American Liberalism ~ like the NYT and most of America's MSM ~ has long been a bloodthirsty cheerleader for war, Bill. As far back as LBJ, FDR, and Woodrow "Making the world safe for Wall Street" Wilson.

Expand full comment

There are no "liberals" in DC, there are Red Team and Blue Team members, all of whom are very conservative. The entire "liberal news" fantasy that we hear about in the "news" is just misdirection. You don't get to hear anti-war, or anti-capitalism points of view in DC. You just hear from the two organized crime families (Red and Blue). In fact, the entire history of the US has been about crushing anything that looked or smelled like "the left" throughout the world, especially in Central and South America. Notice how the US only funds and arms "right-wing death squads". When was the last time that the US armed "Left-wing death squads" (if there even is such a thing).

Expand full comment
May 31Liked by Bill Astore

MSM = 5th Horseman of the Apocalypse

Expand full comment
Jun 1Liked by Bill Astore

During the recent kayfabe debt-ceiling crisis, I saw media reports praising the fact that the one area where bipartisan unity was easy to find is “defense” spending. This was meant to be inspiring and encouraging.

Expand full comment
Jun 1Liked by Bill Astore

The NYT has been a bloodthirsty cheerleader for every US war during my lifetime--Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Nicaragua, Panama, Grenada, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, and now Ukraine. In fact, all mainstream media (both print and TV) in the US, including so-called "liberal" cable channels MSNBC and CNN, are bloodthirsty supporters. All of them are much better described as shameless regurgitators, just spewing out the latest claptrap from the US National Security State. These media outlets may be liberal when it comes to social and cultural issues, but when it concerns anything remotely related to "national security," they just parrot what they have told by the US government. And who are the politicians who run the US government? It is a complete fiction that there are 2 parties in the US. There is only one party, and based on recent US history the best name for it would be the War Party. This singular party has 2 wings, one called Democratic and one called Republican. On matters of "national security" there is unanimity of thought, with each wing vying to see which can be more hawkish and more slavish to the military-industrial complex. Only on matters of social and cultural issues can one discern any distinction between the 2 wings of the War Party. And so, for all the above reasons, Ray McGovern's acronym is the perfect description for our times--Military-Industrial-Congressional-Intelligence-Media-Academia-Think Tank, or MICIMATT.

Expand full comment

As always, thanks for telling it like many of us see it. 'Liberal' only with respect to the culture wars, NYT has now long been, indeed, a 'bloodthirsty cheerleader'. It has become, along with Washington Post (whose owner Bezos has, through Amazon, massive financial ties to the CIA), the go-to publisher for the security state.

I don't know when it actually began - I've only been over the years an occasional reader. But I recall well its unquestioning promotion of the Iraq invasion as the Washington neocons began selling their fiction about Iraqi WMD and the existential threat to the U.S. that these weapons presented to the U.S. Those lies had been rather compellingly debunked, well before Powell made the infamous televised speeches. My wife will recall how loudly I yelled at the TV screen, "That's a Lie!!! ", in response to his claims. But the NYT ate it all up; Colin Powell's speeches were CONFIRMATION of what they'd already been printing (always attributed to 'intelligence sources').

Later, of course, when the truth came out and all the claims were 'found to be invalid', they scapegoated Judith Miller (who certainly deserved the firing)- thus making everything ok. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis paid the price with their lives, while the country itself was devastated.

So what they've been doing w/r/t the Ukraine tragedy is just part of a long pattern. They haven't backtracked yet on Ukraine, but it will happen soon enough. Already they've begun their pivot to China. Just look at the headlines in every edition. Russia - this, China that. And Iran and Venezuela for good measure. Whoever resists the petro-dollar hegemony is The Empire's enemy; and therefore the bogeymen that NYT and 'WaPo' gladly use to keep everyone in line.

This seems to be so obvious; yet self-described 'liberals' still talk and act as if these papers (and NPR, MSDNC, etc.) represent a priori truth and sanity. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Expand full comment
Jun 5Liked by Bill Astore

Well, there is no need to wonder anymore about the closed ecosystem of the MICMATT complex. A recent study shows that the sources for the NYT, Washington Post, etc. are all spokespeople from think tanks funded by weapons contractors who make obscene profits from war, up to and including the proxy war in Ukraine. No wonder the mainstream media is giddy about war!! Does this look like a conspiracy to you? Beware next time you dare to consider the NYT as an authoritative source concerning any war anywhere across the globe.


Expand full comment

"....the New York Times is gushing about Ukraine using the element of surprise...."

I would suggest that if word of this attack is appearing in the NYT, it will hardly be a surprise. Never ceases to amaze me what appears in print and is supposedly "secret" or "a surprise."

Great critique of the coverage, Bill.

Expand full comment

"Combined arms warfare", using tanks followed by infantry? How original. Sounds a whole lot like what's laid out in Guderian's "Panzer Leader." It was probably suggested by the "nazi" element this war is or was supposed to be all about, way back when.

Expand full comment

Good article, Bill, Will be linking today @https://nothingnewunderthesun2016.com/

The NY Times has been cheerleading for war since day one. Makes you wonder if they aren't invested in the arms industry somehow!!!

