Editorial excreta

Does this qualify as an editorial? One that should be approved for publication? In a major newspaper? In an advanced democracy?

Abu-hoo-hoo

Quite a shiner ol' Abu Faraj al-Libbi has there. Make that two shiners and assorted other bruises and bumps. Walk into a camel, Abu? Or maybe your Pakistani captors have been somewhat less than gentle - more power to them. Will the Pakistan Civil Liberties Union be suing to protest the fact that Osama Bin Laden's bloody-handed henchman has had his alleged rights violated? No? Good.

One wonders why al-Libbi is in custody at all. Al Qaeda's No. 3 (poor excuse for a) man was captured with a bunch of terror suspects after shooting it out with Pakistani security forces. This would indicate that he had access to at least one gun. Why, then, did he not use it? On himself?

The infidel West is forever being told how brave are Al Qaeda's soldiers, so eager are they to embrace death in the noble cause of slaughtering innocents. Looks like that's not always the case.

As long as al-Libbi is alive, might as well subject him to a bit more, er, persuasion. It would be lovely if he could provide a lead or two on his boss' whereabouts.

Said one U.S. official of al-Libbi, "He's a very big fish."

Oh. That explains the stench. (New York Daily News)

Now, this seems a little schizo when you consider the Daily News editorial that appeared when the Abu Ghraib story broke, which included lines like "the shame the United States has suffered at the hands of the Abu Ghraib yahoos" and "[w]hat happened inside Abu Ghraib was a revolting display of American troops at their basest." And there's also the contemporaneous backgrounder story about Lynndie England entitled, "The face behind a nation's shame."

Why the change?