More Anti-Russian Bias at the NYT

Exclusive: The anti-Russian bias of the New York Times is hard to miss as it consistently puts Moscow’s actions and intentions in the worst possible light, in stark contrast to the warm glow that usually surrounds military actions by the U.S. and its “allies,” as Jonathan Marshall observes.

By Jonathan Marshall

Someone at the New York Times forgot where the opinion pages are, and not for the first time. When it comes to hot-button foreign issues such as Russia and Syria, too often Official Washington’s opinions and hostile spin get propagated as fact on its news pages.

Consider the Sept. 30 edition of the Times and its contrasting coverage of U.S. bombing in Afghanistan and Russian bombing in Syria. On Afghanistan, the paper’s approach is factual: The Times story leads with “American warplanes bombarded Taliban-held territory around the Kunduz airport overnight, and Afghan officials said American Special Forces were rushed toward the fighting.” Lacking much depth, the article does not address, much less question, U.S. motives, which by implication are simply to help beleaguered government forces resist Taliban advances in Kunduz and northern Afghanistan.

Russian President Vladimir Putin, following his address to the UN General Assembly on Sept. 28, 2015. (UN Photo)

Russian President Vladimir Putin, following his address to the UN General Assembly on Sept. 28, 2015. (UN Photo)

In contrast, the main Times story on Russia’s first bombing raids in Syria leads with an assumption of Russian motives related as fact: “President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia suddenly escalated the stakes in his contest with the West over influence in the Middle East on Wednesday, as Russian pilots carried out their first airstrikes in Syria.” Not until the fourth paragraph do we find that Moscow claims that its goal is to “fight Islamic State militants.”

Later in the story, the Times’ Moscow correspondent Neil MacFarquhar omnisciently insists instead that Putin’s real motives for “interfering” (love that spin!) in Syria are to “restore Russian influence as a global power,” “force an end to the diplomatic and financial isolation the West imposed after Moscow seized Crimea,” “maintain control over Russia’s naval station at Tartus, in Syria,” and “draw attention away from the Ukraine conflict and the troubles it has caused.” In other words, the Russian bear is big, bad, and on the move.

By the fifth paragraph of the story, MacFarquhar has looked into his crystal ball and confidently predicts that “Russia’s intervention will most likely prolong and complicate the war, as it could keep Mr. Assad in office and adds Russia to the already complicated patchwork of forces deployed there.”

In case you don’t believe his message, an accompanying “news” story, by Helene Cooper and the reliably hawkish national security correspondent Michael Gordon, insists that Russia’s ominous “military buildup in Syria” (consisting of just 32 tactical jets) “could further inflame, and lengthen, the conflict” by “frustrating already-dwindling hopes for a diplomatic resolution.” Their sources range all the way from current U.S. and Saudi officials to former U.S. officials and an expert at the hawkish Washington Institute for Near East Policy.

Of course, Russia’s stepped-up intervention could prolong the conflict by preventing an Islamist victory. Left unsaid is that Russia’s support for Assad could just as easily shorten the conflict by bringing some non-jihadist opposition groups to the bargaining table to work out a power-sharing government with Assad, which they have hitherto resisted. Contrary to the Times’ spin, no one knows.

The fact that two Times stories on the same day draw the most dire conclusion stands in contrast to the paper’s more even-handed assessment in July of stepped up U.S. bombing in Afghanistan: “The airstrikes could undermine the Taliban’s willingness to negotiate with the Afghan government and could indirectly strengthen the group’s legitimacy to an Afghan public that widely loathes the American airstrikes. Or, the airstrikes might give the Afghan government more leverage in negotiations.”

On Wednesday, Cooper and Gordon make much of the fact that confronting the Islamic State “is not necessarily Moscow’s priority,” as evidenced by the fact that “the very first warplanes that Russia sent to Latakia were four SU-30 Flanker air-to-air fighters. Such aircraft, officials said, would be useful in expanding Russia’s military reach in the Middle East and perhaps in dissuading foes of Mr. Assad from even contemplating the establishment of a no-fly zone over Syria. But they have little utility against a ground force like the Islamic State.”

Those unnamed “officials” apparently didn’t read Secretary of State John Kerry’s Sept. 22 news conference, at which he said “it is the judgment of our military and most experts that the level and type [of Soviet deployment] represents basically force protection, a level of protection for their deployment to an air base, given the fact that it is in an area of conflict.”

