Here's another angle on a story previously covered by NB's Tim Graham.
Friday's New York Times editorial (requires registration) makes it clear, without having the courage to specifically say it, that it opposed the impending execution of the Iraqi dictator, even characterizing the three-year legal process as "The Rush to Hang" him.
The Times may have taken it too far this time. I would think more than a few in the Manhattan wine-and-cheese set, even those who oppose the war, will be astute enough to substitute the name "Osama bin Laden" and his "orchestration of the 9/11 attacks" for "Saddam Hussein" and his "vile and unforgivable atrocities" in the Times' Friday editorial. Here are a couple of easy examples:
Editorial: The important question was never really about whether Saddam Hussein was guilty of crimes against humanity.
Substitute: The important question was never really about whether Osama Bin Laden was guilty of orchestrating the 9/11 attacks.
Editorial: What really mattered was whether an Iraq freed from his death grip could hold him accountable in a way that nurtured hope for a better future.
Substitute: What really mattered was whether America could hold bin Laden accountable in a way that nurtured hope for a better future.
Many of the Times' most loyal readers had family members or personally knew people who died in the Twin Towers. Can they, or can anyone else, really doubt that the Times will oppose bin Laden's execution, should that blessed day ever come, with "creative" excuses like the ones it concocted for Hussein?
Is such a newspaper run by people who are so clearly out of touch really worth anyone's time, attention, and money, especially when there are two perfectly acceptable alternatives in Gotham, and so many credible alternative resources online?
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.