The Jan. 22 editorial "The U.N. Endgame" continued The Post's praise for the Bush administration's march to war. Only this time The Post adopted the administration's attack style of accusing some members of the U.N. Security Council of being weak-kneed by suggesting that their resistance to a fast-track war is caused by a "failure of nerve."
In a recent poll, 70 percent of respondents favored giving U.N. weapons inspectors more time to carry out their task. It's unfortunate The Post accuses us and the global majority of lacking nerve rather than having good reasons for opposing a rush to war.
The Jan. 22 editorial "The U.N. Endgame" said the U.N. Security Council is split into "two opposing camps." But "camp" implies a group of countries. In fact, the United States is alone on this matter, as even British Prime Minister Tony Blair is calling for more time for the inspectors to do their job.
The editorial asserts that Iraq is hiding weapons of mass destruction, but the examples it cites -- a few empty shell casings and missing explosives -- are trivial compared with its admission, in an understated way, that "war will bring risks and painful costs."
The known facts do not show a credible danger to the United States from Iraq, so what is the rush? President Bush's policy only advances his administration's plans for remaking the area in our image and putting it under our control. Such policies are commonly called colonialism.