Funny thing, when the U.S. moved forces into a Turkish air base this summer, a Pentagon spokesman quoted by Military Times said the U.S. military’s first priorities were “force protection and things like that.” Nobody at the Times cited anonymous sources who found that suspicious.

Cooper and Gordon also offer no balancing perspective from Moscow. A spokeswoman for Russia’s Foreign Ministry explained earlier this month that “Russian military specialists help Syrians master Russian hardware, and we can’t understand the anti-Russian hysteria about this. We have been supplying Syria with arms and military equipment for a long time. We are doing this in accordance with existing contracts and in full accordance with international law.”

As Putin noted in his United Nations address, Russia is aiding the internationally recognized regime in Damascus, unlike illegal intervention by the U.S., Gulf states, France and other countries on behalf of various Islamist rebels.

So what we’re left with is familiar Cold War imagery of a Russian bear on the move to set the world aflame, presumably unlike humanitarian U.S. bombing of Afghanistan, Syria, Libya (and, going back a few years more, Iraq, Serbia, Panama, etc.).

I, for one, still respect the New York Times as our country’s, and perhaps the world’s, single best news source on a wide variety of topics. That’s why I feel betrayed when it lets down the profession’s best standards by internalizing Official Washington’s group think as “news” rather than opinion or spin.

Jonathan Marshall is an independent researcher living in San Anselmo, California. Some of his previous articles for Consortiumnews were “Risky Blowback from Russian Sanctions”; “Neocons Want Regime Change in Iran”; “Saudi Cash Wins France’s Favor”; “The Saudis’ Hurt Feelings”; “Saudi Arabia’s Nuclear Bluster”; “The US Hand in the Syrian Mess”; and Hidden Origins of Syria’s Civil War.” ]

49 comments for “More Anti-Russian Bias at the NYT

  1. Mortimer
    October 2, 2015 at 08:43
  2. Mortimer
    October 1, 2015 at 19:16

    Recognition of time lines are critical here in regard to comments and replies.

    just say’n… just to keep convo’s in context.

  3. Joe L.
    October 1, 2015 at 16:42

    I think that award winning journalists John Pilger’s article “Why the rise of fascism is again the issue” is relevant to what we are reading here. I rather like and respect John Pilger and his resumé cannot be denied going back to Vietnam, Cambodia etc. Here is a link to the article on Mr. Pilger’s website:

  4. Abbybwood
    October 1, 2015 at 15:56

    Here is a YouTube clip of a press conference Putin had with many American reporters where he attempts to explain to them what is happening in the Middle East:

    It would be helpful to American democracy if The New York Times gave us a transcript of Putin’s comments.

    But the sad truth is that one has to dig to find clips like this one.

    Putin is right.

    • Bob Van Noy
      October 1, 2015 at 16:20

      Of course he is Abbybwood, and thanks.

  5. Abe
    October 1, 2015 at 15:21

    Putin insisted at the UN on coordination between all anti-ISIS/ISIL/Daesh forces based on UN principles. The key principle at stake is statehood. In the Syria case, that translates as support for the government in Damascus, which may have monstrous flaws, but it’s the only game in town. The “alternative” is the Salafi-jihadi barbarians.

    So this is the way the regime change obsession of the Obama administration ends; not with a bang, but a whimper. The question is how will the Obama administration still plan to use Salafi-jihadis for its “Assad must go” operation while also fighting them as leaders of a coalition. Certainly not by using the “no more than five” moderate rebels it trained and weaponized with a $500 million budget.

    Are you ready for the two-headed coalition?
    By Pepe Escobar

    • Mortimer
      October 2, 2015 at 08:50

      Many thanks, Abe. Escobar reports are essential reading.

  6. F. G. Sanford
    October 1, 2015 at 15:19

    I know, I know – even I used to think this guy was a crackpot. That’s because the mainstream has waged a ceaseless campaign to malign him. Even the left gatekeeper site purged all of his articles from their archives. As long as he didn’t question the official narrative, he was a superstar and was even invited to testify before Congress as an expert on African geopolitics. Youtube tends to bury these videos, so watch it while you can. It tells the whole story.

