This in the face of the admission by Richard Armitage that he was the villain, albeit an unintentional one. He was not prosecuted nor, to the best of my recollection, castigated by the Times editorial board. Why are they so caustic here? Because they hate Dick Cheney so much and see the imprisonment of Libby as a scourging of Cheney. Again, shame on the Times.
Finally, there was a third June 6 editorial, “Keeping A Watch on Winter.” Apparently, the National Park Service in charge of Yellowstone Park is deciding whether to “raise the number of snowmobiles allowed into the park from 250 to 720 per day.” The Times prefers “do[ing] away with snowmobiles altogether.”
I have never been on a snowmobile and would like to try one someday. I believe those who love the outdoors and use our national parks should have, in controlled circumstances, access to those parks including the use of snowmobiles. Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne will be making a decision on snowmobiles shortly. The Times says “He should help put an end to snowmobiles in Yellowstone. They have always contradicted the mission of the national parks…”
Ridiculous. Most people in this country believe the parks should be visited by Americans and used in responsible numbers. If Kempthorne decides 720 is the appropriate number of snowmobiles to be permitted in Yellowstone, is he evil? The Times so hates President Bush that it writes, “Over six years, the Bush administration has done its utmost to set these principals [on environmental preservation] aside, especially when it comes to snowmobiles.”
Personally, the thought of 720 snowmobiles trafficking in one of our largest national parks does not cause me to wake up in the middle of the night frightened that the world is coming to an end. No, I see the faces of 720 or more people enjoying this wonderful land every winter day in a very special way. Isn’t that what parks are for?
I was not surprised when, on June 3, three days before these editorials, the Times front page had a story headlined “A Legal Debate In Guantanamo On Boy Fighters.” The article reported, “The shrapnel from the grenade he is accused of throwing ripped through the skull of Sgt. First-Class Christopher J. Speer who was 28 when he died. To American military prosecutors, Mr. Khadr is a committed Al Qaeda operative, spy and killer who must be held accountable for killing Sergeant Speer in 2002 and for other bloody acts he committed in Afghanistan…His age is at the center of a legal battle that is to begin tomorrow with an arraignment by a military judge at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, of Mr. Khadr, whom a range of legal experts describe as the first child fighter in decades to face war-crimes charges… ‘International law,’ the Justice Department asserted in a court filing… ‘does not prohibit an individual under 18 from being prosecuted for war crimes.’ He is 20 now.”
According to the Times, “He was born in Canada to a family with such deep Al Qaeda ties that some newspapers there have called them Canada’s first family of terrorism.” His father was “a senior deputy to Osama bin Laden.”
The coverage given to this alleged war criminal by the Times includes a page-one, above-the-fold column, with an additional half-page article on page 35, conveying the Times’s interest in the subject. (Is the Times aware that New York State provides that adolescents 13 years or older are criminally responsible for certain aggravated criminal conduct?)
But on the same front page there is only a brief blurb on “four charged in the bomb plot at Kennedy airport” – with the actual article appearing on page 37.
Surely this shows a lack of judgment in selecting articles of importance for the front page. Glaringly so, when