Earth to NY Times: It’s more than the surge

Posted by Kimberly.

Re: The United for Peace and Justice (UFPJ) demonstration in Washington, D.C. January 27th, 2007.

Please, please, do contact the New York Times. There are too many people who spent too much time, energy and money going to D.C., to let the Times get off easy on this one:

It appears that the New York Times got the talking points, or marching orders, or whatever, from the gentlemen’s agreement in D.C.

Instead of all those citizens and activists going to D.C. to demand pulling out of Iraq, the New York Times says the focus was against the surge. How did the The Times get that? Did they do a survey of the signs?  The people I know who went to D.C. want an end to war, now, immediately.

Hope some people will write to the NY Times about why they really went to D.C.  See contact information at bottom of this post.

NY Times headline and first paragraph:

Protest Focuses on Iraq Troop Increase

WASHINGTON, Jan. 27 — Tens of thousands of protesters converged on the National Mall on Saturday to oppose President Bush’s plan for a troop increase in Iraq in what organizers hoped would be one of the largest shows of antiwar sentiment in the nation’s capital since the war began.


Kimberly’s explanation of how the NY Times and the Republicrats work together to perpetuate the system and the war:

Let’s see– 

  • The people want out of Iraq entirely.
  • The Republicans want to stay in Iraq.
  • The Republicans claim they want a troop surge–more troops.
  • The Democrats say they are against the troop surge. The Democrats will be heroes and oppose the Republicans troop surge plans.
  • A political battle ensues.
  • At the end, there may be no troop surge. But, there will still be a war. And, people will believe that the Democrats accomplished something, and opposed the war.
  • But, we will still be in the war.

(And,  who can be sure that the Republicans and Democrats did not work out this good cop/bad cop routine from the beginning?)

Now, the New York Times helps the Democrats and Republicans, by lying about the focus of the D.C. Demo. If the Demo was only about the surge, and the Democrats appear to stop the surge, then the Democrats supported the demonstrators and the Democrats had a victory. Right?

But, again, we will still be in THE WAR, with the same troop level as before.

The above scenario is just another reason why we need a third party, or four parties, or five, like in other countries. It is too easy for two to tango. We have to shake it up and make it hard for the old boys’ parties to seal that gentleman’s agreement.

It is also a reason that we need a FREE PRESS instead of the press we got. Reform. Revolution. Boycott. Whatever. We can’t sit by and watch the New York Times do propaganda for the duopoly.


Contact the NY Times:


To send comments and suggestions (about news coverage only) or to report errors that call for correction, or leave a message at 1-888-NYT-NEWS.

One Response

  1. I agree that we need to have a new party, or new parties, but that will not happen because the Democrats and Republicans are in bed with the money funding pimps. The new parties cannot compete financially. There would have to be more than just the formation of a new party.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.