Once Saddam was dead the Times consistently discussed uncritically new excuses for staying in Iraq to replace the discredited pretext of weapons of mass destruction, like that of doing the Iraqis a good deed by bringing them democracy at (the barrel of a gun). The Times now emphasizes al Qaida's presence as a reason for continued occupation without emphasizing that al Qaida was not in Iraq before the invasion that gave al Qaida a cause celebre to nurture, and new recruiting possibilities world wide.
Times has been obfuscating all efforts of decent Americans to call a spade a spade in this whole sordid affair, purposely allowing some connection between Iraq and 9/11 to exist in the minds of the less literate sector of the population which furnishes gullible recruits courageously wishing to protect their country in the wake of 9/11.
The Times is continually taking its readers for a ride, much in the way it did with Laos, Vietnam and Cambodia, rationalizing Truman's brutal decision to bring back in the French Colonial Army and the thirty year crucifixion of the colonial population of French Indochinese peninsula by Ike, JFK, Johnson and Nixon, all the way through sanitizing Gerald Ford's senseless bloody attack on Cambodia though the sailors of the intruding ship Mayaguez had already been released. It soft-pedals that past shameful 2nd holocaust, calling Vietnam just a mistake, and preposterously hails every single participating co-perpetrator now in Congress, or running for office, as a military hero. (The America military machine needs new enlistment cannon fodder for present and future Times’ promoted wars on the third world, and glorifying war makes it attractive to innocent young men.)
The Times has hid the blowback nature of 9/11. ‘The chicken’s coming home to roost’ from the Carter administration's June-1979 secret funding, arming and training the fundamentalist Mujahadeen uprising against a modern socialist, women liberating Kabul government, when there were no Soviet troops in Afghanistan, precisely in order to frighten and sucker the Soviets into intervening six months later in December. Funding assassinations of teachers for teaching girls, made the US the first to use Islamic terrorism as a cold war tool. Type ‘Brzezinski brags’ into Google, and 29 pages of articles pop up to click on, including the text of the Advisor to the President’s 1998 interview with a French newspaper. As opposed to the Times, the Internet has ‘all the news that ISN’T fit to print’, including the CIA funding with Saudi agents thousands of extremist Wahabi sect Islamic schools in Afghanistan, helping Osama bin Ladin and backing the fervently puritanical Taliban, favored by the Reagan and Bush Sr. administrations. The NY Times prints articles praising how the US improved the life of Afghan women, but not the truth about the condition of women's lives in Kabul before twenty thousand extreme Wahabi Madrasahs were funded by the CIA and the Saudi secret service in the Persian speaking nation of Afghanistan.
Presently, the grand confusion, perfect for our educating Big Brother NY Times! U.S. soldiers, marines and airmen, Pentagon 'contractors' and mercenaries, CIA operatives, Sunni insurgents, Shiiti militias, al Qaida, Shiite police and 'government' troops, Sunni police and 'government' troops, each having splintered off renegade groups - death and torture squads with suicide bomb volunteers ad infinitum available for all to use. How many U.S. dollars flow into whose hands and for what purpose? Divide and conquer? Keep everyone from ganging up on the occupiers? It currently explains how containing Iranian influence is now a higher priority than fighting al Qaida and the Bathist insurgents. Swallow as fast as one can; a new threat to American corporate interests is surfacing in the pages of the NY Times.
The Times does not see itself as a threat to America, the world, or anyone else. We know now from experience that Times is not just a threat, but also a highly influential agency of convincing the ‘educated’ public to support a foreign policy of mortal harm and destruction.
The Times works the obvious entertainment value of chewing everyone else's comments and opinions about its own ongoing sham presentation of selected 'news' from the urban killing fields of our latest recognized mistake of a war. A war, we read, that nevertheless must continue. Never doubt that many corporations are still making good on their investments in this war, about which NY Times will let us see only the tip of the iceberg.