    By the way, I just heard about the incident in Oregon. Didn’t take ’em long, did it? Any time the “lone nut” scenario pops up, better stand by. This will dominate the headlines for God knows how long to the exclusion of any rational or pertinent analysis of the “grand chessboard”. It remains to be seen how far Ashtomic B. Crater and General Strangelove will go to haul Petraeus’ chestnuts out of the fire. Bob mentioned “Thirteen Days”. I was thinking “Seven Days in May”. Can anybody guess what the “B” stands for?

    • Joe Tedesky
      October 1, 2015 at 16:49

      My take on why Wayne Madsen is marginalized is, because he maybe that right. If you get your news from any MSM hack, and then go read a Webster Griffin Tarpley, or a guy like Madsen, then you will know why these guys are off base. They are too honest. They may not always be exactly right on, but then who is. None the less, compare them to your average MSM news agent, and there is no comparison. The honest truth is so unbelievable to the average person, and I struggle attempting to understand what makes this so. I suppose the public is used to getting lied too.

      Today, Lieutenant Colonel Rick Francona speculated with Wolf Blitzer, how an air accident could start a very bad process to happen in Syria. So, if by chance an F16 gets shot down, then this could be the beginning of a bigger Syrian war.

      I still can’t get over you F.G. writing last evening about the CIA backed rebels, and then me waking up to the news of this being admitted by the infamous propaganda rag WSJ & that whack job McCain repeating this meme. You made a comment how this is a war between the CIA and the legitimate U.S. government. I would find this hard to believe, if I hadn’t read so much about JFK’s difficulties with this very same thing.

      Lastly, at the UN John Kerry told a terrible story how Assad had the parents of some demonstrating students shot. I could not help thinking of the 1968 Democratic Convention, and Kent State. Should, we have removed LBJ, and Nixon by Kerry’s standards?

  7. Mortimer
    October 1, 2015 at 14:44

    While exposing American hypocrisy, Putin also recognizes the need to diminish ISIS/Al Qaeda by reason of Brzezinski/CIA plan to sow insurgent discord throughout Central Asia using their jihadist hoards.
    According to independent journalist Pepe Escobar, the jihadi’s are to be the US’s monkey wrench (or IED’s) to disrupt China/Russia’s plan for the New Silk Road. – A partnership with which they aspire to bring an end to US world wide economic hegemony.

    • Bob Van Noy
      October 1, 2015 at 16:11

      Zbigniew Brzezinski. I get so frustrated by these great intellects and their theories, what do they know? and if what they know is so prescient; let them make their case publicly and openly instead in small forums in dark places.

      • Mortimer
        October 1, 2015 at 19:06

        Find reviews of Brzezinski’s “The Grand Chessboard” (A Blueprint for World Dictatorship).

        Don’t forget, it was Brzezinski, in 1979, who convinced Pres.Carter to stir up the Jihadists to gather in Afghanistan as a “rising tide” against the Soviets.

        Brzezinski gets credit for bankrupting the Soviet Union while driving them out of Afghanistan.

        • Mortimer
          October 1, 2015 at 19:25

          Brzezinski gets credit for bankrupting the Soviet Union while driving them out of Afghanistan.

          • Bob Van Noy
            October 1, 2015 at 22:03

            Thank you Mortimer, seems right; makes me more frustrated.

          • Bob Van Noy
            October 1, 2015 at 22:15

            I read the reviews as you suggested, an evil man; I’ll read the book. Thanks?

  8. Bob Van Noy
    October 1, 2015 at 13:35

    Speaking personally, this feels like “Thirteen Days.”

  9. Joe Tedesky
    October 1, 2015 at 13:07

    I will tell you this, that Tony Cartalucci is a great writer. Since I started following Mr.Cartalucci from back in 2012, everything he reported came true. Here is that article;

  10. Abe
    October 1, 2015 at 12:14

    Russia is not arbitrarily bombing “moderates” backed by the US in Syria to stave off allegedly “legitimate” opposition to the government in Damascus – Russia is bombing terrorists who are either operating under the banner of Al Qaeda but are portrayed as otherwise by the US, or will inevitably end up turning their fighters and weapons over to Al Qaeda. Russia is bombing Al Qaeda.

    The New York Times article would also claim:

    “By supporting Assad and seemingly taking on everybody fighting Assad,” Defense Secretary Ashton B. Carter said Wednesday, Russia is “taking on the whole rest of the country that’s fighting Assad.” Some of those groups, he added, are supported by the United States and need to be part of a political resolution in Syria.

