The next time someone says the New York Times is biased against Trump, show them the past few days’ headlines and articles in the aftermath of the Syria Tomahawk strike. The Times blares – without any sense of caution or reason – that Trump was shocked into action by the chemical attack. I cannot claim to know whether his shock was genuine.
I do know that I have eyes, ears, and a memory: Trump displayed no such revulsion after 2013 Syrian chemical attack on children. Why the sudden “shock” now? Should we simply accept that his “shock” this time is the actual reason for his decision to strike? I don’t think so.
We still have our sense of reason, no matter what media outlet spoon-feeds us this line, no matter what self-interested foreign policy analysts gush that this makes Trump a real president. (John Heilemann and many others)
We are expected to suddenly forget all of the bizarre connections between Trump cronies and Russia, to forget about all of the lies about these connections that persisted until the Trump cronies were forced to admit that they in fact had multiple direct contacts with Russian intelligence, and then finally to pretend that a few Tomahawk missiles falling on asphalt (after warning Russia ahead of time) would not create a public relations distance between Trump and Russia that would be remarkably convenient to Mr. Trump.
To say that some of us are skeptical is an understatement.