L.A. Times Op-Ed Page Runs Disgraceful Ramsey Clark
Not content with the ravings of his leftist columnists Michael Kinsley and Bob Scheer, Times Op-Ed Page Editor Nick Goldberg sinks to a new low this morning, Jan. 24, by running a column by Ramsey Clark that suggests that "leaders and military personnel of the U.S., Britain" should be charged with crimes at the same time Saddam Hussein is, for their "aggression against Iraq."
Churchill incarcerated the British Fascist Sir Oswald Mosley and 200 of his followers during World War II for less of an offense in a time of war than Clark is guilty of here.
Clark, an offensive anti-American for many years, has long cow-towed to terrorists ranging from the Ayatollah Khomeini to the leaders of Hezbollah. But his sympathetic treatment of Hussein, the murderer of millions, does not belong in a respectable American newspaper. It perverts free speech to panic-mongering, what Oliver Wendell Holmes once characterized as "crying fire in a crowded theatre."
Goldberg once told me in a conversation that he felt the American people's response to 9-11 was excessive, and remarked that unlike Europeans Americans were not sufficiently inured to the costs of war, because we had not been subjected to attacks such as Europeans suffered in World War II.
And so The Times continues to offend many thousands of its own readers. However, the Times letters column continues to be fairminded, printing a number of letters, such as this morning, that sharply criticize the paper's editorial policy.
Kudos to reader Gregory P. Williams of Lakewood today, who responded to the Jan. 21 editorial calling President Bush "a small man (in our view), who became president through accident of birth and corruption of democracy."
Williams calls this editorial 'an affront to every American," and says it "shows...blatant, obvious hatred of the man and the office and a complete lack of respect for the American people who duly elected the president."
Things are deteriorating at the Tribune-owned Times. How long can it be before a purchaser comes forward to buy back The Times and turn the leftists who have come to dominate the editorial pages out to pasture.
Churchill incarcerated the British Fascist Sir Oswald Mosley and 200 of his followers during World War II for less of an offense in a time of war than Clark is guilty of here.
Clark, an offensive anti-American for many years, has long cow-towed to terrorists ranging from the Ayatollah Khomeini to the leaders of Hezbollah. But his sympathetic treatment of Hussein, the murderer of millions, does not belong in a respectable American newspaper. It perverts free speech to panic-mongering, what Oliver Wendell Holmes once characterized as "crying fire in a crowded theatre."
Goldberg once told me in a conversation that he felt the American people's response to 9-11 was excessive, and remarked that unlike Europeans Americans were not sufficiently inured to the costs of war, because we had not been subjected to attacks such as Europeans suffered in World War II.
And so The Times continues to offend many thousands of its own readers. However, the Times letters column continues to be fairminded, printing a number of letters, such as this morning, that sharply criticize the paper's editorial policy.
Kudos to reader Gregory P. Williams of Lakewood today, who responded to the Jan. 21 editorial calling President Bush "a small man (in our view), who became president through accident of birth and corruption of democracy."
Williams calls this editorial 'an affront to every American," and says it "shows...blatant, obvious hatred of the man and the office and a complete lack of respect for the American people who duly elected the president."
Things are deteriorating at the Tribune-owned Times. How long can it be before a purchaser comes forward to buy back The Times and turn the leftists who have come to dominate the editorial pages out to pasture.
posted by Ken Reich at 11:45 AM
1 Comments:
"...a small man (in our view), who became president through accident of birth and corruption of democracy."
That line sounds like something from the LA Weekly, and is pretty reflexive even by the standards of a dogmatic editorial writer for the LA Times. It would have been more honest if he (or she) had written:
"...a non-liberal man (in our view), who became president in spite of his having an ideology we dislike (the Times favored the leftist thinking of Senator John Kerry) and in spite of his being ruled against by a Florida Supreme Court (biased in a way we love) made up of mostly liberal Democrats versus a decision made by the federal Supreme Court (biased in a way we hate) made up of a small majority of conservative Republicans."
Post a Comment
<< Home