Roger,

A sad spectacle, this.

The NY Times editors are linking the handling of this specific hostage crisis, the handling of the so-called “rebels” in Chechnya, with Bush’s WOT.

Do the editors not know that the terrorists in the school had made no real negotiable demands? Yesterday, I linked to a translated timeline of the events, Here.

Rather, the goal of the terrorists was in fact to murder as many of the hostages, after sufficient anguish and outcry had been produced. Simply put, terrorize then murder. Seems pretty clear, no?

Yet the Times complains only of the “tactics” of the hostage takers, as leading to the “hardening” of opposition against them.

Unbelievable.

And then the editors have temerity (or chutzpah) to call on Putin to “negotiate” with the “rebels”. And surrender to them what exactly? A mini-Caliphate?

Is there any evidence at all, any, anywhere, that demonstrates that giving in to terroists’ demands for statehood would lead to peace?

The characterization of these horrific events in this editorial and the call for a Putin nuanced analysis under these circumstances, is both churlish and transparent.

First, the editors of the NY Timeshad the chance to call Evil by its name, and they refused. If they can’t recognize it, name it, and say it outloud after Breslan, they never will.

Second, to use, out of desperation this atrocity to take a venal swipe at Bush in hopes of helping their pet, John Forbes Kerry, is disgusting.