The New York Times : A Powerful influencer of public opinion, has rolled out Libya coverage that is arrogant, lazy, poorly researched, with inconsistent standards of evidence in its arguments. I have attached a pdf at the bottom - with notes. Also Video Arguments

by Alexander Hagen, July 3, 2011

Extreme cheerleader for the White House Line - advocating using UN No Fly Zone to bomb the Government of Libya into collapse. With an argument that rests on suppresing and ignoring and failing to do even basic research on information damaging to the White House NeoCon narrative.

For example that Libya had the highest standard of living in Africa, comparable to Chile per the UN Human Development Index, and saved Africa 1 billion a year in phone call charges - by sponsoring the first african satellite, key supporter of Nelson Mandela when the US considered Mandela a terrorist. I am not taking a position about the Government Of Libya's goodness or badness. My role is to inspect the sturdiness and moral clarity of their editorial, which has little to none of either.

Review and critique of NYT objectivity and journalistic professionalism: Less objective than CNN and Washington Post by a long shot.

by Alexander Hagen

Commentary:

By Alexander Hagen

The NY Times displays a shocking contempt for supporting its assertions, while showing no capacity to question the most violent civilian protection no fly zone in human history - and leads with shockingly self serving motives

The Libya Campaign

Four months into the NATO air campaign, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi is still in power, protected by loyalists and mercenaries. Americans are weary of war, and patience in Europe is also wearing thin. But NATO must not give up.

If Colonel Qaddafi is allowed to have his way, thousands more Libyans will die. The credibility of NATO and this country would also be severely damaged. Colonel Qaddafi, who has a long history of sponsoring international terrorism, is not one to let bygones be bygones.

There is progress. The make-shift rebel army — aided by British, French and Italian advisers and armed by France and Qatar — is slowly improving. NATO strikes on military command centers, including Colonel Qaddafi's compound in Tripoli, have done real damage. This week's International Criminal Court indictment of Colonel Qaddafi, one of his sons and his intelligence chief on charges of crimes against humanity should be a warning to all of his cronies.

A naval blockade and international sanctions are increasingly having an effect. Oil revenues, the government's main income, are down by two-thirds. There are reports of long gasoline lines in Tripoli and rising bread prices. On Thursday, people fleeing Tripoli told of overnight gunfire and signs of revolt.

The Qaddafi clan is watching closely for signs that NATO's will is flagging. Italy's recent call for a cease-fire (which could give government forces time to regroup) and second-guessing by the Arab League's outgoing leader, Amr Moussa, are not helpful. Neither are Congressional efforts to force an end to American support for the air campaign.

President Obama was wrong to ignore the War Powers Act, but that should not stop the House and Senate from adopting the Kerry-McCain resolution authorizing the mission to continue for another year.

NATO must help, but the Libyan people are the only ones who can bring the regime down.

The rebels need more military advisers and weapons and access to $30 billion in frozen Qaddafi government funds. The United States and other countries need to remove the legal obstacles to getting that money.

The alliance should extend sanctions to more of Colonel Qaddafi's cronies and the subsidiaries of state-owned enterprises. Washington and its partners should also help the rebels start building the political and civil institutions they will need to keep a post-Qaddafi Libya from descending into chaos.

There has been recent talk by all sides about a possible political deal between the rebels and the government. We are eager to see an end to the fighting. But Washington and NATO must stand firmly with the rebels and reject any solution that does not involve the swift ouster of Colonel Qaddafi and real freedom for Libyans.

Nowhere is peace Is discussed. Nowhere are libya's achievements discussed.

The discussion about preserving Libya's assets -- and its social security system mentioned

This is written by the worst possible author, someone with great power, little knowledge, with poor morals, and exhibiting a craven fear of the logical consequences of launching the wrong kind of humanitarian intervention

NATO Bombing Of Libya: how not to manage a war : The most bungled intervention based on UN humanitarian reasons.

All minor neutrals will wonder who will be "liberated" next.

Easy Plunder for no fighting, as they plunged a dagger into the back of a dying France (Libya)