Pro-War NYT Hit Piece on Tulsi Gabbard
by Stephen Lendman (stephenlendman.org - Home - Stephen Lendman)
The self-styled newspaper of record never met a US or Israeli war of aggression it didn't wholeheartedly cheerlead.
Nor did it ever stand for real democracy over the US, Western, Israeli fantasy versions it backs.
When it comes to wealth, power and privileged interests, the Times operates as a virtual press agent, never for governance serving everyone equitably or for journalism the way it should be, what it long ago abandoned.
No presidential aspirant from either right wing of the one-party state is on the right side of all major issues mattering most.
Tulsi Gabbard appears to come closest — though campaigning on the stump and governing are world's apart.
It's hard, maybe impossible, for any US presidential aspirant winning the brass ring to challenge dark forces running things.
When newly elected presidents enter office, powerful interests explain the facts of life to the new executive/commander-in-chief.
Vladimir Putin once correctly explained how it works in the US (and in most other countries), saying the following:
"They come and go, but politics stays the same at all times. Do you know why? Because of the powerful bureaucracy."
"When a person is elected (notably in the US and West), they may have some ideas. Then people with briefcases arrive, well dressed, wearing dark suits, just like mine, except for the red tie, since they wear black or dark blue ones."
"These people start explaining how things are done. And instantly, everything changes. This is what happens with every administration."
Names and faces change. Dirty business as usual continues like always.
Based on poll numbers, Tulsi Gabbard has scant support. She's highly unlikely to be Dem standard bearer, let alone make it to the White House in January 2021 as president.
Is she ideal for the job based on where she stands on major world and national issues? No, but she appears head and shoulders above other aspirants, especially compared to the incumbent, longtime establishment figure Biden, and other Dems.
There's not a true democrat, (small "d"), people's candidate in the bunch, Gabbard perhaps comes closest to the real thing.
Is she perfect? Indeed not. On her Tulsi 2020 website, she falsely said the following:
"There is evidence that both the Syrian government of Bashar al-Assad as well as the armed opposition groups aligned against him have used chemical weapons (CW) during the Syrian war."
No credible evidence links Damascus to CW attacks, none ever cited by the US or other Western sources, just empty accusations, nothing backing them.
The "armed opposition" is comprised of US-supported cutthroat killer terrorists, guilty of horrific atrocities, White Helmets linked to them. To her credit, Gabbard called for defunding them and slammed the US for supporting jihadists in Syria.
She supports "the right to bear arms" she falsely connects to the 2nd Amendment that's all about the right for states to have militias, unrelated to permitting a society of gun-toting Americans — what the founders clearly didn't have in mind.
No one is perfect. Her Tulsi 2020 websites expresses support for an array of people-friendly issues, including racial justice, women's rights, universal healthcare, public education, and strengthening Social Security.
In 2007 and 2008, I knew Obama was phony and explained it pre-election, based on his record in Congress, as Illinois state senator and fake community activism.
I sense something authentic about Gabbard but could be wrong. When it comes to political figures, I've been fooled before.
Among all Dem presidential aspirants, Gabbard is being hammered by establishment media, after first ignoring her, hoping she'd fade away like old soldiers.
Why? Because she's a peace/social justice/friend of the earth candidate, notions abhorred by US dark forces and establishment media supporting them.
The NYT finds new ways of shaming itself. It headlined an anti-Gabbard hit piece, saying she "thinks we're doomed" — a gross distortion.
The Times mocked her criticism of US imperial horrors — what the self-styled newspaper of record supports by ignoring them instead of holding the feat of US war criminals to the fire, demanding accountability.
The broadsheet twisted Gabbard's remarks and mocked her in much of the hit piece.
The Times: "To Ms. Gabbard, it is the United States that has been the cruel and destabilizing force."
That's the closest the broadsheet (or any other establishment media) will ever come to stating the indisputable hard truth — by mocking a presidential aspirant who admitted it.
Like other major media, the Times criticized her meeting with Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.
The entire US media establishment, the Times in the lead, waged propaganda war on him and Syria since the Obama regime launched hot war on the country in early 2011 — a cold hard truth they suppress, falsely blaming him and his government for US-led high crimes against the nation and its people.
Establishment media believe political candidates for peace, social justice, and governance of, for, and by everyone equitably aren't presidential material.
Given the unacceptable dirty business as usual alternatives, notably undemocratic Dems/progressives in name only Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Kamala Harris, Gabbard would be a breath of fresh air in the White House — especially compared to the deplorable incumbent.
VISIT MY NEW WEB SITE: stephenlendman.org (Home - Stephen Lendman). Contact at email@example.com.
My newest book as editor and contributor is titled "Flashpoint in Ukraine: How the US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III."