'TIMES' DISCREDITS IRAQ ATTACK: Stephen Hayes of the "Weekly Standard" attacks the "New York Times" for a recent article suggesting that a U.S. attack on Iraq would wreck the economy.

This latest effort, by Times writers Patrick Tyler and Richard Stevenson, is striking both for what it includes and what it omits. The authors focus almost exclusively on what they suggest would be the damaging consequences of war. (For that reason, the use of the soft verb "affect" in the lede is an interesting--and misleading--choice.) Any serious look at the economic impact of war would include two key issues the authors choose to ignore: First, a discussion of the disastrous economic consequences of another, larger terrorist attack--the possible result of inaction with regards to Iraq. (A GAO report out yesterday suggests that New York City and New York state each lost $1.6 billion in tax revenues alone in 2002.) Second, what about the economic boon presented by a liberalized Iraq? The Times, however, appears less interested in a thoughtful discussion about the economic impact of war, and more interested in laying out obstacles to military intervention.