I have not read the Los Angeles Times’ much since Hezbollah’s attack on Israel. The paper has turned so anti-Israel in recent years that it is the last place one would look for objective reporting on the crisis.
So I missed yesterday’s column by Max Boot, which was reprinted today by those radicals at The Weekly Standard. Boot concluded:
Iran may be too far away for much Israeli retaliation beyond a single strike on its nuclear weapons complex. (Now wouldn’t be a bad time.) But Syria is weak and next door. To secure its borders, Israel needs to hit the Assad regime. Hard. If it does, it will be doing Washington’s dirty work. Our best response is exactly what Bush has done so far–reject premature calls for a cease-fire and let Israel finish the job.
This must have stood out in the pages of America’s worst major daily, but I wanted to be sure.
So I checked the recent editorials.
Yesterday the Times’ editorial board spent many paragraphs without providing an opinion on the justice of the fighting on either side, but in the penultimate graph managed to throw in this howler: “To what extent Syria is acting in concert with Iran is not clear….,” before closing with a pitch perfect Hamlet imitation:
So many players, so many reasons to fight