The media laying these charges are the same media that just last week unilaterally decided that the public's right to know did not extend to seeing cartoons that had aroused half the world, burned a small part of it and deeply affected the American national interest. Having arrogated to themselves the judgment of what a free people should be allowed to see regarding an issue that is literally burning, they then go ballistic over a few hours' delay in revealing an accident with only the most trivial connection to the nation's interest or purpose.In that regard, the StarTribune wrote on February 6 the following about its decision not to publish the five month old cartoons:
Editor Anders Gyllenhaal called the cartoons "purposefully sacrilegious" and said the paper doesn't publish something offensive "just to prove that we can."
Plus, in this case, a description of the cartoons has seemed adequate . . .
So what did the StarTribune publish yesterday? (I can't find the link but I read the paper.)
I guess a description of this picture was deemed inadequate.
(BTW: What happened at Abu Ghraib was despicable and should have resulted in Rumsfeld's termination, and I said so here. I'm just saying that the decision to publish the pictures is completely inconsistent with the decision not to publish the cartoons.)