“A New York Times story about alleged Trump team contacts with Russian officials was “in the main not true.” (The New York Post quoting James Comey, 6/8.)
Now over to the opposite end of the media’s political spectrum:
“The assumption of the critics of the president, of his pursuers (especially The New York Times) …is that somewhere along the line in the last year the president had something to do with colluding with the Russians…and yet what came apart this morning was that theory,” (Chris Matthews, MSNBC 6/8.)
In brief, after this week’s Senate hearings (and especially after “Little Marco’s” gutsy performance) it looks like we have (at least a semblance) of a media consensus regarding the famous claims by The New York Times against Trump and his team. The claims involved “collusion” with the Russians—and they appear bogus.
In many circles “Little Marco’s” stature seems to have shot up faster than Jack’s beanstalk. Those knock-down and drag-out Republican debates suddenly seem like ancient history.
Interestingly, earlier this week in an editorial The New York Times bewailed the lack of collusion between Trump and Russia’s historic colluders on our doorstep.
“To the long list of Barack Obama’s major initiatives that President Trump is obsessed with reversing, we may soon be able to add Cuba…Mr. Trump promised in his campaign to return to a more hard-line approach. If he does, as seems likely, he will further isolate America, hurt American business interests and, quite possibly, impede the push for greater democracy on the Caribbean island.”(New York Times, 6/5)
It’s a fascinating thing to watch. And it never fails. Let the issue of American “robber-barons” doing business with the Stalinist/kleptocratic Castro family (who already stole $8 billion from U.S. businessmen and tortured and murdered a few who resisted the burglary)—let this issue pop-up and PRESTO!
Like clockwork, the most historically pinko, the most relentlessly anti-business entities in the U.S.– from Bernie Sanders to The New York Times—the very folks who habitually foam-at-the-mouth for keelhauling and tar & feathering all “greedy businessmen!” suddenly morph into Calvin Coolidge.
Recall President Coolidge’s famous (and universally denounced by liberals) quip: “The business of America is business.” Let’s also throw in General Motors’ CEO Charlie Wilson’s famous, “if it’s good for GM it’s good for America-and vice versa.” You might call these the favorite captions when liberal demonize “greedy U.S. robber-barons!”
But POOF! Like magic, all these captions and caricatures do a screeching 180 in liberal pronouncements when it comes to U.S. businessmen partnering with the multi-millionaire Castro-Family to profit from Cuban slave labor on the Castro plantation.
If Saturday Night Live scriptwriters actually had a sense of humor they could have a ball with the spectacle of diehard Bolshevik Bernie Sanders suddenly morphing into Gordon Gekko and championing obscene profits for American capitalists—but only in partnership with the slaveholding Castro family. I offer SNL this script on the house.
Not that impediments to the profits of patriotic American capitalists is the only thing keeping The New York Times editorial board awake at night. Notice that they also bemoan President Trump’s forthcoming Cuba policy as a potential “impediment to democracy” on “that Caribbean island.”
As it happens, The New York Times does not have a stellar record of forecasting “impediments to democracy” on “that Caribbean island.” So let’s address the theme of this column’s title about The New York Times’ special talent for detecting Russian colluders:
“This is not a Communist Revolution in any sense of the term. “In Cuba there are no communists in positions of control. Fidel Castro is not only not a Communist, he is decidedly anti-Communist.” (Herbert Matthews, New York Times, July 1959.)
(Fidel Castro, by the way, had seriously “colluded” with KGB agent Nikolai Leonev and his Cuban KGB colleague Osvaldo Sanchez since 1955 when they seriously “colluded” in Mexico City. These “collusion” sessions involved setting the stage for the future Stalinization of Cuba.)
“Fidel Castro has strong ideas of liberty, democracy, social justice, the need to restore the Constitution….but it amounts to a new deal for Cuba, radical, democratic and therefore anti-Communist.” (Herbert Matthews, New York Times, February 1957.)
Leaving no stone unturned, The New York Times also embraced Ernesto “Che” Guevara as an unimpeachable liberty-lover and truth-teller:
“I am not a communist and have never been a communist…It gives me great pain to be called a communist,” (Ernesto “Che” Guevara –who had a KGB handler since 1956– as eagerly and trustingly quoted by The New York Times, January 4th, 1959.)
And speaking of Fake News:
“One Thousand Killed in 5 days of Fierce Street Fighting!” read a New York Times headline on Jan 4, 1959 about the “battle” of Santa Clara in central Cuba where Ernesto “Che” Guevara earned much of his enduring (and utterly bogus) martial fame. “Commander Che Guevara appealed to Batista troops for a truce to clear the streets of casualties,” continues The New York Times article. “Guevara turned the tide in this bloody battle and whipped a Batista force of 3,000 men.”
A year later, Che’s own diaries revealed that his forces suffered exactly one casualty during this Caribbean Stalingrad, as depicted by The New York Times. Your humble servant interviewed several eye-witnesses (on both sides) to this “battle” and their consensus came to about five casualties total for this Caribbean Gettysburg/Verdun, as depicted by The New York Times.
True to New York Times-form, during this “battle,” the paper didn’t have a reporter within 300 miles of Santa Clara. Instead, it relied on trusty Cuban Castroite “correspondents.”
And true to Che Guevara-form, the genuine bloodbath in Santa Clara came a week after the (utterly bogus) “battle,” when Che’s opponents (real and imagined) were utterly defenseless. That’s when Che sent his goons to drag men and boys from their homes and set his firing squads to work in triple shifts.
But absolutely nothing appeared in the trusty New York Times on the genuine bloodbath at Santa Clara. True to Castroite practice, only when “Peace was Given a Chance,” only when their enemies were utterly defenseless, did the bloodbath crank into high gear.
And true to (proud Walter Duranty employer) practice, The New York Times helped cover-up yet another communist atrocity.