Ever reminding me of why I hate that I have a New York Times subscription and not a Wall Street Journal subscription, a brief comparison of the editorials of each paper of record highlights startling differences.
The Journal:
The best response would be for G-8 leaders to immediately expand their commitments to both countries. Islamists are most dangerous when they sense weakness. And they can be forgiven for detecting it as they’ve watched debates in Europe and the U.S. in recent months. The calls to close Guantanamo, the recriminations over rendition of terror suspects, the demands for a “date certain” to withdraw from Iraq: In the mind of al Qaeda these are all signs of the West’s flagging will to prevail.
The Times:
Fear was another inescapable response - the natural fear that this kind of attack, carried out by people with no regard for their own lives or anyone else’s, could happen anywhere. That fear has already led to questions about why the British security agencies did not anticipate the attacks, why the wealthy nations have not done enough about the root causes of terrorism and why Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden continue to function after almost four years of the so-called war on terrorism. Many will wonder why the United States is mired in Iraq while Al Qaeda’s leader still roams free.
Way to stand up to the terrorists, Times. Why don’t you just give them exactly what they want: a second-guessing of what we are doing and where we are going instead of a renewed commitment to fight this war to the end?
Claudio