Ne Plus Ultra of Liberal Multiculturism

Today's New York Times travel section suggests a new destination for sophisticated travelers bored by Paris or Palm Beach--Libya:

As we toured Tripoli's medina, a brief walk from the hotel, I was struck by how refreshingly tranquil it was. This was not your typical Middle Eastern souk, a riotous, rattling, sputtering engine of commerce and emotion. A few children set off firecrackers in the street. Cascades of sparks poured from a metalworking shop, where men smoked silently from hookahs. But there were no hordes to elbow, no hard sell, no streams of beggars, as there are in Cairo.

Ahh, tranquil today. But as seemingly required by the Times' style manual, no story is complete without bashing America:

Back at the hotel, I bought some of the most amusing stamps I have seen anywhere, a set titled "American Aggression." At 200 dirhams apiece - about 15 cents, at the rate of 1.3 dinars to the dollar (a dirham is 1,000th of a dinar) - they featured not only the requisite defiant images of the Colonel but also a series, in blazing comic book colors, of enormous Libyan surface-to-air missiles annihilating fully armed American fighter jets.

As with so many things Libyan, however, even the sale of such a potentially inflammatory item came with a bright smile and a shrug. Despite American air strikes designed to kill its leaders, and a Bush administration that has enflamed Muslims around the world, I found the Libyans to be warm and self-deprecating. And despite being branded a rogue terrorist state by the international community, Libya felt perfectly safe in both urban and rural areas.

Of course, the Times doesn't supply a context for America's acts. The article never mentions that Libya admitted bombing a Berlin disco (killing 2 and wounding 229); destroying Pan Am Flight 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland (killing all 259 aboard plus 11 on the ground); and downing a French UTA aircraft (killing all 170 aboard). Because the left seems un-acquainted with history (other than the events of the 60s), they've probably forgotten that Libya was an implacable enemy until President Bush's diplomacy, coupled with the Iraq invasion and capture of Saddam, convinced strongman Colonel Moammar al-Ghadafi to abandon its WMD program and cuddle-up to the West.

I'm not arguing the travel section become political. On the contrary, my complaint is that Times one-sidedly promotes the liberal line throughout, possibly unconsciously. Neutrality would be preferable to the world-weary anti-Americanism that pervades the mainstream media today. But I'm not holding my breath.

(via The Corner)