They probably did it because of certain money connections, Rig, and because they are part of the ruling establishment, and in a very big way. You're right, the support of the New York Times was an absolutely crucial factor in swinging public opinion in favor of Bush's invasion of Iraq, because it got so many of the liberals onside.

Here's another example of that sort of thing: Amnesty International helped spread a totally concocted and spurious story at the time of Saddam's invasion of Kuwait (1991?). They said that Iraqi soldiers had taken babies out of incubators at a Kuwaiti hospital and let them die. It never happened at all, it was a story concocted by the CIA or someone like that in the American propaganda factory and it was falsely testified to by the daughter of the Kuwaiti ambassador. She did a great acting job for the cameras and aroused outrage in Americans against Iraq.   Amnesty International backed that phony story and gave it the stamp of total believability.

And that got the North American public onside to support the Gulf War.

Amnesty International later apologized for having made an "error" about that, and retracted their support of the story.

I have never trusted Amnesty International since, and I have no trust in the New York Times either. I have a pretty good idea who they really work for when it comes to vital matters of pre-planned USA foreign policy.