The NYT Editorial Board -- the first brave souls to volunteer for the Eastern Front
Usually these calls to arms — made from the comfort of a Manhattan skyscraper, or a Nantucket "weekend cottage" — come from professional, syndicated azzhats such as Thomas L. Friedman, who just yesterday wrote in the New York Times about a recent conversation he had with a Tibetan taxi driver which proves his theories of free markets and blowing up brown people for freedom. (Of course, from time to time America is also graced with a barely literate ejaculation of neo-conservative rage, penned by none other than Anne Applebaum, who writes exclusively for the Washington Post, the Daily Moloch, and Twitter.)
But for special we-really-need-you-to-support-this-dumb-shitty-war occasions, newspaper readers get to see the big guns in action: The New York Times' own Editorial Board, in all its majesty, making the case for war with Russia.
Yes, this time we're not bombing/invading Yugoslavia, Iraq, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iraq, Yemen, Iraq or Libya: America must curb-stomp Putin in Syria, or maybe even in Ukraine, the fabled headquarters of the Russian Army. For those with weak stomachs, Mark Ames has very considerately provided a synopsis of this editorial gem:
Because the editorial has an illogical, nonlinear storyline — much like a bad Tarantino film — we'll cut directly to the juiciest war cry:
President Obama has long refused to approve direct military intervention in Syria. And Mr. Putin may be assuming that Mr. Obama is unlikely to confront Russia in his final months and with an American election season in full swing. But with the rebel stronghold in Aleppo under threat of falling to the government, administration officials said that such a response is again under consideration.But the major takeaway is that Putin is the tyrannical head of an outlaw state, hell-bent on slaughtering civilians and restoring the former glory of the Soviet Union. The solution, as the Editorial Board hints, is "direct military intervention" in Syria — which of course would lead to all-out war, and probably your humble Moscow correspondent being vaporized. Mission Accomplished.
We keep beating around the bush, so we're just going to come out and say it: The New York Times' retelling of what has happened in Syria over the last four years is crystalline claptrap.
The United States is, once again, the aggressor nation calling foul when things don't go according to plan.
Washington has no international mandate to be in Syria — neither in its skies, nor as "advisors" to "moderate rebels" on the ground. Washington (along with its freedom-loving allies — Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE, all bastions of democracy) has simply invited itself to the party. And by "party" we mean "a proxy war dressed up as a democratic uprising that has killed hundreds of thousands and further destabilized the entire region, while creating a massive refugee crisis in the process." A week ago, Washington murdered (with bombs) more than 60 uniformed soldiers of a country that they aren't even officially at war with, inside their own borders. Putin strikes again! according to the New York Times.
Of course, the editorial is eager to point out all the heinous war crimes that Russia has committed in Syria — none of which have been verified by anyone aside from the Pentagon. Should we really be surprised, though? In a recent article in The Nation, Adam Johnson reminds his readers that:
The New York Times' editorial board has supported every single US war—Persian Gulf, Bosnia, Kosovo, Iraq, Libya—for the past 30 years. While its reporting and op-eds on these wars has often been critical, much of it's coverage has also helped to sell war-weary liberals on the current military mission—the most notable example being Judith Miller and Michael Gordon's hyping Iraq's nonexistent nuclear program in the buildup to the March 2003 invasion. Indeed, the image of The New York Times as an objective, unbiased news outlet is precisely how it was able to sell the war in the first place.We've already established, in our lede, that a$$holes have been roaming the world for thousands of years. But it was Mark Twain who warned us about the New York Times many, many years ago:
The loud little handful--as usual--will shout for the war. The pulpit will--warily and cautiously--object--at first; the great, big, dull bulk of the nation will rub its sleepy eyes and try to make out why there should be a war, and will say, earnestly and indignantly, 'It is unjust and dishonorable, and there is no necessity for it.' Then the handful will shout louder. A few fair men on the other side will argue and reason against the war with speech and pen, and at first will have a hearing and be applauded; but it will not last long; those others will outshout them, and presently the anti-war audiences will thin out and lose popularity. Before long you will see this curious thing: the speakers stoned from the platform, and free speech strangled by hordes of furious men who in their secret hearts are still at one with those stoned speakers--as earlier--but do not dare say so. And now the whole nation--pulpit and all--will take up the war-cry, and shout itself hoarse, and mob any honest man who ventures to open his mouth; and presently such mouths will cease to open. Next the statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception.Sorry for "bolding" the entire quote. We couldn't figure out which words were not important.
See you all in Moscow! (Please don't kill me.)
Reader Comments
to our Newsletter