“Libya is a specific case: Muammar el-Qaddafi is erratic, widely reviled, armed with mustard gas and has a history of supporting terrorism.”
Actual sentence in a New York Times editorial from Monday.
As Gerard van der Luen writes in response:
Really? Qaddafi’s just a one-off? A special case? There haven’t been, of late, any other dictators in the region that anybody at the Times can think of that are, or rather were, “erratic, widely reviled,” armed with chemical weapons (plus a history of employing them), and fond of terrorism? None? Not even one? Not even a dead one?
Take a moment, Times ed board. Think hard. Ask some of your own reporters. Pass the statement before the few “fact-checkers” that still survive there. Feel free to use the archives of the Times or even, if you wish, Google about the net, and drop by Wikipedia.
Still no idea? Still no concept? Still insist of emitting this flatulence into your remaining readers’ faces?
Okay by me. Carry on.
The sentence that follows the above quoted line is also a hoot:
If he is allowed to crush the opposition, it would chill pro-democracy movements across the Arab world.
As if the Times hadn’t spent the entire last decade trying to chill pro-democracy movements across the Arab world.
But then, hey, it’s the other guy’s country, right?
(H/T: Maggie’s Farm)