The NY Times can claim, correctly, that it is the most informative newspaper in the world. It is therefore interesting to look at what it chooses not to tell us. Every day provides many instructive illustrations. Take today, Sept. 12 2013. Here’s a small sample.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/world/middleeast/us-backing-of-russian-plan-leaves-a-wary-israel-focusing-on-self-reliance.html?pagewanted=all) tells us that “The prospect of a Syria free of chemical weapons would be a great relief to Israel.” It is universally recognized that the removal of chemical weapons from Syria’s arsenal would be an enormous achievement. In his address to the nation, Obama stressed that Syria must live up to the Chemical Weapons Convention, which, he observed, bans the use of chemical weapons.line-height:150%;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"”> font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";mso-fareast-font-family:"Times New Roman";
mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"”> line-height:150%;font-family:"Verdana","sans-serif";mso-fareast-font-family:
"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"”>
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/us/politics/tea-party-extends-focus-to-include-rallying-against-a-syria-strike.html), Trip Gabriel writes that prominent members of the Republican establishment favor a military strike “in part, to send a message about American resolve to potential aggressors like Iran” – a theme stressed also by Obama, Kerry, and media commentators who reflexively adopt official state doctrine. They are saying that the US should carry out aggression in order to warn “potential aggressors” that they had better follow US orders – potential aggressors who have given no hint of intending aggression, have no record of aggression, and would not have the capacity to deploy force if they chose to as US intelligence reports.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/12/opinion/kristof-that-threat-worked.html), who triumphantly instructs those skeptical of Obama’s military strikes that the threat of violence can work. As he explains, “For decades, Syria has refused to confirm that it has chemical weapons. Now, facing a limited strike, its position abruptly changed to: Oh! We do have them after all! And we want to sign the Chemical Weapons Convention! We want to show them to United Nations inspectors.”
Let us put aside the standard and useful fabrication that Syria had refused to confirm that it has chemical weapons until the Godfather waved his bombs. In reality, that was officially conceded long ago, as reported in the London Financial Times, July 24, 2012 (http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/83da4c76-d4c2-11e1-bb88-00144feabdc0.html?siteedition=intl#axzz21XerGevZ) – unlike the state that has illegally annexed Syrian territory, which has not conceded even that it has nuclear weapons, though there is no doubt that it does.
More interesting is what Kristof does not say, along with numerous others, Obama included, who extol the efficacy of the threat of force – which happens to be in violation of the UN Charter, were anyone in the rogue state to care about such trivialities. The claim is accurate, and there are many illustrations. Among many, the threat of force enabled Russia to control Eastern Europe for 40 years. It enabled Hitler to take over Czechoslovakia. And there are many other illustrious predecessors. The Godfather and his minions are breaking no new ground.