THE NYT HAS TWO INTERESTING ARTICLES -- one on the political crisis in Iran, and one on growing pressures for reform in Syria. I'm sure neither has anything whatsoever to do the war in Iraq ... (To the NYT's credit, it mentions the "more than 100,000 American soldiers next door in Iraq" as one source of pressure on the Syrian regime.)The implication here seems to be that the Times is unforgiveably slack in failing to note the Iraq-Syria connection with sufficient fervor. Why those liberal buggers! But wait... the headline of the actual article reads: "Syria Frees 130 Prisoners; Some See a Reaction to New Pressures." And the second paragraph goes something along the lines of this:
But some human rights officials say it is a sign, if a small and ambiguous one, of the larger pressures Syria is under these days, with more than 100,000 American soldiers next door in Iraq and increasing impatience for change at home.If that's not strong insinuation of a connection, then what is? Recall that there is no real evidence that the war in Iraq is the main catalyst for change in Syria. That question should be left to historians and political analysts-- you know, the blokes who tackle these (often difficult) questions for a living. Until the experts get a crack at it, all causal analysis is speculative at best. But setting all that aside, the Times goes ahead and suggests the possibility of a link anyways, since it is after all a reasonable conclusion to make. And this still merits a 'liberal media' smirk from Chafetz?