What's Wrong with This Article?
Is this NY Times article about missiles in South Lebanon a rerun? Sure seems like it to me and Robin (who found it). Quick, let's check the screen capture!
The second paragraph starts, "As the Bush administration moves to confront Iraq, some officials are concerned that Hezbollah could step up its attacks on Israel..." Which is weird, but that's not all. The sixth and seventh paragraphs (highlighted by Robin) read:
Is this NY Times article about missiles in South Lebanon a rerun? Sure seems like it to me and Robin (who found it). Quick, let's check the screen capture!
The second paragraph starts, "As the Bush administration moves to confront Iraq, some officials are concerned that Hezbollah could step up its attacks on Israel..." Which is weird, but that's not all. The sixth and seventh paragraphs (highlighted by Robin) read:
Still, officials worry that the buildup of so many rockets could tempt Hezbollah to expand its operations. Adding to this worry is the fear that Iran or Syria might encourage Hezbollah to stir up tensions along Israel's northern frontier to divert attention from Iraq and complicate the Bush administration's plans to topple Saddam Hussein.
According to some analysts, neither Iran nor Syria wants to see an American occupation of Iraq because they fear that it could be a platform for Washington to project more power throughout the region.
It gets better; page 2 mentions "Secretary of State Colin Powell." This is obviously recycled news/propaganda with today's date haphazardly slapped atop the article. So much for, you know, editorial professionalism.
Update: And now we begin to see why the Times might have recycled this bit, as Juan Cole notes Israel's possible plans for a ground incursion into southern Lebanon.
Update: And now we begin to see why the Times might have recycled this bit, as Juan Cole notes Israel's possible plans for a ground incursion into southern Lebanon.
0 comments:
Post a Comment