Why does our goddamned press (especially the goddamned NYT) tell so many goddamned lies?

Hilarious.

The Russians are fighting an actual war on terror -- not the bogus war that the US has ostensibly been waging for so many years. And our newswhores can't stand it. CNN:

Did his experience in Ukraine tempt Vladimir Putin to begin Russia's Syrian expedition? Are they both examples of the Kremlin taking advantage of Western hesitation or caution? Or are they two episodes (with more to come) of Russia taking revenge for previous humiliations (Kosovo, Iraq, Libya, etc.) and reasserting itself as a Great Power?

Russia did more damage to ISIS in a couple of days than we did in a couple of years. Yet that is how CNN covers the situation -- and the above words appeared in what is supposedly a news piece, not an editorial! Even in the bad old days of Joe Stalin, Pravda was never so bold in its disregard for reality.

Here's a piece by the NYT, written by THE EDITORIAL BOARD:

Why exactly President Vladimir Putin is sending “volunteer” ground forces into Syria is not entirely clear. It may be to protect the Russian base near Latakia from which Russia has begun flying bombing missions against Syrian rebel groups, or it may be because Russia’s Syrian ally, President Bashar al-Assad, is in such danger of falling that Russian ground troops will actually enter the fray against the innumerable insurgent groups fighting him.

You'd never know from this nonsense that Putin was fighting ISIS and Al Qaeda.

Did it ever occur to THE EDITORIAL BOARD that Putin was in Syria to do the right thing? Why can't THE EDITORIAL BOARD admit the simple fact that Putin is trying to defeat the evil bastards who have been beheading journalists and destroying precious historical artifacts?

And then THE EDITORIAL BOARD starts in with the real lying...

If Mr. Putin had ever been eager for peace, he could have exerted pressure on the Assad government before it stoked the civil war that has killed hundreds of thousands of Syrians, driven millions from their homes, and destroyed vast stretches of the country.

Instead, he supported Mr. Assad and his brutal reprisals against civilians and the opposition, which opened up space for extremists to operate and expand, turning this war into a threat to the entire region.

The truth has no place in the NYT, it seems.

Readers of this blog have known the truth for a long, long time: The west started this war. Using the Saudis, Qatar and the Turks as funding conduits, we encouraged the creation of a proxy army, similar to the many proxy armies which our CIA has set up in the past. The goal: Toppling Bashar Assad.

Why was Assad targeted? One big reason is Israel. Israel wants to see Syria -- a modern, secular, pluralist, relatively prosperous country -- transformed into a primitive, barbaric land run by religious maniacs perpetually at war with each other. If jihadist apes take over Damascus, and if the country devolves into a series of battling fiefdoms, Syria will no longer be in any position to harm Israeli interests. Most of all, the Syrians won't be in a financial position to aid the Palestinians.

There are other motives. Assad has stood in the way of a Qatari natural gas pipeline which, if completed, could drastically hurt Russia's economy.

So it was decided more than a decade ago that Assad had to go. Thus, we flooded the region with a proxy army composed of religious maniacs. This army has two main groups: ISIS and the Nusra Front -- a.k.a., Al Qaeda. (There is also a "moderate" force, which is very tiny. They have a marked tendency to join the extremists or to let Al Qaeda "accidentally" capture their equipment. Basically, the "moderate" rebels are a fairy tale which DC tells to the American people.)

ISIS and Al Qaeda are the ones who have treated civilians brutally. Various religious groups -- Christians, Yezedis, Sunni, Shiites, Alawites -- have lived in peace under the Assads for many years. Our proxy warriors changed all that.

Assad did not start this war. We did. A declassified Pentagon report revealed that ISIS was our baby from the start.

The secret Pentagon document thus provides extraordinary confirmation that the US-led coalition currently fighting ISIS, had three years ago welcomed the emergence of an extremist “Salafist Principality” in the region as a way to undermine Assad, and block off the strategic expansion of Iran.

THE EDITORIAL BOARD prefers to pretend that this document does not exist. Although the NYT may consider the blindfold to be a fashion necessity, historians will not.

I refer, once again, to the words of John Pilger -- a far better journalist than any of the propagandists now employed by the NYT:

This is insane, of course, and the big lie justifying this insanity is that it is in support of Syrians who rose against Bashar al-Assad in the Arab Spring. As The WikiLeaks Files reveals, the destruction of Syria has long been a cynical imperial project that pre-dates the Arab Spring uprising against Assad.

Here's former CIA analyst Ray McGovern:

At his news conference on Friday, Obama said, “in my discussions with President Putin, I was very clear that the only way to solve the problem in Syria is to have a political transition that is inclusive — that keeps the state intact, that keeps the military intact, that maintains cohesion, but that is inclusive — and the only way to accomplish that is for Mr. Assad to transition [out], because you cannot rehabilitate him in the eyes of Syrians. This is not a judgment I’m making; it is a judgment that the overwhelming majority of Syrians make.”

But Obama did not explain how he knew what “the overwhelming majority of Syrians” want. Many Syrians – especially the Christians, Alawites, Shiites and secular Sunnis – appear to see Assad and his military as their protectors, the last bulwark against the horror of a victory by the Islamic State or Al Qaeda’s Nusra Front, which is a major player in the so-called “Army of Conquest,” as both groups make major gains across Syria.

Precisely. It's not as though the people now fighting for Assad have no choice. They have seen the choice, and they don't like it. They know that if Assad falls, ISIS takes over. They are therefore willing to risk their lives to keep Assad in power -- to keep secularism in power.

The jihadis -- the fighters for ISIS and Al Qaeda -- are mostly foreigners. We have inflicted an alien invasion on Syria.

How the hell does our president claim to know what is in the hearts of Syrians? And why are so many Syrians willing to die to prove him wrong?

Yet, it is an open question whether Obama has become captive to his own propaganda, such as his obsession with Syria’s use of “barrel bombs” in attacking rebel strongholds, as if this crude home-made weapon were some uniquely cruel device unlike the hundreds of thousands of tons of high explosives that the United States has dropped on Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan and other countries in the last dozen years.

Does Obama really think that his “humanitarian” bombs – and those given to U.S. “allies” such as Saudi Arabia and Israel – don’t kill innocents? In just the past week, a Saudi airstrike inside Yemen reportedly killed some 131 people at a wedding and an apparent U.S. attack in Kunduz, Afghanistan, blasted a hospital run by Doctors Without Borders, killing at least 22 people.

(By contrast, too, The New York Times treated the Kunduz atrocity gingerly, with the cautious headline, “US Is Blamed After Bombs Hit Afghan Hospital,” noting that Defense Secretary Ashton Carter extended his “thoughts and prayers to everyone afflicted” and added that a full investigation is under way in coordination with Afghanistan’s government to “determine exactly what happened.” Surely, we can expect the slaughter to be dismissed as some unavoidable “accident” or a justifiable case of “collateral damage.”)

Actually, the American people seem to be paying real attention to the Afghan massacre. Thank God. It's nice to see that our fellow citizens can shake off their obsessions with comic book movies, racial bickering, identity politics and Illuminati-spotting just long enough to pay attention to something real and important.

Added note: Moon of Alabama made a good catch. The NYT ascribed a statement to "a senior Kremlin defense official," when the statement was actually made by a member of the Russian Parliament. Our newsfakers don't want Americans to believe that Russia is a democracy.

The NYT of course loves to depict Russia as a dictatorship and attributes everything someone in Moscow says or does to the President of the Russian Federation or, even darker, to "the Kremlin". But that is propaganda, not reporting.