The New York Times campaigned against the nomination of John Bolton as the American Ambassador to the United Nations. Their columnist  Nicholas Kristoff was just awarded the Pulitzer Prize for his long campaign to stop the genocide being committed by  Sudanese Arabs against the black population in Darfur.

Yesterday, Bolton again showed his mettle, courage and principles in also opposing the genocide and actually trying to take steps to stop the atrocity. When China and Russia made clear that they sided with the mass murdering Sudan regime and would veto any acts against the regime, Bolton refused to admit defeat and is employing his admirable energy to get the UN to at least sanction  four Sudanese individuals for their role in the genocide.

Will the editorial board over at the Times give him credit for actually taking steps to stop the genocide or continue to use the space in its papers to accept blood money from the Sudan regime to run a full—page ad that touts Sudan's "peaceful, prosperous and democratic future"?

Ed Lasky    4 18 06