What does the New York Times want?

A reader writes:

I was struck by the New York Times’ online lead story last evening on Mubarak refusing to step down, accompanied by a classic/comical Times propaganda photo of Mubarak looking like an evil zombie. The Times is extremely keen on getting rid of Mubarak, but why? I don’t recall he’s been a monster. I don’t recall the Times running articles exposing his “crimes” prior to this current unrest, or calling for his removal. (Never mind the bloated chutzpah of a U.S. newspaper presuming to engineer the removal of a foreign leader.) And then they run that putrid pile of taqiyya from the MoBro’s that you wrote about this morning.

What gives? Mubarak, whatever his faults, has maintained some semblance of peace and order in Egypt and hasn’t embarked on any ruinous and suicidal wars with anyone. It’s not a crushing dictatorship and given the fractious and fatalistic nature of Islamic societies probably as good as they could hope for. It’s hard to believe the Times has suddenly signed on to Bush’s neocon global democracy project. Besides, they have to know the MoBro mush they publish is pure b.s. So, knowing the Times as we do, as a vehicle for leftist chaos, destruction, and disorder, and also as the confirmed enemy of every traditional American interest, it’s more likely they’re simply lusting to destroy what previous American administrations spent so much time cultivating: moderate Muslim regimes friendly to the USA. Can’t have that. For the Times the only thing that could inspire this level of fist-pumping passion is: “Death to America!”

The liberals’ Villain of the Week

Comments

Nile McCoy writes:

In light of the resignation of Mubarak and the Egyptian military taking over as the sole governmental power, one wonders if the New York Times would like to see a similar left-fascist uprising here in the United States, especially if circumstances indicate that conservatives would win back the executive branch in the 2012 elections. If one looks at how the left has “pushed” the outcome in Egypt today, then it should be seen as a trial run to drive conservatives from power, especially in the event it looks like conservatives were to win in a “fair” election.

John McNeil writes:

I don’t like to indulge in conspiracy theories, but do you think this push from Obama, the Times, and other institutions of the left to overthrow Mubarak has to do with isolating Israel? I can’t really think of any other reason. As the reader noted, Mubarak has never been portrayed as a “monster” before, and this man has been in power since long before I was born. No one has ever criticized him, but now all of a sudden, the Obama Administration and its media cheerleaders have decided out of the blue that Mubarak must go, when there are plenty of other autocrats far worse than Mubarak.

One thing I’ve noticed about Obama is that since the beginning he’s been consistent about confronting Israel. It’s one of the few policies that have remained consistent since Day 1.

Again, I don’t like conspiracy theories, but I can’t think of any other reason why Obama is putting so much energy in bringing Mubarak down.

Ray G. writes:

Isn’t it curious how Obama and his supporters cannot hide their enthusiasm for Muslims in Egypt who demonstrate against their government, but Obama and his supporters denigrate Americans as racists and hate-mongers when they show up for Tea Party rallies in favor of reducing the size of the federal government. How strange.

February 12

Kilroy M. writes:

As they say, the simplest explanation is often the best. The reader’s thoughts are far too convoluted. It seems far more plausible, given the reign of sentimentalism and spirit of mass democracy among the media elites, that your NYT just jumped onto the “people power” bandwagon. After all, who (among their social group) would argue against such actions from the former oppressed masses of the Third World?

Also, John McNeil gives far too much credit to Obama for his “role” in this affair. That great Nobel laureate’s position was often vague and he only sided with what appeared to be the victorious party when it became obvious who that was going to be. This is emblematic of his utter lack of leadership skills. I am of the belief that Obama was as clueless about what was happening in Egypt and the next guy. He was just waiting to play-act his way with whatever outcome were to eventuate. To suggest that he actively pursued a policy of alienating former U.S. allies from the U.S. is to give him credit for an level of intelligence and strategic thinking that I cannot imagine him having. These anti-government forces have been keeping the pressure up for decades in the Middle East; they were bound to explode onto the streets sooner or later—Obama or no Obama.

LA replies:

I don’t see the reader’s argument as convoluted. I think it is straightforward. He says that the Times has not opposed the Mubarak regime before this, and that it seems unlikely that the Times has suddenly signed onto the Bush global democracy project, which it previously opposed or was cool toward. Why then has the Times so eagerly sought his ouster? The reader suggests the motive is to bring down a U.S. ally, and thus to hurt the U.S. The argument may or may not be correct, but it is not convoluted.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at February 11, 2011 10:30 AM | Send