As America's leading broadsheet,
what it reports matters, especially on war and peace.
Instead of accuracy, full disclosure, and supporting right over wrong,
The Times consistently cheerleads US wars and prospective ones.
Enemies are vilified. Rule of law principles don't matter, nor do decades
of crimes of war and against humanity, as well as millions of lost lives
in the last decade alone.
In June 1950, The Times called Truman's war on North Korea the right
decision, even though Pyongyang responded defensively to repeated South
Korean cross-border incursions.
IF Stone's "Hidden History of the Korean War" explained what scoundrel
journalism suppressed, including NYT feature stories.
Stone called it international aggression. So did Monthly Review co-founders
Leo Huberman and Paul Sweezy, saying:
"....we have come to the conclusion that (South Korean president) Syngman
Rhee deliberately provoked the North Koreans in the hope that they would
retaliate by crossing the parallel in force. The northerners fell neatly
into the trap."
Truman instigated what happened and took full advantage.
Stone explained, saying:
"we said we were going to Korea to go back to the status quo before
the war but when the American armies reached the 38th parallel they
didn't stop, they kept going, so there must be something else. We must
have another agenda here and what might that agenda be?"
He learned it reflected America's imperial ambitions. Vietnam followed.
He opposed both wars. So did others. The Times supported them and others,
Reagan in Central America and elsewhere;
GHW Bush in Panama, Haiti and Iraq;
-Clinton on Rwanda, Iraq sanctions, the Balkan wars, and especially
for attacking Serbia/Kosovo lawlessly in 1999;
GW Bush in Iraq and Afghanistan;
Obama's multiple wars and proxy ones; as well as
every president since Johnson on Israel/Palestine.
When America goes to war or intends one, scoundrel NYT journalism's
front and center supportively. It's their longstanding tradition. Nothing
changed to this day. Syria and Iran are now targeted. Neither threatens
America, Israel, or other regional countries.
International law is clear. No nation may interfere in the internal
affairs of others. Nor is force permitted against nonbelligerent states.
Justifiable self-defense alone is allowed.
Israel's had no enemies since 1973. America's had none since WW II.
Yet it's waged aggressive wars for decades with full major media support,
including The Times.
In late January, The New York Times Magazine published a scandalous
piece of warmongering journalism. Written by Yedioth Ahronoth contributor
Ronen Bergman, it supportively argued for war on Iran.
Have all measures to contain Iran's "nuclear threat been exhausted,
bringing Israel to the point of last resort," he asked? He concluded
saying, "I have come to believe that Israel will indeed strike Iran
He ignored facts to incite fear. Israel benefits by "keeping the pot
near the boiling point" to portray aggressive war as justified. His
commentary was sensationalist, inflammatory, flawed, and sinister to
enlist public support for likely catastrophic war if it's launched.
The Times featured him supportively. It quoted Moshe Ya'alon, Israel's
Vice Prime Minister and Minister of Strategic Affairs, stressing Israel's
"Our policy is that in one way or another, Iran's nuclear program must
be stopped. It is a matter of months before the Iranians will be able
to attain military nuclear capability. Israel should not have to lead
the struggle against Iran."
"It is up to the international community to confront the regime, but
nevertheless Israel has to be ready to defend itself. And we are prepared
to defend ourselves in any way and anywhere that we see fit."
Other Israeli and US policymakers concur. By promoting them, Bergman's
complicit. So is The New York Times for providing feature space instead
of taking a principled anti-war stand. It consistently embraces imperial
lawlessness, including mass slaughter, vast destruction, unspeakable
human misery, and virtually every imaginable crime.
For months, Times articles, commentaries and editorials stoked spurious
fears of an alleged Iranian nuclear threat and need to confront it.
It lied saying IAEA inspectors say "Iran’s nuclear program has a military
It ignores Tehran's compliance with Nuclear Non-Proliferation (NPT)
provisions. It falsely called Iran's contention about wanting nuclear
technology for electricity and other peaceful purposes "hollow."
It cited a nonexistent IAEA report about Iran allegedly developing "computer
models of nuclear explosions....experiments on nuclear triggers....and
advanced research on a warhead" to be delivered by short, medium, or
long range missiles.
It recklessly promotes imperial wars, no matter how lawless, destructive,
and ultimately not in America's interest, given the potential for catastrophic
consequences too grave to ignore.
Taking Aim at Syria
On March 20, a Times editorial targeted Syria. Headlined, "Wrong Ways
to Fight Assad," it said:
He's "so willing to kill his people that he could hold on to power for
years. The forces opposing him have won support from the international
community starting the moment they" initiated attacks.
Syria was peaceful and calm until Western-generated attacks began. Killer
gangs comprise opposing forces. Nations supporting them are complicit
in their crimes. So is scoundrel journalism, including for betraying
readers by lying.
The editorial also rebuked Russia and China as Assad's "chief enablers.
These two countries twice have vetoed (UN resolutions) designed to force
him to stop killing. The longer the unrest goes on, the more divided
the society will become and the more likely that instability could spread
to other countries."
Russia and China stand resolutely against more imperial war. So far
they prevented it. America may launch it anyway. Assad's defending his
people. It's his job. Washington could end conflict today by calling
off its dogs. Peace and stability would then return, despite lost lives
and enormous damage inflicted.
"Russia's latest peace gesture is pathetic....Moscow would support a
new Security Council statement of concern only if it sets the stage
for negotiations between the regime and the opposition and is not an
ultimatum. That is absurd. The Security Council should proclaim in the
strongest possible terms that Mr. Assad must go."
Western-backed killer gangs cause daily violence. Times scoundrels lie
by claiming otherwise. Yet Assad's willing to negotiate to restore peace
and stability. Russia's Five-Point plan endorses conflict resolution
political dialogue between Damascus and opposition groups.
Washington wants war. In lockstep, so do Times scoundrels instead of
forthrightly endorsing peace. Doing so would go against longstanding
The "newspaper of record" won't dare besmirch its consistent support
for America's imperium, no matter how lawless, Machiavellian, and destructive.
It shares blame for doing so.
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Also visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com and listen to cutting-edge
discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News
Hour on the Progressive Radio Network Thursdays at 10AM US Central time
and Saturdays and Sundays at noon. All programs are archived for easy