Osama Bin Laden a ‘Devoted Family Man’ say’s New York Times

Osama bin Laden (L) sits with his adviser and purported successor Ayman al-Zawahiri, an Egyptian linked to the al Qaeda network, during an interview with Pakistani journalist Hamid Mir (not pictured) in an image supplied by the respected Dawn newspaper November 10, 2001. Al Qaedas elusive leader Osama bin Laden was killed in a mansion outside the Pakistani capital Islamabad, U.S. President Barack Obama said on May 1, 2011. REUTERS/Hamid Mir/Editor/Ausaf Newspaper for Daily Dawn (AFGHANISTAN – Tags: POLITICS CONFLICT IMAGES OF THE DAY). (Foto: HO/Scanpix 2011)

A New York Times op-ed writer called former Al Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden ad “Devoted Family Man” in a recent piece.

From PJ Media: 

It’s no surprise, really, considering the fact that, as the perspicacious Stephen Kruiser noted Thursday, the New York Times is no longer a news source, but “one big hyperventilating leftist Opinion section.” Still, to see the Times refer to Osama bin Laden as a “devoted family man” was startling, and even the Times’ editorial politburo seemed to agree: after an outcry, they changed the title of their article (a review of Peter Bergen’s book about bin Laden) from “Osama bin Laden, the Fanatical Terrorist and the Devoted Family Man” to “A Fuller Picture of Osama Bin Laden’s Life.” Remember back in school how they’d tell us always to go with our first answer, because it was most likely to be correct? So now, the Times should have stuck it out with its first headline, because it reflects more accurately what Times editors really think.

Robert O’Neill, who as a Navy SEAL in 2011 killed Osama bin Laden, had a trenchant response to the Times’ original headline: “Family man. He used his wife as a human shield. Lucky for me he was taller than her.”

Amid all the outrage and ridicule, however, few noted the real import of the Times’ first headline, and the similar significance of the Washington Post’s reference to Islamic State (ISIS) caliph Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi as an “austere religious scholar” in 2019. The Times and the Post speak respectfully about people such as Osama bin Laden and Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi because, quite simply, they respect them. They do not believe that these men were evil, and so they do not portray them as such.

This is a result of the values they shared with the dead terrorists. The New York Times and the Washington Post are two of the flagship publications of the Leftist intelligentsia that has contempt for Americans, despises America’s history and heritage, and regularly publishes propaganda about “systemic racism” and other imagined American evils. They would never admit it, but they have a congruence of outlook with bin Laden and al-Baghdadi, who dedicated their lives to destroying the United States as it is currently constituted and the remnants of the Judeo-Christian civilization that the Times and the Post regard with open distaste.

This is not the first time the press has cozied up to leaders of terror cells in the middle east and it certainly won’t be the last. The New York Times has fallen along way in recent years and the bias is undeniable at this point and time.