Have L.A. Times Editors Gone Batty With Some Of The Nonsensical Articles And Editorials They Run?
It just seems, when you read today's Sunday L.A. Times, that the editors are losing all their good judgment.
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.
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.
posted by Ken Reich at 12:57 PM
4 Comments:
Ken,
Once again, you repeat the big lie that this war had something to do with terrorism. I give up. How many times and in how many ways do you need to be told something is wrong before you stop believing it? If it was about terrorism it was a mistake, because (news flash) Saddam had no links to Al Qaeda. If it was about weapons of mass distruction it was a mistake because there were none (do you believe that?). So then we're left with winning Mideast hearts and minds with US style democracy. Mistreating prisoners doesn't seem to be a way to go about that. The damage done to our reputation in the world by reports of prisoner abuse are enormous. The news media should be screaming about it every day until some heads roll. The fact that the media hasn't is an indication of conservative bias, not liberal bias. It is certainly sad that Americans are willing to tolerate torture. I suggest you look back at the principles espoused by our founding fathers before you apply your moral relativism to torture.
Ken, FWIW, I don't think it's a matter of "assailing our protectors." The story you cite explores whether a particular policy is counterproductive to our strategic aims over there. That seems to be a fair question.
Best,
Tim
Thanks for mentioning my good friend, Ricardo Crocker. He embodied the word 'patriotism' and was dedicated to his country like no other.
He was, however, killed during his third deployment to Iraq. He was there as an infantry Marine in 1991, then returned in 04 and 05.
A young man's life cut short... and for what?
I don't think he would have had it any other way, but it still seems so senseless.
Your view of the war in Iraq swallows the Bush Administration's despicable lies hook, line and sinker. I was completely in support of the war in Afghanistan and for finding and killing Osama bin Laden. It is absolutely disgusting that this corrupt and brutal Administration gave up the hunt for bin Laden in order to pursue an invasion of Iraq. Their publicly stated grounds for war--weapons of mass destruction and an Iraqi tie to al Qaeda and 9/11--turned out to be at best utterly baseless and at worst (as I suspect) outright lies. The end result? 135,000 brave U.S. troops are stuck in a quagmire with no end. The Iraqi people, who were not allied with terrorism before we invaded their country and killed an estimated 100,000 people, are now taking the side of al Qaeda. And thanks to our military's abuses at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay--abuses sanctioned by the very top leadership of this country--even our friends in the international community are growing to hate us. Bush's cronies are growing wealthy on this war. The rest of us will pay for generations.
Post a Comment
<< Home