New York Times Says "Give Hezbollah a Victory"
In its call in an editorial published yesterday for an immediate truce in Lebanon, the New York Times said this about the proposed UN resolution implementing a cease fire between Israel and Hezbollah:
"Troops must also be lined up for the international security force. The idea is to draw them from NATO countries like France, Italy and Turkey, along with perhaps Australia. None of these countries want to send soldiers if either Israel or Hezbollah is going to keep shooting. Therefore the political settlement has to be packaged so that both sides can claim some sort of victory."(Emphasis added.)
Well, we have finally answered the question of whose side the New York Times is on in the war against Islamic terrorism. Like Congressman John Dingell (Democrat, Michigan), the Times is strictly neutral, not for Israel, the pro-American, Western democracy, and not for Hezbollah, the Islamic jihadist group that has sworn the destruction of both Israel and the United States.
posted by The Kosher Hedgehog at 4:33 PM
|
1 Comments:
Ben Stein at the American Spectator's site has it right:
"The line of the fight between civilization and barbarism runs right along the Israel-Lebanon non-border. If it's not won there, it won't be long until the front line is right here, and then it will be too late. When George Bush stands up for Israel, he stands up for the whole future of mankind. Yes, he has flaws and has made serious mistakes, but right now, he is a hero for the ages."
Of course, the New York Times is on the wrong side of this.
Posted by BlueBuffoon
Post a Comment
<< Home