David Brooks points out the disparities between editorial positions and the facts in the WaPo and NYTimes. His first example is a report from Kabul, but the other reveals how absolutely dangerous the Anti-war-in-Iraq position is:

The real surprise for inspectors in the 1990's was how close Iraq was to producing a nuclear weapon.. . .The International Atomic Energy Agency, which led the nuclear inspections, discovered that Iraq had imported nearly 50 kilos (110 pounds) of highly enriched uranium from France and Russia.[italics mine]. . .

The inspectors destroyed the weapons they found, but with Saddam in power can we really let the matter rest?
The need to stop Iraq's chemical and biological weapons is even more urgent, because they are easier to produce and hide:

Britain said in its Sept. 24 report that its intelligence community believed that Iraq "retained some chemical warfare agents, precursors, production equipment and weapons" and could "produce significant quantities of mustard gas within weeks and of nerve agent within months."

Yet the editors of both papers and a large part of the Democratic party still maintain that we can wait for the U.N. to do something about Iraq. Is that the same U.N. that withdrew its inspectors the last time and had to be pushed kicking and screaming into sending them back? Is politics such an overarching concern that these people have to oppose everything the Bush administration proposes, regardless of the evidence?