Cowards and Victims

On my way to read Joe C.'s Salon piece blasting the New York Times' fraudulent review of Susan McDougal's book, I came across this aptly-titled "Idiocy of the Week" from Our Man In Islamisbad, Mullah Sully. Sully's latest offering critiques' the paper's opposition to war with Iraq, is subtitled "The New York Times is as incoherent as it is cowardly when it comes to Saddam." Now maybe Sully didn't write the hed, but in this case, it's taken directly from his conclusion: "That's their [sic] position. It is as incoherent as it is cowardly; as weak as it is afraid. And the free citizens of the West will be its victims."

A coward is "one who shows ignoble fear in the face of danger or pain." Being a newspaper, owned by a corporation, the New York Times can face neither danger nor pain. (Its individual employees can face both, from the likes of lunatics such as Ann Coulter and her supporters, but that's another story.) A newspaper can neither engage in combat or flee from it. Thus, when talking whether America should engage in a war, a newspaper cannot display cowardice.

One suspects the real reason for Sully's characterization of the Times as cowardly is Sully's desire to portray himself, by contrast, as courageous. Sully has done nothing and will do nothing in the "war against Iraq" except write self-congratulatory columns and preening blog entries on the subject. Sitting on your ass in front of a computer screen is not an act of courage. For that matter, I'm not aware that Sully has sacrificed anything -- including time or effort -- since September 2001 unless it was forced upon him (such as airport delays). And until Sully starts making such sacrifices, he's as much as coward as the New York Times.