Lastly, we have the Times, by subterfuge, dampening interest in impeachment efforts throughout the nation and dissimulating, instead of informing us, on what is known of the lying, pretended ignorance, hypocrisy and cover-up within a media harnessed to blind corporate greed and the pseudo democracy of a limited two party system in which both parties supported and still support the war; one party finding itself now in a quandary, supposedly representing the larger part of the voting public which wants out, yet beholden to the same corporate influence as the other party which follows orders to stay in. Zero coverage of Kucinich is part of this effort by the Times.
The Times, ever faithful to the corporations which wanted the war to make money, now protects the president and vice-president from impeachment, ostensibly saving face for our nation, a type of protection all media withheld when impeachment was allowed to go forward over the nationally embarrassing, intromissive to family values, public issue of just exactly where a US president's penis had penetrated. And neither did the Times protect an earlier president, forced to resign under impeachment threat for a petty office break-in information burglary. Thoughtful human beings the world over watch these ludicrous machinations in a US bragging of its democracy while not being able to impeach a simple-minded President, known by everyone to have lied and falsified information given in pretext for a war that is still bringing horror to millions.
-
Now that the nation no longer wants the war which the Times in sold us on more than four years ago, you can trust it to present more and more of the tragic side of this war. When the biz community wanted out of Vietnam, as Japan was buying up Rockefeller Center and other parts of the U.S., our corporate media showed us previously shelved photos of My Lai to de-glorify 'staying the course'.
In Iraq, American boys most sincerely, bravely, and more importantly, actually, die killing for their country. The Times and CNN continue to program the killing and the dying. We can say with advertising certainty, we read the reasons for war in the NY Times. What if the Times and company had not been able to convince enough Americans to buy the war on Iraq? No war? No children killed and no soldiers killed. And no worry of Iraqi WMD pushed into American minds. And Iraqis take care of their Saddam problem, without the US helping Saddam, nor punishing Iraqis. And the NY Times might stop pretending that it loves democracy, and let us count, on our hands and feet, the violence the CIA has been ordered to do whenever democracy has been able to raise its head anywhere in our business client nations of the formerly colonialized third world where most of humanity resides.
People at the Times know that oil is why we occupy Iraq; that oil is why we destroyed Baghdad's infrastructure twice from the air; that oil is why the CIA helped bring Saddam to power; that oil is why Reagan and Bush Sr. encouraged Saddam to war on Iran, and supported him with helicopters, weapons, gas components, and spy satellite reconnaissance data.
Though often philosophizing, the Op-ed page will not dote on the criminal insanity at the top of our society that promotes six digit homicide, grinding poverty for half of mankind, and the theft of the natural resources of the commonweal, as if those who seek still a further excessive share of life's perks are going to be able to 'take it with them' (few of these criminally insane wealthy power-brokers are young enough to be around much longer). If one is not yet ashamed to be an American, one can just sit back and wait and observe the Times justifying the military doing their thing (in the name of all Americans).
An aside: Do the elderly and respected owners of the NY Times remember their arithmetic multiplication table? Multiply thousands of American broken hearts by two hundred to get the number of how many Iraqi broken hearts the Times shows little interest in. Is it possible to conceive of the brave and heroic hearts of the parents of thousands upon thousands of innocent Iraqi children - their mothers, fathers, grandfathers, grandmothers, little and big brothers and sisters, uncles, aunts, cousins, and dear friends? No, it is not possible, even if the Times showed some compassion and mentioned them. "The loss of one life is a tragedy, the loss of tens of thousands is a statistic." In print, or voiced, statistics lack human-interest projection.
Strange! So many killed and maimed. For what? We all die soon enough. Isn't life miraculous and wondrous? Why so much apathy for, and disinterest in, stopping our government from hastening so many toward the exit? All for a few bucks? Ah, but the owners of the Times are very serious about those bucks, both those real bucks and those ‘projected’ future bucks.
