Have L.A. Times Editors Gone Batty With Some Of The Nonsensical Articles And Editorials They Run?
Why would they lead the paper with a long story suggesting that, jeez, we're angering the Iraqis by holding prisoners too long in Iraqi prisons?
Here's a country where hundreds of people are being killed month by month in suicide bombings, where innocent foreigner hostages are regularly having their heads chopped off, where murderous ethnic groups are slaughtering one another, where a war rages against rampant terrorism, and all the L.A. Times can think of primarily is criticizing the United States military for trying to keep some kind of a handle on the situation.
Why am I being so unreasonable? Because the stakes are so high. Because if we don't succeed in Iraq, the terror is going to spread. It started against Americans in Lebanon with the taking of hostages and the bombing of U.S. Marines. It continued in Iran with the wanton seizure of American diplomats, and, later, the assault on the USS Cole in Aden Harbor. It led to monstrous terror attacks that took down the Twin Towers in New York and damaged the Pentagon. And it could continue in the future, unless we crush our enemies, with atomic, chemical and biological attacks against the U.S. homeland, Europe and other free areas.
Yet this morning, in addition to keeping up a drumfire of criticism against American soldiers, sailors, air and intelligence personnel who are trying to protect us, the Times editorial pages can't make up their mind whether immigration controls are a good thing (see the lead editorial) and run two articles by women who disagree with one another only to the degree they are willing to accept discrimination against women in Pakistan, one of the most uncivilized countries in the world, and one which not only has developed nuclear weapons of its own, but has been selling nuclear technology to Iran, North Korea and other countries. Islamic schools in Pakistan call for a nuclear attack on the U.S.
The L.A. Times is too understanding, too willing to tolerate despicable behavior, as weak as Britain and France were in the 1930s when an earlier generation of Fascists were gaining strength, getting ready to plunge the world into war.
This weakness has contributed to the moral uncertainty in this country as millions of people fail to appreciate the dire nature of the threat or think they can temporize with it, appease it, and it will somehow go away.
There are heroic Americans who are fighting and dying in the war on terror. Just this morning, starting at the bottom of the L.A. Times obituary page, is the story of the death in Iraq of a 39-year-old Marine reservist from the Santa Monica Police Department, in the midst of serving his second tour of duty in Iraq.
Major Ricardo A. Crocker was killed in a rocket-propelled grenade attack in the Sunni area of Al Anbar Province, where the Syrian government has been supporting the terrorists. He will be buried on Thursday.
Meanwhile, all too many journalists seem more interested in assailing our protectors rather than those who would turn the world back toward the dark ages. And this, of all times, on the Memorial Day weekend. The New York Times strikes a different tone. In an article today in the New York Times magazine, the redoutable Cynthia Gorney, examines "A Mother's War," a story of the hopes and fears of the mothers of U.S. Marines. That paints a grim picture of the war, but at least it is supportive of U.S. troops.