This piece was reprinted by OpEd News with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.
Endorsing military intervention to remove him, The Times claimed if US recruited, armed and funded paramilitaries were "crush(ed), it would chill pro-democracy movements across the Arab world."
In fact, like Washington and its NATO coalition partners, The Times deplores democracy, peaceful resolution, and rule of law principles, opting instead for lawless intervention for imperial dominance.
On June 16, its editorial headlined, "Libya and the War Powers Act," saying:
"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 (Obama) to abandon military operations over Libya."
The editorial came during duplicitous congressional posturing on Libya, avoiding its responsibility to stop funding Obama's war. Instead, debate focused on whether or not he had War Powers Resolution authority to wage it, not that under international and constitutional law it's illegal - a consideration airbrushed from The Times' editorial and other reports.
As a result, it said "Congress....needs to authorize continued American support for NATO's air campaign over Libya," failing to explain that NATO is code language for the Pentagon, running all its operations under its supreme US commander.
After rebel forces assassinated commander Abdul Fatah Younis, Times writers downplayed it, saying details about it were "in dispute," when it was clear what happened.
On August 6, in a straight propaganda piece right out of Judith Miller's playbook, Times writer David Kirkpatrick headlined, "In Libya's Capital, Straight Talk From Christians," quoting Protestant minister Rev. Hamdy Daoud saying:
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
2
1
1
