Make no mistake; the New York Times is every bit as integral a part of America's propaganda machinery as the no-spin network and the official dot gov sites. All the ranting from the right about the Times left bias is part of the charade intended to keep believers believing that there is such a thing as a "left" in today's America.
So when the Times runs this article about how many (American?) troops would be required to keep Syria's chemical warfare stocks out of the hands of terrorists, you can bet they're doing it for a reason. They're testing the waters. They are measuring the temperature of public opinion. They are gauging the degree of public resistance the administration could expect if and when they announce that America has to (reluctantly, of course) put boots on the ground in Syria.
Boots on the ground in Syria is exactly where America is headed. Hence the standoff with the various Syrian opposition Councils/Coalitions about supplying the kind of weaponry that could make a difference in their battle with Assad. Fact is, we don't trust the rebels, but if we had 75,000 pairs of boots on the ground, per the Pentagon estimates, the question would become moot.
Note the reference to Hezbollah training sites nearby Syrian chemical weapons depositories in the Times article. Invoking the name of Hezbollah, and by extension Iran, in the course of this debate will help cement the IRAN-TERROR-NUKES meme in the mind of the reader, without explicitly acknowledging the fact that the entire Syria operation is simply stage one of the war on Iran.
No comments:
Post a Comment