Open Text: Exact Phrase:

One would have to presume that the New York Times, being located in New York and named after New York, would owe its first allegiance to the people OF New York. And, since it claims the title of 'America's Newspaper of Record', that it would by extension, also owe some sense of allegiance to the United States of America.

But after a careful reading of its editorial pages, one comes away wondering why anybody would support the US on any issue, when all the clear-thinking political insights come from Europe or the United Nations.

In an editorial titled "Change in Spain" assessing Spain's surrender to al-Qaeda, the New York Times opined that the surprising victory for Spain's Socialist Party wasn't a victory for terrorism, but was instead a defeat for 'Bush's allies in Spain'. (Wouldn't that also make them AMERICA's allies in Spain? Or is the Times the 'newspaper of record' for some OTHER America?)

According to the Times' editorial, the defeat of his Spanish 'allies' should "help the president to realize what it really takes to win a permanent international war against violent outlaws like al Qaeda. The peaceful nations of the world are all in this together, and they must work as partners."

By implication, the United States then, is NOT among 'the peaceful nations of this world' -- as long as it is headed by George Bush. Indeed, according to America's 'Newspaper of Record', the Spanish Socialist Prime Minister should "use his new mandate to pressure Washington to seek U.N. help."

Let's stop there and look at that again.

The editorial page of the New York Times calling on the Socialist leader of Spain to put pressure on the US to force it to submit to the UN. Shouldn't this editorial be running in Pravda, instead of being offered as the editorial consensus of America's 'newspaper of record'? Or is it just me?

The Times' editorial concludes that the results of the Spanish elections are "a summons to join Europe and the United States in the kind of intense and broadly based cooperation that can provide the most sustained and effective answer to the tragedy of Madrid."

In another column in the same issue, NYTimes writer Elain Sciolino detailed Zapatero's post-election promise to shift its allegiance away from the United States and toward Paris and Berlin. (Like the New York Times)

The news piece editorialized, "Zapatero offered scathing criticism of the American-led war in Iraq, which his party, like 90 percent of the Spanish people, opposed." (Like the New York Times)

The paper didn't miss a chance to practice a little EU hero-worship by proxy, saying, "Zapatero, despite his leftist leanings, will be moving closer to the foreign policy vision of the center-right government of France, where President Jacques Chirac has repeatedly called for the creation of a "multipolar" world in which Europe would become a counterweight to the United States and other centers of power." (So has the New York Times)

In another story in the same issue, headlined, "Ex-U.N. Inspector Has Harsh Words for Bush" the Times compiled a list of quotations from Hans Blix selected specifically to advance the New York Times worldview that the Bush administration lied about prewar intelligence assessments in Iraq.

The piece even managed to criticize the Bush administration in its own summary of the book in which Blix put his 'harsh words for Bush' to paper, describing it as being "written in the same judicious and patient style that Bush administration officials disparaged when they criticized his approach to inspections." (The sublimal suggestion was it had big words it in that confused the Texas bumpkins)

Although Blix conceded he was "not suggesting that Blair and Bush spoke in bad faith," it's because he didn't have to. The spin put on the story by the New York Times' spin doctors did it for him. The piece editorializes Vice President Dick Cheney as Blix's 'chief tormentor', supporting the conclusion by quoting a passage from Blix's book:

"He stated his position that inspections, if they do not give results, cannot go on forever and said the U.S. was `ready to discredit inspections in favor of disarmament."

Such torment! It must have been agony for Blix to have the Vice President of the United States saying inspections 'cannot go on forever'. No wonder Blix was 'tormented', being told he didn't have a job for life.

The Times' piece editorialized again: "He limits his judgment on whether the Americans and British manipulated intelligence to saying only that it was "probable that the governments were conscious that they were exaggerating the risks they saw in order to get the political support they would not otherwise have had.""

It's clear from the Times' editorial comment that Blix was 'limiting his judgment', about 'manipulating intelligence' but the implication from the paper was that everybody really KNOWS that they did.

Domestically, the New York Times is already recognized as a propaganda rag for the Democratic Party and takes that into account when reading Democratic talking points thinly disguised as 'news'.

But here's the thing -- to the rest of the world, the New York Times is the voice of America. To somebody living in Berlin, or Ankara or Moscow, the New York Times is a mirror of America.

They read in the New York Times that America is a loose cannon, that George Bush, in defiance of public opinion (eg. The NYTimes) defied the United Nations, which is why nobody should trust the United States as long as George Bush is in office.

Which is one reason why 90% of Spanish voters (according to the Times, again) opposed participating in the Iraq coalition. (Although a week before the Madrid attack the ruling party in Spain was expected to defeat the anti-American Socialists easily) It explains why most of the world hates America, and in particular, America's president.

Because the New York Times has made it its mission to ensure that they will.

Excerpted from The Omega Letter Daily Intelligence Digest, Volume: 30 Issue: 16. For subscription information, click here


Additional Resources:
"Change in Spain"
"Spain Will Loosen Its Alliance With U.S., Premier-Elect Says"
"Ex-U.N. Inspector Has Harsh Words for Bush"

Current Article Ranking:

Not Yet Ranked

Rank This Article:

• No Forum Comments on this Article yet.