    Indeed, Russia is undoubtedly bombing militants supported by the United States, but that is only because the United States has intentionally supported Al Qaeda and ISIS in Syria. At any time if the United States truly wanted to strike an irreparable blow at ISIS forces, it could simply seal off the Turkish border across which the summation of ISIS’ supplies, fighters, weapons, and vehicles flow. By securing the Turkish-Syrian border to the north, and the Jordanian-Syrian border in the south, the United States could strangle ISIS out of existence in a month, if not sooner.

    It is abundantly clear that ISIS’ supply lines lead out of NATO-member Turkey and that Syrian and Kurdish forces are desperately trying to seal off the Turkish-Syrian border to stop them. Note that the proposed US-Turkish “safe zone” in Syria would be located and protecting the remaining ISIS supply corridor into Syria.

    That it has intentionally allowed ISIS supplies to flow out from under the nose of its allies and its own military forces stationed both in Jordan and in Turkey, indicates the the US at the very least is tacitly perpetuating the existence of ISIS – but most likely is actively involved in filling the trucks bound for ISIS in Syria as well.

    US Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter claims that the Russian position is “doomed,” in what appears to be a pledge by the United States to resist Moscow’s attempts to stamp out Al Qaeda groups in addition to taking on and eliminating ISIS.

    Some might consider doubling down on a policy of backing terrorists that will inevitably be revealed to the world, and a policy that has thus far failed to topple the Syrian government which is now being bolstered by Russian, Iranian, and possibly Chinese forces, is a policy that is ultimately doomed.

    And finally, it must be noted, for those still doubting ISIS is in fact an intentional creation of US foreign policy, that ISIS is now fighting the combined military forces of Syria, Hezbollah, Iran, Iraq, and now Russia. One must ask themselves who has the material resources, finances, and operational capacity to support a single army capable of taking on a multinational coalition of this size. Where, if not from the US and its regional allies, is ISIS deriving the source of its fighting capacity?

    Claiming to fight ISIS, while so transparently supporting them, is indeed a doomed position, one doomed to fail today, and one doomed to eternal condemnation in the future.

    US Complains As Russia Bombs its Terrorists
    By Tony Cartalucci

    • Joe Tedesky
      October 1, 2015 at 13:08

      Thanks Abe…see my post below

  11. Drew Hunkins
    October 1, 2015 at 10:49

    Right now the absolute latest Western propaganda line getting saturation coverage at this moment is that Russia really isn’t targeting ISIS/ISIL in its strikes in Syria.

    This is the latest snake oil being peddled out of Washington and Tel Aviv.

  12. F. G. Sanford
    October 1, 2015 at 10:08

    Extra, Extra, Read All About it! Courageous Cuban Capitalists Confront Castro’s Corrupt Crony Commie Criminal Cohorts in Catastrophic Combat, Betrayed at Bay of Pigs!

    Brave Benghazi Battalions Battling Brutal Barrel-Bombing Basher Assad’s Belligerent Bastion of Battle-Hardened Barbarians Blocked by Bellicose Bolshevik Betrayal!

    I’d be watching closely for some kind of “distraction” episode or false-flag foray into an excuse for wider war. Things change…but they don’t. We’re watching Bay of Pigs 2.0…hopefully, there’ll be no domestic repercussions.

    • Bob Van Noy
      October 1, 2015 at 11:16

      Exactly, thanks for the “snap-back”. Empire is a much failed philosophy. If it is a philosophy. Our country has to learn at some point that world affairs is diplomatic art not war, war, war. When we finally understand that we just might find more common ground but not until…

    • Joe Tedesky
      October 1, 2015 at 11:20

      Your read on these events F.G., are right on the money. Somewhere around the time you wrote your C.I.A. Rebel comment above, the Wall Street Journal was going to press calling out how Russia was bombing C.I.A. backed rebels. Some fifteen minutes ago CNN reported on how John McCain, was also making this claim about Russia bombing C.I.A. backed rebels. Google, ‘C.I.A. backed rebels’ , there is plenty to read. So, I guess the best route is too admit our C.I.A. has rebels hiding out somewhere. Hiding out so well that finally it took Russia all but 24 hours in theater to locate them for the U.S.. At last there are moderate freedom fighters, and it took that thug Putin all but a day to find them. I’m so relieved. As to any false flag, I wouldn’t be surprised if a plan was hatched right after Bibi got back home from his visit to Russia. Putin messing with Israel, is the real red line in the sand. If for America this was nothing more than about oil, well the U.S. could have all the oil it wants, if it were to dump it’s parasitic Zionist Israel. Instead, the U.S. with all of their ‘Dual Citizens’ running the show, are fighting Israel’s wars. Plus, the American people front this illegal little nation with state of the art armament, and lots of hard earned taxpayer money. What’s wrong with this picture?

