To understand what is wrong with The New York Times one need look no further than today's lead headline in the print edition:
"U.S. Forces Take Control in Baghdad. Bush Elated; Some Resistance Remains."
Compare this to every other headline in the English-speaking world today, for example:
The Washington Post: American Troops Cheered by Crowds Jubilant at End of Repressive Regime
The Washington Times: Liberated Iraqis Cheer U.S. Troops
Houston Chronicle: Saddam's Regime Toppled in Baghdad (Jubilant Iraqis Trumpet Fall Of Capital By Pulling Down Statue Of Dictator)
Los Angeles Times: U.S. Troops Free Baghdad From Hussein's Control
Chicago Tribune: Hussein regime collapses in Baghdad. ('Bush is great!' enthusiastic crowds cheer)
Detroit News: Toppled (In Dearborn Iraqis parade, sing, hug)
The Philadelphia Inquirer: Toppled Ruler: Hussein's grip finally broken, jubilation sweeps Baghdad
Seattle Post-Intelligencer: Saddam Regime Falls: For many Iraqis here, 'the best day of my life'
The London Times: Liberated Baghdad
South China Morning Post: Iraqi's celebrate Saddam's fall
Get the theme? Well-received liberation. Subtheme: People who tacitly or explicitly lent support to Hussein's regime are mindless twits who are just as morally culpable as the America Firsters who opposed confronting Hitler in World War II. Since the editorial and reporting staffs of The New York Times can rightfully be counted in that camp, perhaps it is natural that they downplay the extent of Iraqi celebration.
Shameful.
