Ya gotta love the New York Slimes
The Toilet Paper of Record
All the "News" that's fit to slant
Defeatism On Parade
Dean's World
Here's an amusing comparison:
First, there's this New York Times editorial waxing rhapsodic about how wonderful the Afghanistan Constitution is, written right after that exciting document's ratification.
nytimes.com
Then, there's this wailing and teeth-gnashing New York Times editorial bemoaning how awful Iraq's proposed Constitution is, written just yesterday.
nytimes.com
What do both Constitutions have in common? A lot, including equality for women, free speech, free press, universal franchise, guaranteed religious freedom, and saying that no law can go against either the principles of democracy and human rights or the principles of Islam.
You can have a look at the Afghan Constitution (linked below), and you can look at Iraq's proposed Constitution (linked below). The language of the two on this supposed issue of "theocracy" is quite similar--if anything, the Afghan constitution is more religious, even starting with the words "In the name of God, the Merciful, the Compassionate."
So what's the difference? What it looks like from here is that they want us to succeed in Afghanistan and so are positive about that document, but they want us to fail in Iraq and so are negative about that document.
It would be laughable if it weren't so deadly serious.
Alenda Lux has still more analysis on the matter.
alendalux.blogspot.com
(Hat tip: James Taranto.)
opinionjournal.com
deanesmay.com
afghansite.com
washingtonpost.com |