      • Bob Van Noy
        October 1, 2015 at 11:29

        Would Bibi bomb somebody as a trip switch???

        • Joe Tedesky
          October 1, 2015 at 11:46

          I guess that would depend on how much this all means too our beloved ally Israel…what do you think, Bob?

          • Bob Van Noy
            October 1, 2015 at 13:29

            I have little doubt Bibi would, think Cheney, Bush 2, Curtis LeMay. I hope however Israel is better than Bibi…

    • Jonathan Dlouhy
      October 1, 2015 at 17:44

      I believe it was some people in the Pentagon who referred to Ahmed Chalabi and his cohorts in Iraq as the “Bay of Goats”. I think the same description could be applied to Washington’s official “moderate rebels” In Syria, you know those “4 or 5” guys General Austin referred to.

  13. James lake
    October 1, 2015 at 09:45

    The news paper is reporting on behalf of a whitehouse that needs help spinning its lies

    One significant thing about the comments on these articles; is that there is a significant amount of readers that actually question the narrative; And do know the difference between editorial and news
    Gives me hope that the readership is engaged and not dumbed down.

    • dahoit
      October 1, 2015 at 11:21

      Actually today,most of the commenters about Russian involvement in Syria seem like Russophobe Zionists,and the people who question the US and media account don’t receive the number of likes as the previous idiots,which means they must be manipulating Public opinion again,or nobody with any brain cells left buy the website.
      Never put anything past the Ziomonsters,look at the Kim Davis Pope talk angle,how he mollified conservatives but angered liberals.Divide and rule.
      Todays lying Times might be the worst example of responsible journalism since 9-11.

    • Bob Van Noy
      October 1, 2015 at 11:22

      I agree James Lake, the truth at the NYT’s is in the commentary if not on the editorial page.

  14. Ash
    September 30, 2015 at 23:08

    “I, for one, still respect the New York Times as our country’s — and perhaps the world’s — single best news source on a wide variety of topics.”

    Wait, what? Good piece except for that bit of cognitive dissonance, but wow.

    • Tom Welsh
      October 1, 2015 at 10:32

      “Wait, what?”

      Exactly my reaction, too. It seems like a standard qualification: “pardon me for making these criticisms, but I really love the NYT deep down and I’m a loyal American so PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE DON’T BEAT ME”.

    • WG
      October 1, 2015 at 11:38

      Yea I had the same reaction, that sentence comes out of nowhere!

      Let’s rephrase it to more accurately describe the reality of the current NYT…

      “…other than the manipulative narratives, the lies by omission, the outright lies, and the imperial agenda… What remains is the single best source of news on a wide variet of topics.”

  15. Joe Tedesky
    September 30, 2015 at 22:51

    Without a doubt the New York Times, and the Washington Post, play a big part as to setting the official narrative to the news we receive. Possibly though, the more destructive use of that narrative set down by these papers, is the 24/7 cable news network. And oh boy, are these TV propagandist doing a bang up job, when it comes to reporting the Russian involvement as it pertains to the Syrian wars. Today, and into this evening these television hacks have been decrying foul against the Russian air strikes. Supposedly, Russians are attacking our Free Syria Rebel allies. Yes, the same allies who the U.S. have been giving arms to only watch these valiant partners go awol, and join ISIS. I find it interesting how quick the Russians found the American allies, and how hard it was for the U.S. to honestly know if these rebels were really on our side. Pretty confusing stuff, right? The opinion by these pundits is unanimously across the board. It doesn’t matter what network, it’s all the same. Republicans are regretting that the U.S. didn’t bomb Syria back in August of 2013. Of course Obama is considered weak, among this crowd, for doing nothing after drawing his red line on Assad’s presumed chemical weapons. These low life’s know it all, to this day they claim that Assad used those chemical weapons on his own people, and that Obama got snookered by Putin when calling off the threatened air strike. They also forget to add how Putin has reached out to America to make a joint military effort, and destroy ISIS where it thrives. The big Whigs in D.C. could have joined Russia, and both could have come out smelling like a rose. If this were the plan imagine how warm the reception would have been, to see these two super powers actually getting along. The hand on the doomsday clock would have certainly been moved backward, and that would have been a good thing. Only, for the Washington warmonger set (& there are lots of them) this would never do. America please wake up, before it’s too late!

