Look who the Boston Globe is mad at.

On February 10 The Boston Globe, owned by the NY Times, offered readers its take on the Cartoon Wars. The Globe started with:

By now it should be clear that the firestorm over cartoons of the Prophet Mohammed in a Danish paper has been fanned to excess by the deliberate political machinations of some actors and the stubborn rigidity of others. Some states have behaved as badly as some individuals.

The Globe then took a few knocks at Syria, Iran and Egypt, in the midst of which it managed to take shots at “the Danish cartoons” and “Europeans' disdain for the faith of Muslims.”

Near the end, The Globe said:

In this sad story of provocation and opportunism, it is worth mentioning the obtuseness of Denmark's prime minister, who refused to meet with Arab ambassadors last October, when it still might have been possible to contrive a satisfactory statement of regret that could have avoided the current conflict while allowing all parties to save face.

So a big part of the problem is “provocation” by those darn cartoonists. Why did they draw the Prophet? Couldn’t they have drawn cartoons of crucifixes in vials of their own urine?

If they’d done that, the Globe and the rest of MSM would have eagerly defended their “art” and the cartoonists right to “freedom of expression;” just as the Globe and other news organizations defended the right of Andres Serrano to place a cruxifix in a file of his urine and call it “art.”

And that Danish Prime Minister! How dare he not knuckle under to pressure from Arab countries? Why didn't he "contrive a satisfactory statement of regret/" No doubt if he had, the Globe would have applauded him for helping to "bring peace in our time."

For the Globe and most news organizations, the worst part of the cartoon conflict is it’s exposed their hypocrisy and fear. And they blame the cartoonists and Prime Minister for that. How dare anyone expose professional journalists!