Examples of Deplorable NYT Commentaries
by Stephen Lendman (stephenlendman.org – Home – Stephen Lendman)
Even when the self-styled newspaper of record discusses an important issue like “America’s forever wars,” it suppresses what’s most important to explain.
In its editorial on the above topic, it covered Washington’s deployment of military forces in most countries worldwide, along with its active war theaters, endless conflicts, no actions by US administrations to resolve them.
It noted tens of thousands of US troops on secret assignments – in countries like Niger and many others, the Pentagon disclosing nothing about them.
America’s empire of bases operate on every continent – in over three-fourths of the world’s countries, disruptive wherever they exist.
US special forces and/or CIA belligerents operate virtually everywhere, their sinister missions kept under wraps.
“(I)t’s time to take stock of how broadly American forces are already committed to far-flung regions and to begin thinking hard about how much of that investment is necessary, how long it should continue and whether there is a strategy beyond just killing terrorists. Which Congress, lamentably, has not done,” said the Times.
True enough, except for a gross misstatement. Washington supports terrorism, not the other way around. It engages in state terrorism worldwide, including domestically against US citizens.
It’s global military and intelligence presence is all about advancing the nation’s imperium. It has nothing to do with combating terrorist groups Washington uses as imperial foot soldiers – something The Times never discusses.
Nor does it explain neither presidents or Congress may authorize waging war on other countries unless the nation is attacked – and only with Security Council permission.
Any other way flagrantly violates international law, automatically US law under the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause – naked aggression when Washington acts preemptively against other nations, its favored strategy.
In its editorial, the Times fell flat, trying to take the high ground – ignoring its support for all US wars of aggression – instead of responsibly denouncing them.
The so-called war on terrorism is a colossal hoax, the Times silent about the subterfuge, pretending endless conflicts are righteous.
Saying “(t)he military is vital to national security,” it failed to explain America hasn’t had an enemy since WW II ended – except invented ones to continue waging endless wars against nations threatening no one.
In asking “how many new military adventures (is the public) prepared to tolerate,” the Times ignored its consistent cheerleading role for America’s global belligerence – never explaining its lawlessness.
Separately, the Times disgracefully gave feature op-ed space to neocon Ted Cruz.
He used it to hype a nonexistent North Korea threat. In its entire post-WW II history, it never attacked another country.
It threatens none now – not America, its neighbors or any others. Last summer’s Iran-Russia-North Korea sanctions bill is an abomination.
The DPRK is falsely designated a state sponsor of terrorism. The measure requires the State Department to relist the country within 90 days, the current period expiring on October 31.
The decision “should be easy,” said Cruz, ticking off a laundry list of phony accusations, including nonexistent DPRK “collusion with Iran to develop nuclear weapons, cyberattacking Hollywood, and supporting Syria’s CWs program – all Big Lies.
America is the world’s undisputed leading world state sponsor of terror, North Korea one of its victims – hugely threatened by Washington, why it won’t abandon its nuclear and ballistic missile capabilities.
Cruz is a rogue actor, backing all US wars of aggression, complicit in them by voting to authorize funding to wage them.
Giving him feature op-ed space to express hostile views about North Korea, supporting harsh measures against the country, rejecting diplomacy, is another black mark on the Times’ deplorable record.
My newest book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”