A dispatch from the United Nations on the front page of today's New York Times reports that America was voted off the U.N. Human Rights Commission. The second paragraph of the article reports, "The ouster of the United States from the commission while nations like Sudan and Pakistan were chosen for membership was certain to generate further hostility to the United Nations among conservatives in Washington."
It's not just conservatives in Washington certain to become hostile as a result of this decision; it's anyone with more than two and a half brain cells. Here's a quote from today's New York Times from Rep. Tom Lantos, a Democrat from California who can hardly be described as a conservative: "It is absurd that rogue states and chronic human rights abusers such as Libya, Sudan and Cuba remain on the commission and sit in judgment on the human rights practices of others while the United States now stands on the sidelines."
The Times focus on the reaction from "conservatives in Washington" spins the story from a straightforward example of U.N. silliness into just another partisan skirmish in Washington.
Late Again: The New York Times waddles in today with a six-paragraph, unbylined article in its national section reporting on the settlement of Sidney Blumenthal's lawsuit against Matt Drudge. The Washington Post carried this news on Wednesday morning; it's just laughable that it takes the New York Times two full days to follow with a less complete report than the one the Post had.