That pinko rag the Times

I just don't get what makes wingnuts see red when they read The New York Times. Or do they even read it? A left-wing publication? Now where do they get that shit?

The Pentagon Papers. OK. Yeah. But that was a long time ago.

These days, how does one tell the difference between where the Times and Bush stand when it comes to countries Dubya wants to lean on?

Not a day goes by without some bizarrely, decontextualized slanted news article or editorial warning of ominous Iranian aggression, Syrian "crackdowns," or a recent favorite—Venezuela's nefarious, gasp, spreading of money around to poor people in other countries.

I'm trying mentally to recreate the process of writing a Times article on Mr. Chavez. (Even he is entitled to the honorific in the Times. Nice, genteel archaiac touch. Very NYT.) The editor and writer consult. They ponder. Hmm. Story on Venezuela.... Well, we need some perspective. Let's call up The Heritage Foundation for a quote! (Gee, wonder what they'll say.) Or how about Mr. Death Squads himself, John Negroponte, who whines that "Mr. Chávez is 'spending considerable sums involving himself in the political and economic life of other countries in Latin America and elsewhere, this despite the very real economic development and social needs of his own country.'"

As an observant letter writer noted today, Negroponte's "exact words could be used to describe the Bush approach.... Perhaps if we spent our foreign aid on popular programs that aided the poor rather than military invasions, we would be received with the enthusiasm that Mr. Chávez is enjoying." (And that may be an understatement: Hugo's approval numbers are at nearly 83 per cent).

Meanwhile, as the indefatigable Mr. Chomsky points out elsewhere, when it comes to the crimes of its own country's politicians and military leaders, The Times casts a blind, even approving eye on such things as clear violations of Geneva Protocols:

After several weeks of bombing, the United States began its ground attack in Falluja. It opened with the conquest of the Falluja General Hospital. The front-page story in the New York Times reported that "patients and hospital employees were rushed out of rooms by armed soldiers and ordered to sit or lie on the floor while troops tied their hands behind their backs." An accompanying photograph depicted the scene. It was presented as a meritorious achievement. "The offensive also shut down what officers said was a propaganda weapon for the militants: Falluja General Hospital, with its stream of reports of civilian casualties." Plainly such a propaganda weapon is a legitimate target, particularly when "inflated civilian casualty figures" -- inflated because our leader so declared -- had "inflamed opinion throughout the country, driving up the political costs of the conflict...."

Some relevant documents passed unmentioned, perhaps because they too are considered quaint and obsolete: for example, the provision of the Geneva Conventions stating that "fixed establishments and mobile medical units of the Medical Service may in no circumstances be attacked, but shall at all times be respected and protected by the Parties to the conflict." Thus the front page of the world's leading newspaper was cheerfully depicting war crimes for which the political leadership could be sentenced to severe penalties under U.S. law, the death penalty if patients ripped from their beds and manacled on the floor happened to die as a result. The questions did not merit detectable inquiry or reflection. The same mainstream sources told us that the U.S. military "achieved nearly all their objectives well ahead of schedule," as "much of the city lay in smoking ruins."