

[Eric J in MN]

5. those are interesting, but they don't say if before the war,

Those are interesting, but they don't say if before the war, Paul Krugman and Bob Herbert ever wrote that we shouldn't attack Iraq.

[gandalf]

7. Right.

Without knowing it, I would assume that they didn't write it that clearly. Did you do an archive search? I suppose you have to pay for the articles, but probably you can read the headlines in the search results.

[gandalf]

8. I did an archive search

None of the headlines indicated a position against the war.

There are around 60 article by each Herbert and Krugman, resp., between August 2002 and March 2003. You can read the very short abstracts for free.

[oblivious]

6. Paul Krugman was clearly against it.

As far as I remember, he didn't come out with a column specifically against it, but would often work it into a column on economics, like this one to Greenspan. You knew where he stood.

-snip
So why are you still giving these people political cover?

No doubt you're under intense pressure to be a team player. But these guys are users: they persuade other people to squander their hard-won credibility on behalf of bad policies, then discard those people once they are no longer useful. Think of John DiIulio, or your friend Paul O'Neill. It's happening to Colin Powell right now. (A digression: The U.S. media are soft-pedaling it as usual, but the business of the Osama tape has destroyed Mr. Powell's credibility in much of the world. The tape calls Saddam Hussein an "infidel" whose "jurisdiction . . . has fallen," but says that it's still O.K. to fight the "Crusaders" ? and Mr. Powell claims that it ties Saddam to Al Qaeda. Huh? All it shows is that Al Qaeda views a U.S. invasion of Iraq as an excellent recruiting opportunity.) -snip-

You have to pay to get in on NYT, but Smirking Chimp has it.
http://smirkingchimp.com/article.php?sid=10189&mode=nested&order=0

[leftyandproud]

9. yes

I recall reading mostly antiwar editorials in the NYT. Very few (if any?) were enthusiastic about toppling Saddam. I did see lots of good arguments against it though.