Have to admit, I had to do a double-take when I saw this non-Trump-bashing New York Times headline:
More specifically, referring to NATO’s 2% defense spending guideline, the Times editorial read:
Now that the smoke has cleared from the NATO summit meeting, the most tangible result is apparent:
President Trump advanced President Barack Obama’s initiative to keep the allies on track to shoulder a more equitable share of NATO’s costs.
Hat tip to the Times for getting this one half-right.
Here’s the half that they didn’t get right…
==============
The part about the 2% being “President Barack Obama’s initiative “.
I hate to break it to Times, but NATO says on its web site:
In 2006, NATO Defence Ministers agreed to commit a minimum of 2% of their Gross Domestic Product (GDP) to spending on defence.
This guideline principally serves as an indicator of a country’s political will to contribute to the Alliance’s common defence efforts.
By my calculation, 2006 is about 2 years before Obama was elected President.
So, either NATO is mis-representing a verifiable fact on their web site, or the NYT fact-checkers are asleep at the switch.
I’m betting the former.
============
The Times couldn’t leave it at that, they had to take the mandatory left-hand shot at President Trump:
Of course, two days of gratuitous and self-defeating Trump bombast and threats preceded this resolution.
While the “bombast and threats” may not be as pleasant to watch as heavily-nuanced, consequence-free “pretty please” … it sure doesn’t look like it was self-defeating.
Appears that NATO are now taking the 2% guideline more seriously knowing that the big bully might protect them from the bigger bully.
Hmmm.
============
Related post: All you need to know about NATO funding…
============
Follow on Twitter @KenHoma
#HomaFiles
The Homa Files 
Leave a comment