A number of publications have published accounts of "human shields" who have seen the error of their ways. There's this piece in the Jerusalem Post (originally in the Telegraph). The author notes when he had his epiphany:
As he realized I was serious, he slowed down and started to speak in broken English about the evils of Saddam's regime. Until then I had only heard the president spoken of with respect, but now this guy was telling me how all of Iraq's oil money went into Saddam's pocket, and that if you opposed him politically he would kill your whole family.Leave it to the NY Times to publish a piece by a human shield who had no regrets. Being a human shield is just lots of campfires and singing, "Kumbaya." It doesn't mean that we're standing up for a guy who turns opponents into fish food.
No doubt the Times will argue, "but it's our job to give exposure to alternative views" or "do you want us to support the government blindly?" Of course they'd be obfuscating the issue. Given the horrific nature of Saddam's regime you'd think that a newspaper would like to keep a reputation of at least a moral authority when covering the war. Yet it seems more intent on demonstrating its independence from the government than in showing it is capable of judging right and wrong.
So the Times gives the benefit to America's opponents and enemies. It publishes letters to the editor in proportions that reflect its own views and not those of the country. And they find the odd "human shield" who's been hit in the head one too many times and remains oblivious to Saddam's evil.