Self-contradiction in the NY Times

It would be one thing if they said they'd changed their minds. But this doesn't seem to be that. I always find these instances of self-contradiction to be interesting.

"Mr. Bush said repeatedly that he went to the United Nations seeking a diplomatic alternative to war. In fact, the United States rejected all diplomatic alternatives at the time, severely damaging relations with some of its most important and loyal allies." - New York Times editorial. February 9 2004.

"Yesterday's unanimous vote at the United Nations Security Council sends the strongest possible message to Baghdad...This is a well-deserved triumph for President Bush, a tribute to eight weeks of patient but determined and coercive American diplomacy…Only if the council fails to approve the serious consequences it now invokes -- generally understood to be military measures -- should Washington consider acting alone." - New York Times editorial, November 9, 2002. [Hat tip to Andrew Sullivan]

Even so, nobody can beat Kerry for self-contradiction.