Today's New York Times provides a classic example of how this so-called liberal paper fronts for an illegal and unpopular war.
Only 9 percent of the American public favors a war with Syria, but the Obama Administration is getting ready, within a matter of days, to launch this war, and so the New York Times goes right along.
It devoted its lead front-page story to Secretary of State John Kerry's bellicose rhetoric, and the story itself never quoted from a single critic of this proposed war, except the Syrian government itself, whose denial came deep on the jump page.
And on the Times editorial page, it assumed as a given that Assad had used the chemical weapons, even though the U.N. was inspecting the evidence as the editorial writers were at their computers.
The editorialists said it was a war crime, and if proven, it is one. But the Obama Administration, like the Bush Administration, has also been committing war crimes with its assassinations, drones, and detention policies.
Then the Times, in the most wishy-washy fashion, said it would be best if the U.S. got U.N. Security Council approval but that it's unnecessary, condoning another coalition of the willing, even though it's against the U.N. charter for one nation to attack another, unprovoked.
Even worse, the editorial didn't even bother to mention getting Congressional approval for such a war, which is required by the U.S. Constitution in Article 1, Section 8.
Thus does the New York Times prepare the American people for going along with another foolish and risky war.
If you liked this story by Matthew Rothschild, the editor of The Progressive magazine, check out his story Bradley Manning's Unjust Sentence.
Follow Matthew Rothschild @mattrothschild on Twitter.