In an op-ed entitled "Arabia: Inshallah, Obama" in today's Times, Dowd, who does not speak Arabic ("Inshallah"? How cute!), regales us with the thoughts of the Saudi royal family with no critical analysis. My online response, if The Times deigns to post it:
Child brides in Saudi Arabia? No need for Maureen to comment. Women imprisoned and whipped for being gang raped? Not a word from Dowd. Death sentences handed out for "witchcraft"? Why should Maureen worry. Prison and lashes for "practicing magic"? Maureen doesn't care. Prison and lashes for showing "sex toys" on Lebanese television? Why bother with this. Limbs severed for alleged theft? No need to inquire. Beheading for "apostasy"? We mustn't ask the prince about this minor unpleasantry.
But worst of all, we are told at the head of the "readers' comments" page that in Dowd's op-ed, "The Saudi foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, laments the need for less talk and more peace in the region."
Isn't it peculiar that Maureen does not even breathe a word about the war raging on the Saudi border with Yemen between Yemeni Shiites backed by Iran and the Saudi army and air force? Although 175,000 people in Yemen's northwest Saada province are refugees as a result of the fighting between Shiite rebels and the Yemeni and Saudi armies, Maureen entirely ignores the conflagration as if it never existed.
Are we to understand that the function of New York Times op-ed writers is to report uncritically the views of the Saudi royal family? Shame on Maureen Dowd!
Maureen Dowd was not fired by The Times for plagiarism; however, in my humble opinion, her current frolic in Saudi Arabia has taken The Times to rock bottom. Will The Times do anything to rein in the queen of their op-ed page? Not a chance.
No comments:
Post a Comment