This NYT piece about the Soleimani operation manages to slip in a number of biases and editorials under the guise of straight news reporting.
1/
1/
"Bush’s administration made a conscious decision not to kill General Suleimani when he was in the cross hairs, and Mr. Obama’s administration evidently never made an effort to pursue him."
Obama didn't "evidently not pursue" Soleimani—he actively kept Israel from killing him
2/
Obama didn't "evidently not pursue" Soleimani—he actively kept Israel from killing him
2/
Trump was angry about Iran killing an American and "demonstrators" attacking the embassy, "neither of which would normally result in such a seemingly disproportionate retaliation."
1. They weren't demonstrators
2. NYT just declares the response to be disproportionate
3/
1. They weren't demonstrators
2. NYT just declares the response to be disproportionate
3/
This section implies that General Milley's reasons for the operation may be exaggerated.
But why would "national security experts" be privy to sensitive intelligence about imminent Iranian attacks? And who are these "other officials" and why would they know? NYT doesn't say.
4/
But why would "national security experts" be privy to sensitive intelligence about imminent Iranian attacks? And who are these "other officials" and why would they know? NYT doesn't say.
4/
The authors just assume that it would be natural to question whether this operation was somehow designed to distract from impeachment, even though *Trump was literally tweeting about impeachment on the day of the operation* and the timing of the strike would make zero sense.
5/
5/
"The administration did not offer a legal justification for the strike but appeared to be relying on a claim" that it was "pursuant to the President's powers as Commander in Chief." The strike was clearly lawful under the AUMF.
6/
6/
This is ostensibly a straight-news piece, but several paragraphs consist of: (1) the authors' opinions about things like whether the strike was"disproportionate" or if it naturally "raised questions" about impeachment motives; and (2) factual statements that lack critical context