    • F. G. Sanford
      September 30, 2015 at 23:10

      What nobody wants to acknowledge is that there are only two forces operating in Syria: there is the Syrian Arab Army, and everybody else is some variant of Al Qaida. All the “rebels” are Al Qaida by any other name. When will it occur to people that, for year after year, the Petraeus clique has been arming “rebels” only to see them defect. Gee whiz, does anybody suppose that might have been the plan all along? Hmmmm? Why else would the NYT sycophants come up with a word like “interference” to describe the Russian intervention? The CIA stands to see its proxy army decimated, and is caught in a “catch 22” because it can’t object or intervene. What we’re watching here is a turf war between the CIA and the legitimate government of USA. But don’t say I said so, because it’s a big secret.

      • Joe Tedesky
        October 1, 2015 at 00:59

        Your secret is save with me. I want to excuse myself for acting so surprised over our wonderful media’s coverage of these recent Syrian happenings. In addition to ‘your secret’ as stated, I wonder what exactly the Russians know about us. Such as a recent article over on (can’t remember the author) but this author was making a case of how bad our U.S. Military is. Not so much the soldier, as much as the general staff and it’s technique. Anyway, I learn a lot from your comments, especially these tactical reviews you do from time to time. Here’s a question from you; don’t you find it a little odd how the media (mostly FOX) drums the rims off the skins about Benghazi but never a mention of their favorite General Boy Petraeus? That whole affair in Benghazi shines of a Petraeus plan. I bow my head in reverence for ‘the Surge’. Arming both sides is a very dangerous operation, but when you have the nobility of a Brzezinski mentoring you, then what else matters. Just think of all those luncheons!

        • Bob Van Noy
          October 1, 2015 at 11:03

          I simply want to add a strong YES to your dialogue with F.G. I think there is much Truth going on here, Thanks.

      • Joe L.
        October 1, 2015 at 11:28

        F. G. Sanford… Yeah, it does make you wonder doesn’t it! You would think that if the stated goal is to “defeat” ISIS then Russian help would be the best thing that could happen especially since Russia has a military base in Syria and is a major military force in the region and the world. What I find interesting though is that it was the US that originally created the Mujahideen with $500 Million under President Carter, I believe, 6 months before the Afghan/Soviet War which would become Al Qaeda and the Taliban whereas also ISIS is an offshoot of Al Qaeda from within Iraq. It is also curious that every country that the US, and allies, have overthrown has only opened the door for Al Qaeda and its’ minions to expand into and grow. So, I kind of wonder, especially after hearing US 4-star General Wesley Clark speak of US plans to overthrow the governments of 7 countries in 5 years, if the US is really trying to defeat ISIS or is it all smoke and mirrors to overthrow Assad in Syria – as was the stated plan from the beginning? And if that is the plan then having Russia, an ally of Syria, join the war against ISIS would be the worst possible thing because it could disrupt US plans for another “regime change”. It should really raise eyebrows when General Petraeus was suggesting that we should support Al Qaeda (Al Nusra Front) in Syria!

        • Bob Van Noy
          October 1, 2015 at 11:41

          Sorry everybody, this IS the dialogue we’ve been needing for years. I can’t help myself… It seems clear to me that it is the neocon faction (just a name) what ever you may call them, within State and Military that always sees Enemies and only enemies. I always imagine that snarling image of Cheney and wish he personally were at the front.

          • Joe Tedesky
            October 1, 2015 at 11:49

            Sorry, Dick has college classes he needs to attend, sorry maybe next time!

          • Joe L.
            October 1, 2015 at 11:56

            Bob Van Noy… Well it all just makes me wonder to what lengths the US government will go especially when I realistically look at US history where it is the only country to have ever used nuclear bombs on a largely civilian population, twice, has trained and supported dictators and removed democracies to install them, has continually lied to go to war (Gulf of Tonkin, Iraq War etc.), and even had a false flag planned, Operation Northwoods, to kill Americans to justify an invasion of Cuba. Meanwhile the US government, with the help of papers like NYT, spin the story where even when the US is doing the most atrocious thing it still comes off squeaky clean and it becomes someone else fault – a red scare, terrorism etc. Frankly, Martin Luther King was right when he stated that purveyor of violence on the planet was his own government – it was true then and it is still true now.

