New York Times Invested in Defeat

If you ever thought that the New York Times was anything other than a terrorist organization, this article from that paper will change your mind for ever. ( Power Line )

I believe thay have invested the reputation of that organization in the defeat of America in the war on terror, and to change America into a socialist state that more reflects the agenda of the Marxist liberal left that now dominates the National Democratic Party.

Joe Malchow drew our attention to this astonishing article in today's New York Times, in which the Times sticks up for Zarqawi, defending him against what the Times regards as unfair criticism of his weapons-handling technique in the video released by the U.S. military last week:

The weapon in question is complicated to master, and American soldiers and marines undergo many days of training to achieve the most basic competence with it. Moreover, the weapon in Mr. Zarqawi's hands was an older variant, which makes its malfunctioning unsurprising. The veterans said Mr. Zarqawi, who had spent his years as a terrorist surrounded by simpler weapons of Soviet design, could hardly have been expected to know how to handle it.

Unbelievable. I suppose they could have defended Zarqawi further by noting that his weapon of choice is the knife.

The Times also said they think that releasing the video footage wasn't effective propaganda because Zarqawi looks "clean and plump."

(Really, I'm not making this up.) Okay, here's an idea: how about if we haul Khalid Shaikh Mohammed out of whatever cell he's being kept in and release a video of him? I doubt that he's looking too "clean and plump" these days. Do you think the Times would like that propaganda effort better? No, I don't either. Other than waving a white flag, it's hard to think of anything the military could do of which the Times would approve.