
© Carlo Allegri / Reuters
The Editorial Board of the
New York Times is smoking dope. This is the only conclusion I can make, that makes sense. After reading the board's latest hallucination starring Vladimir Putin, I sat and pondered for minutes; just how the world's most legendary newspaper went crazy. Somehow reality is turned on end, every time these media people say their piece on Russia and Putin. Today is a good day to call them out,
and to question the validity of the NYT overall.
The
New York Times editorial board is supposed to be a beacon of enlightened opinion, a sort of oracle of thought for the readers of the most influential print news media ever drafted. 16 people inhabit those hallowed halls in New York City, 16 journalists from a wide swath of expertise. And "Vladimir Putin's Dangerous Obsession" is their latest and greatest contribution to astute thinking, the best and most intellectually stimulating editorial these brilliant journalists could come up with.
The latest damnable Russophobic, anti-Putin rant, from well paid political trolls is a big-fat-lie. Sorry, but 16 pairs of pants are on fire right now, and here's why.Everyone reading this by now knows, Vladimir Putin and Russia have not been the aggressor in the current West versus East circus.
If Russia were the aggressor, all of Ukraine would be under the Russian flag, and there is nothing NATO or the United States could have done about it. Let's just be real, please. But for context today, read this quote from the piece in question:
"Syria is just one arena where Mr. Putin's obsessive quest to make Russia great again has fueled instability and reawakened political suspicions and animosities that faded after the fall of the Soviet Union."
As we've shown 5,000 times, after the Soviet Union fell Washington and London never let up trying to infuse hegemonic control over states surrounding Russia. These journalists at the
NYT know this,
but they never mention it. And this is known as being misleading, a deceiver, even a minion. You are deceivers, ladies and gentlemen. Or either I am. So let's see who is, and is not, shall we?
Comment: More back room manoeuvrers to protect the failing Killary campaign.