A resourceful reader tipped Andrew Sullivan on the duplicitous views of the NYTimes editorial board regarding Saddam Hussein and the threat to the world.

"Saddam Hussein has long been an obsession for the world, and particularly the United States. Yet Iraq was so cut off from the outside that it was impossible for anyone — including, it seems, American intelligence officials — to get a clear picture of who he really was... George W. Bush's Saddam Hussein was both vicious and efficient — a combination that made him a clear and imminent threat to international security. He not only had the will to harm his neighbors and the United States, he had the means. He was rapidly expanding an arsenal of biological and chemical weapons while steadily moving closer to becoming a nuclear power. He was so clever and well organized that he might surprise the world with nuclear weapons at any time. And although his regime was a secular one, it was so single-minded in its anti-Americanism that it was undoubtedly working with the radical Islamist terrorists of Al Qaeda." - New York Times editorial, December 17, 2003.

"Mr. Bush's blunt assessment of the Iraqi threat and the need for a firm, united response by the United Nations were well put. Iraq, with its storehouses of biological toxins, its advanced nuclear weapons program, its defiance of international sanctions and its ambitiously malignant dictator, is precisely the kind of threat that the United Nations was established to deal with. Betting on the good faith of Saddam Hussein or trusting that the problem will fade away is unrealistic. As Mr. Bush said, after a decade of Iraqi defiance the U.N. faces a defining moment and a test of its purpose and resolve." - New York Times editorial, September 13, 2002.

And yes, the UN punted with the democrats and the liberal media proving the blocking.