New York Times: Another Libya Warmongering Editorial

-A +A
0

Editors at The New York Times need to temper their pathological personal animus towards Qadaffi. They should give the African Peace proposal a chance, even if they have little consideration for the views of Africans.

[Editorial]

At least with PRAVDA, everyone knew it was the government mouthpiece in the now defunct Soviet Union. But what a sad spectacle to see The New York Times, which purports to be an "objective" newspaper act out its warmongering in the most pathetic and disingenuous manner.

In an editorial "Libya And The War Powers Act," on June 16, the Times writes, "It would be hugely costly — for this country’s credibility, for the future of NATO and for the people of Libya — if Congress were to force President Obama to abandon military operations over Libya. However, Mr. Obama cannot evade his responsibility, under the War Powers Act, to seek Congressional approval to continue the operation."

Forget about the Libyan civilians killed by the NATO bombings; forget about the destruction of Libyan buildings and infrastructure; forget about the preference of NATO bombings by the Times, over an African Union peace proposal that calls for a ceasefire, a constitution, and elections; no, according to The New York Times, it's about "this country's credibility."

Remarkable, what privileged people living a life of luxury and comfort can write, even as bombs rain on people thousands of miles away, in God forsaken Africa.

The newspaper than chides President Barack Obama for trying to evade the War Powers Resolution, rather than making his case before Congress and asking lawmakers to authorize continuation of the war.

The Times editorial page editors seem to have gone berserk over Libya; unabashed jingoism. "We support the Libya campaign, although like many Americans we are frustrated that it has dragged on this long," the editorial declares, and engages in sophistry.

This would have been a good point in the editorial to disclose that a recent poll shows that only 25% of Americans support the U.S. role in the Libya war. "We are eager to hear from the president about what additional nonmilitary pressures he is rallying to finally end Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s murderous reign."

Utterly disengenuous, considering that in nearby Syria, thousands of uarmed innocent civilians are actually being killed by dictator Bashar al-Assad.

Libya, on the otherhand, is in the midst of a civil war, pitting Qaddafi's government against the rebels in Benghazi, who are backed by France, the U.K., the U.S., Al-Qaeda, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, and clearly, The New York Times.

Realizing that blatant warmongering isn't befitting a newspaper that claims to be "the paper of record," the Times attempts some justification: "Still, we have no doubt that if NATO had not intervened, thousands more Libyan civilians would have been slaughtered. The operation also had a unique, international mandate — from a United Nations Security Council resolution and an Arab League request to act."

The newspaper conveniently leaves out the African Union, which is adamantly opposed to the NATO campaign; but then again, the Dredd Scott decision made it clear a long time ago, in 1857--there is no obligation to consider the opinion of Africans.

Yet, no sober person believes that Resolution 1973, aimed at protecting civilians caught in the civil war, was ever intended to mean the destructive daily bombings; the daily assassination attempts, and: for NATO to become Benghazi's airforce.

In fact, NATO has already done an excellent job in destroying its  credibility; and as Rep. Dennis Kucinich reveals in an interview with The Black Star News, the congressman has asked the International Criminal Court to investigate NATO commanders on possible war crimes in Libya.

But, no, The New York Times still wants more blood in Libya: "If Washington were to cut off its support now, the NATO campaign would unravel. The cost to relations with Europe and the unity of the military alliance would be enormous — likely felt all the way to Afghanistan."

And, regarding the pressure on President Obama from Congressional leaders such as Rep. John Boehner, who are opposed to the president's unfettered war on Libya, the Times says, "this looks a lot like every other maneuver by Republicans determined to block Mr. Obama at every turn — no matter the cost."

Wrong again. Many Democrats oppose the president on the war; this is certain, since only 25% of Americans support a U.S. role in the war. What's more, Rep. Kucinich, a prominent Democrat, has been the most vocal war opponent.

The Times then exposes its desperation, when it throws out a cheap scare mongering that falls completely flat. "These are the same folks eager to play chicken with the debt limit — even if it risks bringing the financial markets crashing down," the editorial claims. "Would they really cut off American support to the NATO mission in Libya, even if it risks bringing the alliance crashing down? We shudder to think."

What alliance? It's the U.S. that's bearing the cost of the Libya war and; it's the U.S. that's bearing the cost in Afghanistan and Iraq. Departing Secretary of Defense Bob Gates made this clear last week.

Editors at The New York Times need to temper their pathological personal animus towards Qadaffi. They should give the African Peace proposal a chance, even if they have little consideration for the views of Africans.


"Speaking Truth To Empower."



Also Check Out...

It Is A Home Thing, Hope You
FRENCH FIRM LOSES BID TO OWN
Living in the City
El Puente Artists And Los Sures
TNC's Fifth "Dream Up
LIBERIANS RALLY IN RESPONSE TO