The only way to expose lies is within context; so, this will have to be lengthy.
The Times editorial opens with a falsehood: ‘There is no longer any doubt: Russian troops are in Ukraine, not as volunteers, as the rebel commander in Donetsk would have the world believe, but in units equipped with mobile artillery and heavy military equipment.’ Their only cited source for that statement is ‘a senior NATO officer.’ But should anyone take as a source, on that type of matter, either an anonymous U. S.-NATO official, or an anonymous Russian official? That’s hardly an unprejudiced ‘source,’ in either case – and it’s their only source on this.
The context here has to be understood: During the run-up to our 19 March 2003 invasion of Iraq, the Times was similarly taking, as sources, anonymous U. S. officials, who lied about the evidence, saying that aluminum tubes were definitely being used for making weapons of mass destruction, when they weren’t at all, and that ‘uranium from Niger’ was being snuk into Iraq for nuclear bombs that were also a fabrication – outright forged ‘evidence,’ selectively accepted, while the Times selectively rejected, and avoided even to mention, far more-solid evidence to the exact contrary. They wanted us to invade, and we did. The Times apologized for their ‘errors’ years later, after the damage had already been done – damage (many thousands of corpses, and several trillions of dollars in costs) that the Times greatly assisted George W. Bush to produce, by helping to sell the country on doing it.
This post was published at Washingtons Blog on September 3, 2014.