I've written recently about NYTers pushing, on front page and on their site, claims by Israel and others about Syria's alleged use of chemical weapons--somewhat reminiscent of the bad old days of Judy Miller and Michael Gordon hyping Iraq's WMDs. In recent day's we've seen experts in the UK and elsewhere throwing cold water on this, or saying it surely can't be proven because at worst very small scale. Obama has stepped back and the NYT on its editorial page has expressed skepticism.
But now we have an Israeli air strike on missiles headed for Syria. You'll note the early and repeated reference to the chemical claims in this NYT story--yes, Michael Gordon has a byline along with another promoter of Israeli chem claims, Jodi Rudoren. They do mention off and on that missiles could be conventional but keep dropping in references to chem. Subtle?
UPDATE: Revised and updated piece now has less focus on chem weapons.