Americans just don't really enjoy having freedom of speech and assembly; it is a burden, as is the responsibility of free men for the actions of their government and military, as is being attentive to behaving democratically toward the rest of humanity. Most don't have time for calling congressmen or media - but enough take the time to look at the Times – just often enough to be fooled. For many, the Times serves to relieve one of the above-mentioned burdens.
Perhaps only a few tens of thousands of university professors and students, and a similar number of politically aware people in the street, plus thousands of peace and justice advocates, some beatniks, hippies, flower children and members of minorities and immigrants who don’t trust any middle or upper class whites, hold the NY Times and media corporations responsible for tricking us into war and for war deaths and injuries!
Times has been obfuscating all efforts of decent Americans to call a spade a spade in this whole sordid affair, purposely allowing some connection between Iraq and 9/11 to exist in the minds of the less literate sector of the population which furnishes gullible recruits courageously wishing to protect their country in the wake of 9/11.
The Times is continually taking its readers for a ride, much in the way it did with Laos, Vietnam and Cambodia, rationalizing Truman's brutal decision to bring back in the French Colonial Army and the thirty year crucifixion of the colonial population of French Indochinese peninsula by Ike, JFK, Johnson and Nixon, all the way through sanitizing Gerald Ford's senseless bloody attack on Cambodia though the sailors of the intruding ship Mayaguez had already been released. It soft-pedals that past shameful 2nd holocaust, calling Vietnam just a mistake, and preposterously hails every single participating co-perpetrator now in Congress, or running for office, as a military hero. (The America military machine needs new enlistment cannon fodder for present and future Times’ promoted wars on the third world, and glorifying war makes it attractive to innocent young men.)
The Times has hid the blowback nature of 9/11. ‘The chicken’s coming home to roost’ from the Carter administration's June-1979 secret funding, arming and training the fundamentalist Mujahadeen uprising against a modern socialist, women liberating Kabul government, when there were no Soviet troops in Afghanistan, precisely in order to frighten and sucker the Soviets into intervening six months later in December. Funding assassinations of teachers for teaching girls, made the US the first to use Islamic terrorism as a cold war tool. Type ‘Brzezinski brags’ into Google, and 29 pages of articles pop up to click on, including the text of the Advisor to the President’s 1998 interview with a French newspaper. As opposed to the Times, the Internet has ‘all the news that ISN’T fit to print’, including the CIA funding with Saudi agents thousands of extremist Wahabi sect Islamic schools in Afghanistan, helping Osama bin Ladin and backing the fervently puritanical Taliban, favored by the Reagan and Bush Sr. administrations. The NY Times prints articles praising how the US improved the life of Afghan women, but not the truth about the condition of women's lives in Kabul before twenty thousand extreme Wahabi Madrasahs were funded by the CIA and the Saudi secret service in the Persian speaking nation of Afghanistan.
The Times does not see itself as a threat to America, the world, or anyone else. We know now from experience that Times is not just a threat, but also a highly influential agency of convincing the ‘educated’ public to support a foreign policy of mortal harm and destruction.
The Times works the obvious entertainment value of chewing everyone else's comments and opinions about its own ongoing sham presentation of selected 'news' from the urban killing fields of our latest recognized mistake of a war. A war, we read, that nevertheless must continue. Never doubt that many corporations are still making good on their investments in this war, about which NY Times will let us see only the tip of the iceberg.
Lastly, we have the Times, by subterfuge, dampening interest in impeachment efforts throughout the nation and dissimulating, instead of informing us, on what is known of the lying, pretended ignorance, hypocrisy and cover-up within a media harnessed to blind corporate greed and the pseudo democracy of a limited two party system in which both parties supported and still support the war; one party finding itself now in a quandary, supposedly representing the larger part of the voting public which wants out, yet beholden to the same corporate influence as the other party which follows orders to stay in. Zero coverage of Kucinich is part of this effort by the Times.
