It’s hard to overstate the day-and-night quality between the lead editorials in the Washington Post and the New York Times today. For the Post, it’s a moment to reflect on a tremendous military victory and savor the images of Iraqis kissing Marines and dancing in the streets. Here’s the opening line of the Post’s editorial “Liberated Baghdad”:
THE GLORIOUS IMAGES of Iraqis and U.S. Marines joining to topple a statue of Saddam Hussein in Baghdad yesterday came just three weeks after those first scenes of billowing black smoke from the war's opening bombing -- yet for many Iraqis the celebration was long overdue.Damn straight. The Washington Post has been consistently in support of the war in Iraq, and they have the well-earned right to engage in a little patriotic endzone dancing. To be fair, the editorial looks forward to the difficulties of peace, but the Post is also mindful of the larger geo-political significance in the end of Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship.
For the New York Times, it’s all hand-wringing, all the time. Here’s their lead-off sentence from “The Fall of Baghdad”:
The murderous reign of Saddam Hussein effectively ended yesterday as downtown Baghdad slipped from the grip of the Iraqi regime and citizens streamed into the streets to celebrate the sudden disintegration of Mr. Hussein's 24-year dictatorship.Note the somewhat negative connotation of the title (esp. compared to “Liberated Baghdad”) as well as the passive voice here: “Baghdad slipped from the grip.” Some U.S. Marines may have been involved…we’re not sure. And how about this bout of amnesia?
Opinion about this war has been divided from the beginning.That means on the NY Times editorial board, William Safire was for it.
On the whole, the editorial wallows in the hard road ahead, with nary a look over the shoulder at the weeping middle-age Iraqi looking as if a weight had been lifted from his shoulders. A more honest paper might have published an editorial simply titled “We Were Wrong.”
No comments:
Post a Comment