            What is also interesting is that it seems that China, Russia etc. have had enough of a world dominated by the US, a world of endless war and regime change, and are creating their own institutions – Silk Roads, Banks, Payment Systems, internet, GPS, Operating Systems etc. and pushing for a world independent of the US Dollar. Maybe that is the real reason why Russia and China are so high up on the “threat perception” of the US and why it is pushing for the TPP and TTIP which seemingly will strip the sovereignty from all nations who participate in it meanwhile trying to maintain US hegemony over the world. Interesting times we are living in…

          • Joe Tedesky
            October 1, 2015 at 13:09

            Joe L great summary.

          • Bob Van Noy
            October 1, 2015 at 13:22

            OMG….. YES!

          • adam coleman
            October 14, 2015 at 08:17

            Totally agree. Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice and the Bush and Clinton Cartels et al. Add Kissenger and the other war criminal NPP winner who Judge Pirro urged to “GIVE IT BACK!”
            There are despicable and treasonous whale manure running America and if sheeple don’t WAKE TF UP NOW…ALL my be lost.
            As for Vlad? Standing ovation for putting them all in their Catch22! Net&Yahoo, the piper, is threatening to take his flute back to Tel Aviv and pout cause after flying to Moscow to tap Putin’s brain and leaving no wizer than he came and just can’t seem to get AIPAC to push any harder in the USA for once. He too should be in prison. So should most in Washington, DECEIT! HERE is why…

        • Jonathan Dlouhy
          October 1, 2015 at 17:36

          Joe L, essentially correct on all points. It is usually thought in the US that Carter was responding to the Soviet invasion. This canard is reported in otherwise respectable sources. It is entirely false. Carter, et aa, l were hoping to PROVOKE a Soviet invasion and hand the Soviets their Vietnam. Obviously, it worked. I believe this insanity started in July of 1979, the results of which we can see all over the Middle East and North Africa. The United States has always preferred Islamic militants over secular nationalists. This goes back much further than Afghanistan to support for the Muslim Brotherhood against Nasser. So any protests to the contrary are so much obfuscation. A shameful and sordid history.

          • Joe L.
            October 1, 2015 at 18:37

            Jonathan Dlouhy… Thank you for the reply. I actually gathered that pearl from a John Pilger documentary where he basically explains all of what you just put into writing. It is amazing how truly twisted the geopolitics of the US, and the world, is and I think what we know only scratches the surface. I believe it was in the documentary by John Pilger entitled “The War on Terror – Truth & Lies” where he explained that:


            I highly recommend people watch some of John Pilger’s documentaries, they are really eye opening. The biggest one for me was his documentary entitled “The War on Democracy”:


  16. F. G. Sanford
    September 30, 2015 at 22:47

    I’m doing my best to avoid sarcasm here…so please bear with me. Any Staff Sergeant in the Army is smart enough to know that the ONLY party which could benefit from a no-fly zone in Syria – since ISIS has no air power – is ISIS. Our think-tank geniuses are working overtime to obfuscate the obvious. The only party that would be harmed by additional tactical aircraft supporting Assad would be Israel, which routinely strikes Syrian assets in retaliation. It claims that any incursion by rockets or artillery – regardless of whether ISIS may have fired it, is Assad’s responsibility as the “legitimate head of state”. Funny how that works, isn’t it? NYT is a mouthpiece for WINEP and other like-minded organizations which have primary loyalty to other than USA’s national interests. So, the proper sentiment is betrayal, but it should be directed to the treasonous elements to which NYT’s feckless lackeys are beholden.

    • Abe
      October 1, 2015 at 12:29

      Moscow did not forget the December 8th 2014 Israeli air strikes near Damascus. Now Russian air power has tacitly imposed an Israeli no-fly zone in the skies above Syria. The feckless lackeys are really screaming. Stay tuned.

      • Zachary Smith
        October 2, 2015 at 10:22

        Everybody – Israel, the US, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia – is going to be feverishly working to shoot down a Russian plane. Likely they’ll try an elaborate ambush. If it happens, watch out for the braying and gloating from the WP and the NYT.

Comments are closed.