Sometimes, the New York Times gets it wrong.  Take their unabashed support of GWB’s invasion of Iraq based on the blatant lie about Saddam’s possession of non-existent WMD.  In that case, the error was caused by poor or even dishonest reporting by individuals; in other cases it’s the Times’ effort to show “both sides” of an argument, even when there is actually only one side that is true.  Their problem, though, is that (especially with the current occupant of the White House) when there is no factual “other side” of an argument, they turn to opinion pieces manufactured by paid “analysts” at think tanks to present an alternative opinion, even when that opinion is either a blatant lie or twisted up exaggerations.  Such was the case this week when the Times published a remarkable piece of fiction written by a pair of fine fellows employed by the Hudson Institute, and The Foundation for the Defense of Democracies.

Both of these think tanks claim to be non-partisan, but, just like the Heritage Foundation, nothing could be further from the truth.  Both organizations are part of the billionaire-funded cabal of right wing messaging shops peddling bullshit as scholarship.  The Hudson Institute casts itself as mainstream thought on domestic policy, but is funded by the Kochs and other right wingers; the FDD is a pro-Israel think tank started originally in the ’60s, but transformed after 9/11 into a hawkishly anti-Saudi Arabia/Iran mouthpiece.

The Times piece, published Wednesday, came to the remarkable conclusion that Trump (even though crude) is right on Saudi Arabia, over looking the butchering of Washington Post columnist Jamal Kashoggi because Saudi Arabia is the only thing standing between Iran and WWIII.  The piece is full of nothing but manure and whataboutism, even calling Trump’s defense of Saudi Arabia “clear-eyed and right”.  This piece actually tries to frame Trump’s wild thrashing about as actual foreign policy and strategy.  They go after the Obama administration’s Middle East policy in Iran and Syria and raise the ugly head of an unbridled Iran torching the region while pursuing nuclear weapons (which Trump just unleashed by backing out of the international Iranian nuclear pact).  They try to equate Trump’s political weaving like a drunkard to Obama’s clear policies.  You may disagree with those policies, but they were clearly actual policies based on academic and diplomatic work, not random tweeting while sitting on the toilet.

The most remarkable argument they make is that Trump’s tweet storms and ranting on television are somehow some thoughtful set of principles and policies.  That notion is simply laughable; Trump’s Train Wreck is as random as the weather, with the only common thread being his hyper focus on his own ego and financial gain.  NOTHING else matters, not Saudi Arabia, troops deployed around the world, healthcare, human rights, constitutional rights, or security.  NOTHING.  Trump’s support of MBS and Saudi Arabia has nothing to do with Iran or Middle East tensions any more than it has to do with the price of bagels in Brooklyn or wildfires in California.  Trump’s “policies”, if you want to call them that, are all about filling his ego and wallet and shoring up his base so he can keep filling his ego and wallet.

Along that vein, the authors of the Times piece fail to even mention Trump’s financial ties to the Saudi royal family, including it buying millions of dollars of apartments from the Trump Organization, pouring millions into Trump hotels, or even prince Al-Waleed bin Talal bailing Trump out in the mid-90s by buying a 51% interest in the Plaza Hotel making a debt restructuring possible, saving Trump’s financial ass.

Think tanks like the Hudson Institute and the FDD are nothing but propaganda outlets using the likes of Newt Gingrich and other right wing talking heads to peddle manure as filet mignon.  The Times does no good by giving such manure a megaphone just to project “balance” where no true balance actually exists.  The Times should be ashamed of itself.