The lead, front-page news article in today's New York Times reports that the Middle East violence, "and the harsh Israeli reprisals, has forced the administration to re-examine its strong support for Mr. Sharon's tough policies." Oh, so now it is the opinion of the New York Times news department that the Israeli reprisals have been harsh and that Prime Minister Sharon's policies have been tough. So much for the newspaper's pretense of neutrality in the debate -- intense in Israeli circles -- over whether Mr. Sharon has stopped too far short of decisive action against Yasser Arafat. In the current issue of The Weekly Standard, for instance, the publisher of the Jerusalem Post, Tom Rose, asks, "why does Sharon hesitate?" and complains, "Sharon remains paralyzed."
The Times supports its contention about the Bush administration's supposed re-examination by quoting President Bush. The Times reports the president said of Mr. Sharon, "I think he realizes that you can't achieve peace by allowing violence to escalate or causing violence to escalate." Mr. Bush apparently shares Mr. Sharon's realizations about the importance of "tough" policies to prevent the escalation of violence: a headline on the front page of today's Times over an article from Afghanistan reads "U.S. Planes Pour Bombs Onto Fierce Resistance."
Maximum Confusion: A front-page headline in today's New York Times reads "Good Things for Maxim Writer Who Waited." There's a bit of a bait-and-switch going on there; readers will comb the article in vain for any reference to the magazine that follows the beer-and-babes formula. The article in fact appears to be about not a Maxim writer but about a writer of aphorisms.