Expand full comment

AMERICA’S ADDICTION TO WAR COMES WITH A 15 TRILLION DOLLAR PRICE TAG by Jeffrey D. Sachs / Information Clearing House 060123

June 01, 2023: Information Clearing House -- In the year 2000, the U.S. government debt was $3.5 trillion, equal to 35% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP). By 2022, the debt was $24 trillion, equal to 95% of GDP. The U.S. debt is soaring, hence America’s current debt crisis. Yet both Republicans and Democrats are missing the solution: stopping America’s wars of choice and slashing military outlays.

Suppose the government’s debt had remained at a modest 35% of GDP, as in 2000. Today’s debt would be $9 trillion, as opposed to $24 trillion. Why did the U.S. government incur the excess $15 trillion in debt?

The single biggest answer is the U.S. government’s addiction to war and military spending. According to the Watson Institute at Brown University, the cost of U.S. wars from fiscal year 2001 to fiscal year 2022 amounted to a whopping $8 trillion, more than half of the extra $15 trillion in debt. The other $7 trillion arose roughly equally from budget deficits caused by the 2008 financial crisis and the Covid-19 pandemic.

To surmount the debt crisis, America needs to stop feeding the Military-Industrial Complex (MIC), the most powerful lobby in Washington. As President Dwight D. Eisenhower famously warned on January 17, 1961, “In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.” Since 2000, the MIC led the U.S. into disastrous wars of choice in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya, and now Ukraine.

The Military-Industrial Complex long ago adopted a winning political strategy by ensuring that the military budget reaches into every Congressional district. The Congressional Research Service recently reminded Congress that, “Defense spending touches every Member of Congress’s district through pay and benefits for military servicemembers and retirees, economic and environmental impact of installations, and procurement of weapons systems and parts from local industry, among other activities.” Only a brave member of Congress would vote against the military-industry lobby, yet bravery is certainly no hallmark of Congress.

America’s annual military spending is now around $900 billion, roughly 40% of the world’s total, and greater than the next 10 countries combined. U.S. military spending in 2022 was triple that of China. According to Congressional Budget Office, the military outlays for 2024-2033 will be a staggering $10.3 trillion on current baseline. A quarter or more of that could be avoided by ending America’s wars of choice, closing down many of America’s 800 or so military bases around the world, and negotiating new arms control agreements with China and Russia.

Yet instead of peace through diplomacy, and fiscal responsibility, the MIC regularly scares the American people with a comic-book style depictions of villains whom the U.S. must stop at all costs. The post-2000 list has included Afghanistan’s Taliban, Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, Syria’s Bashar al-Assad, Libya’s Moammar Qaddafi, Russia’s Vladimir Putin, and recently, China’s Xi Jinping. War, we are repeatedly told, is necessary for America’s survival.

Continued at https://www.informationclearinghouse.info/57596.htm .

Expand full comment

"Combined-arms". AKA Blitzkrieg (German). AKA Deep Battle (Russian). Although I think it only works if you have control of the skies. Or at least if the enemy doesn't.

Expand full comment

i don't see where nytimes knows 'combined arms'........

Expand full comment

The Future of Freedom Foundation's Jacob G. Hornberger begins his June 1 article WHAT DEBT CEILING? as follows:

“Statists all across the United States, especially those within the mainstream press, are uncorking their champagne bottles today and celebrating the newest deal that lifts the debt ceiling. Predictably, the political strategy of crying “Default! Default! Default!” succeeded spectacularly, just as it does every time. In fact, it worked so well that THIS TIME CONGRESS DECIDED TO NOT EVEN SET A NEW CEILING. INSTEAD, THE DEAL AUTHORIZES FEDERAL OFFICIALS TO SPEND AND BORROW TO THEIR HEART’S CONTENT FOR THE NEXT TWO YEARS — BEYOND ELECTION DAY 2024, OF COURSE.

“The people who will pay the price for this deal will be American taxpayers. If you happen to die before the day of reckoning arrives, you’ll escape having to bear the consequences of what these people have done. But if you’re alive when that day of reckoning comes, you will be one of the ones reaping the whirlwind.

“Right now, each taxpayer’s share of the federal government’s $31 trillion in debt is around $275,000. It will be increasing over the next couple of years. How many people list that liability on their financial statements? I’ll bet not very many. And yet, there it is — and growing.”

And concludes it as follows:

“FDR’s nationalization of gold along with his conversion of the federal government to a welfare state, set the stage for a century of out-of-control federal spending, debt, and monetary debauchery. Once President Truman converted the federal government to a national-security state in 1947, so much paper money was printed to cover federal welfare-warfare state expenditures that silver coins, which FDR had not made illegal to own, were driven out of circulation. [Note: That nationalization happened 90 years ago this past May 1, and required all Americans to turn in the gold they owned to the federal government under the threat of 10-year jail sentences.]


Full article at https://www.fff.org/2023/06/01/what-debt-ceiling/ ; EMPHASESE added.

Expand full comment

The leader who makes the decision for the US to go to war - since Congress has shirked its duty since WW2

Video shows Biden falling on his face, AGAIN, live. The "strongest" man in the World. He's in charge.


Expand full comment