I'm going to do a public mea culpa and humbly ask your forgiveness for questioning the integrity of the New York Times. I'm just an ignorant housewife and can't really comment on what's going on in the Middle East because I don't have anonymous sources and I'm not a professional journalist. Evidently, only trained professionals are able to comment on what reporters publish. Please forgive my ignorant ramblings and feel free to ignore anything that I say that I don't have direct expertise in.
So, since I am so ignorant and I'm not a trained professional with years of expertise, the only way that I will be able to prove what I said was true is empirical evidence, we will wait for the news that some Arab leader has compared our actions to Iran. If that happens, then the reporters were correct and not biased and knew what they were talking about. If that doesn't happen then I should be able to safely say, The New York Times is a piece of bleep.
I set out to find the evidence today and came across this instead:
Mideast diplomats were pressing Syria to stop backing Hezbollah as the guerrillas fired more deadly rockets onto Israel's third-largest city Sunday. Israel faced tougher-than-expected ground battles and bombarded targets in southern Lebanon, hitting a convoy of refugees.Hmmm, why are Arab leaders trying to disarm Hezbollah? Why aren't they being neutral? If they disarm Hezbollah and we arm Israel, how is that fair? Don't they know that New York Times reporters stated that they would be upset over the fact that Israel was armed by America? I have it on good authority that the reporters know "their area inside and out" and that they have "talked and talked and reported in this area for years." So, they really should know what they are talking about and can't be questioned by a housewife with a blog.
With Israel and the United States saying a real cease-fire is not possible until Hezbollah is reined in, Arab heavyweights Egypt and Saudi Arabia were pushing Syria to end its support for the guerrillas, Arab diplomats in Cairo said.
And then I found this:
Syria, one of Hezbollah's main backers, said Sunday it will press for a cease-fire and was willing to engage in direct talks with the United States to help end the fighting between Israel and the Islamic militant group in Lebanon.Hmmmm? It looks like Syria is willing to talk peace and they don't appear to be condemning the U.S. for it's actions. But I don't understand, what about the professional journalists who have anonymous sources? What happened to the comparison of America and Iran? If anyone would make that charge surely it would be Syria? There must be something wrong here. I will keep checking the news and let you know when I find the smoking gun. Please help me out by emailing me if you see an Arab leader (at the national level of course) condemning America for arming Israel. How long do you think I have to wait before it's safe to call The New York Times a piece of bleep?
But Syrian officials said Damascus would only cooperate within the framework of a broader Middle East peace initiative that would include a return of the Golan Heights, captured by Israel in 1967, and warned they will not stand by if the Israelis step up their offensive.
"Syria and Spain are working to achieve a cease-fire, a prisoners' swap and to start a peace process as one package," Syrian Information Minister Mohsen Bilal was quoted as saying by the Spanish daily newspaper ABC. "Syria is working on achieving real, comprehensive, fair peace based on the withdrawal from all the occupied territories, including the Golan."
It was unlikely that Israel would agree to such a deal, but the remarks were the first indication of Syria's willingness to be involved in international efforts to defuse the Lebanese crisis.
(Links via Drudge Report and Little Green Footballs)