The Times, ever faithful to the corporations which wanted the war to make money, now protects the president and vice-president from impeachment, ostensibly saving face for our nation, a type of protection all media withheld when impeachment was allowed to go forward over the nationally embarrassing, intromissive to family values, public issue of just exactly where a US president's penis had penetrated. And neither did the Times protect an earlier president, forced to resign under impeachment threat for a petty office break-in information burglary. Thoughtful human beings the world over watch these ludicrous machinations in a US bragging of its democracy while not being able to impeach a simple-minded President, known by everyone to have lied and falsified information given in pretext for a war that is still bringing horror to millions.
-
Now that the nation no longer wants the war which the Times in sold us on more than four years ago, you can trust it to present more and more of the tragic side of this war. When the biz community wanted out of Vietnam, as Japan was buying up Rockefeller Center and other parts of the U.S., our corporate media showed us previously shelved photos of My Lai to de-glorify 'staying the course'.
In Iraq, American boys most sincerely, bravely, and more importantly, actually, die killing for their country. The Times and CNN continue to program the killing and the dying. We can say with advertising certainty, we read the reasons for war in the NY Times. What if the Times and company had not been able to convince enough Americans to buy the war on Iraq? No war? No children killed and no soldiers killed. And no worry of Iraqi WMD pushed into American minds. And Iraqis take care of their Saddam problem, without the US helping Saddam, nor punishing Iraqis. And the NY Times might stop pretending that it loves democracy, and let us count, on our hands and feet, the violence the CIA has been ordered to do whenever democracy has been able to raise its head anywhere in our business client nations of the formerly colonialized third world where most of humanity resides.
People at the Times know that oil is why we occupy Iraq; that oil is why we destroyed Baghdad's infrastructure twice from the air; that oil is why the CIA helped bring Saddam to power; that oil is why Reagan and Bush Sr. encouraged Saddam to war on Iran, and supported him with helicopters, weapons, gas components, and spy satellite reconnaissance data.
Though often philosophizing, the Op-ed page will not dote on the criminal insanity at the top of our society that promotes six digit homicide, grinding poverty for half of mankind, and the theft of the natural resources of the commonweal, as if those who seek still a further excessive share of life's perks are going to be able to 'take it with them' (few of these criminally insane wealthy power-brokers are young enough to be around much longer). If one is not yet ashamed to be an American, one can just sit back and wait and observe the Times justifying the military doing their thing (in the name of all Americans).
An aside: Do the elderly and respected owners of the NY Times remember their arithmetic multiplication table? Multiply thousands of American broken hearts by two hundred to get the number of how many Iraqi broken hearts the Times shows little interest in. Is it possible to conceive of the brave and heroic hearts of the parents of thousands upon thousands of innocent Iraqi children - their mothers, fathers, grandfathers, grandmothers, little and big brothers and sisters, uncles, aunts, cousins, and dear friends? No, it is not possible, even if the Times showed some compassion and mentioned them. "The loss of one life is a tragedy, the loss of tens of thousands is a statistic." In print, or voiced, statistics lack human-interest projection.
Strange! So many killed and maimed. For what? We all die soon enough. Isn't life miraculous and wondrous? Why so much apathy for, and disinterest in, stopping our government from hastening so many toward the exit? All for a few bucks? Ah, but the owners of the Times are very serious about those bucks, both those real bucks and those ‘projected’ future bucks.
Americans just don't really enjoy having freedom of speech and assembly; it is a burden, as is the responsibility of free men for the actions of their government and military, as is being attentive to behaving democratically toward the rest of humanity. Most don't have time for calling congressmen or media - but enough take the time to look at the Times – just often enough to be fooled. For many, the Times serves to relieve one of the above-mentioned burdens.
Perhaps only a few tens of thousands of university professors and students, and a similar number of politically aware people in the street, plus thousands of peace and justice advocates, some beatniks, hippies, flower children and members of minorities and immigrants who don’t trust any middle or upper class whites, hold the NY Times and media corporations responsible for tricking us into war and for war deaths and injuries!
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
