It is indeed odd that the neoconservative chorus got a 20 year CNN correspondent fired because she admired an ayatollah for backing women's rights, while they do not mention this:

Jordanian King Abdullah II sent a condolence letter to Fadlallah’s family in which he expressed his sorrow for the marja’s death, saying the late cleric had devoted his life to serving his country, along with his Arab and Islamic nation. Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki paid tribute for late Fadlallah, who provided the “Islamic library” with “tens of books in jurisprudence, interpretation and Islamic culture ... He devoted his life for serving big Islamic causes in the front line during contemporary cultural and political struggle arenas,” said Maliki.

While acknowledging the big loss in the Islamic world, Maliki said Fadlallah would remain a living example “that we all adhere to.”

So the ultimate success in Iraq for the neocons is to have a prime minister pledging to follow the example of a man whom they call a terrorist. Here's Juan Cole's explanation for this strange discrepancy:

The whole conundrum only makes sense from an Israel Lobby point of view.

It is better, the Israel lobbies in the US think, for al-Maliki to be in charge of Iraq than for Saddam Hussein to have been. Al-Maliki doesn’t actively funnel money to the Palestinians and is distracted by internal Iraq faction-fighting now that the Iraqi state and army have been destroyed. So that the new Shiite political elite in Baghdad reveres a figure like Grand Ayatollah Fadlallah is overlooked.

But with Ms. Nasr, it is not a comparative issue, it is an absolute one. No figure in US media is allowed to show any understanding of or appreciation for any aspect of the life and works of someone the Lobbies have decided must be demonized and vilified (and in Fadlallah’s case, preferably killed).

Does anyone have a better explanation? And, once again, can anyone find an example of a journalist fired for offending Arabs or Muslims?