Outright lying: The New York Times at it again

[ifrtbttrflys]

This four day-old propaganda piece is still offered on news.google.com:

Intercepted Russian Communications Part of Inquiry Into Trump Associates

WASHINGTON — American law enforcement and intelligence agencies are examining intercepted communications and financial transactions as part of a broad investigation into possible links between Russian officials and associates of President-elect Donald J. Trump, including his former campaign chairman Paul Manafort, current and former senior American officials said.

The continuing counterintelligence investigation means that Mr. Trump will take the oath of office on Friday with his associates under investigation and after the intelligence agencies concluded that the Russian government had worked to help elect him. As president, Mr. Trump will oversee those agencies and have the authority to redirect or stop at least some of these efforts.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/19/us/politics/trump-russia-associates-investigation.html

Can't even make it through to the end of the second paragraph without deliberately lying:

In fact, "the intelligence agencies" made it a point to make clear that it was beyond their collective abilities to state that Russia's activities "worked to help elect" Trump.

The New York Times, a veteran of the CIA's Operation Mockingbird, is flat-out lying again.

The CIA allegedly had major influence in over 25 U.S. newspapers and wire services. The tactic was straightforward. False news reports or propaganda would be provided by CIA writers to knowing and unknowing reporters who would simply repeat the falsehoods over and over again.

Operation Mockingbird: New York Times confesses to role in subverting First Amendment
http://freepress.org/article/operat...mes-confesses-role-subverting-first-amendment

 

[phrodeau]

This four day-old propaganda piece is still offered on news.google.com:



Can't even make it through to the end of the second paragraph without deliberately lying:

In fact, "the intelligence agencies" made it a point to make clear that it was beyond their collective abilities to state that Russia's activities "worked to help elect" Trump.

The New York Times, a veteran of the CIA's Operation Mockingbird, is flat-out lying again.

You are wrong. The intelligence agencies clearly accused Russia of working to help elect Trump. They cannot say whether Russia had any real influence or not, but they have high confidence that Russia did try.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/donald-...d-of-classified-briefing-on-russia-1483728966

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

All 17 of them?

 

[ifrtbttrflys]

Gotta love that the Operation Mockingbird vet didn't care to include the discounting "accused" and "try" in their latest propaganda piece.

False news reports or propaganda would be provided by CIA writers to knowing and unknowing reporters who would simply repeat the falsehoods over and over again.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Gotta love that the Operation Mockingbird vet didn't care to include the discounting "accused" and "try" in their latest propaganda piece.

You're obsessed with a Cold War program from the 50s and 60s that does not exist today. The bias impugning specific motivations on the part of the Russians by the media (as opposed to confining reporting to strictly the Russians actions) is simply that -- routine liberal media bias that fits their narrative, not that of the CIA.

You'd be better off spinning your wheels and wringing your hands over the Bilderberg Group.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

You're obsessed with a Cold War program from the 50s and 60s that does not exist today. The bias impugning specific motivations on the part of the Russians by the media (as opposed to confining reporting to strictly the Russians actions) is simply that -- routine liberal media bias that fits their narrative, not that of the CIA.

You'd be better off spinning your wheels and wringing your hands over the Bilderberg Group.

Why are you denigrating the Masons?

​

:secret finger salute:​

 

[ifrtbttrflys]

"Hyper-Partisanship" Politics Has "Bled" Into the Intel Community

Retired Gen. Michael Hayden, former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, warned that partisan politics is negatively affecting the U.S. intelligence community, according to his interview on WNYC radio Monday.

Hayden noted that the potential nomination of disgruntled former officials under the Obama administration for roles in President-elect Donald Trump’s administration is evidence that partisanship has infected the nation’s security apparatus.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/22/f...nto-the-intelligence-community/#ixzz4WbF4X2XV

Trump vindicated as intelligence community undermines its credibility

The writing was on the wall, and President-elect Donald Trump was the only one able to read it: At least some members of the U.S. intelligence community are placing partisan, political interests above America's interest.

It’s unacceptable. It’s wrong. And Trump has rightfully sounded the alarm over the last few weeks.

http://thehill.com/blogs/pundits-bl...ndicated-as-intelligence-community-undermines

The "current and former senior American officials" in the OP-linked piece - not named again, of course, because they have no authority to say what The New York Times is so willing to print - are almost undoubtedly - again - disgruntled, partisan intelligence community leakers.

There is no more silently stringent pimp for the infamous military-industrial complex than the CIA.

There is no more serious threat today to the politics as usual existence of the infamous military-industrial complex than President Donald J. Trump.

To even suggest that The New York Times isn't still practicing its matter-of-record past as it continues to print unauthorized material from politically partisan intelligence community sources is the epitome of choosing to keep one's obvious see no evil - speak no evil - hear no evil / America right or wrong head in the sand.

Marion Robert Morrison was just an actor who died a long time ago - deal with it.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

"Hyper-Partisanship" Politics Has "Bled" Into the Intel Community

Retired Gen. Michael Hayden, former director of the Central Intelligence Agency, warned that partisan politics is negatively affecting the U.S. intelligence community, according to his interview on WNYC radio Monday.

Hayden noted that the potential nomination of disgruntled former officials under the Obama administration for roles in President-elect Donald Trump’s administration is evidence that partisanship has infected the nation’s security apparatus.

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2016/11/22/fo...#ixzz4WbF4X2XV

You realize do you not (obviously NOT) that Hayden's warning about partisan politics negatively affecting the intelligence community was specifically directed at two of Trump's potential (at the time of Hayden's November comments) senior intelligence advisers. Here is the full quote:

He [Hayden] adds, "We've already talked about Mike Flynn becoming the National Security Advisor. Now Mike Rogers is talked about as being the potential Director of National Intelligence. Here are two officers - one who left, and one who might leave the intelligence community of this administration under unhappy circumstances - being selected by the follow-on administration for key leadership roles. What that tells me is that the hyper partisanship in Washington now has bled over into the American intelligence and security community and that can't be good news."

It was a warning that Trump himself might be injecting or escalating any partisanship within the intelligence community. That critique would no longer apparently apply to Rogers who was purged from the Trump transition team, but the point is that your use of the Hayden quote to affirm any Trump allegations of intelligence community partisanship only proves that you suck at reading comprehension.

 

[ifrtbttrflys]

The Hayden quote most definitely affirms my assertion that the intelligence community has become partisanly corrupt; my assertion which, in fact, existed long before Donald Trump was ever a practical thought in any election's mind.

It's left to propagandists to pimp who they subjectively choose to blame, other than the partisans in the intelligence community themselves, by alleging what others really mean with words that are no one else's but the pimp's very own:

It was a warning that Trump himself might be injecting or escalating any partisanship within the intelligence community.

It has to be honestly embarrassing for anyone to push that the repugnant partisanship which bleeds through the intelligence community has never really been an actual issue until Trump, because, they pimp, he is the cause.

Of course, with The New York Times propaganda machine not beholden to reveal their anonymous sources who admittedly have no authority to even speak about what The Times publishes without any credible substantiation, their blatant partisanship can remain safely hidden in the statist cloud of comfort and security enabled by good old boy politics as usual.

 

[about_average]

Here's a quote from the report

We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary [Hillary] Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump,

Which part did the media get wrong?

 

[FeeNicks]

We assess*** Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary [Hillary] Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump,


THANK YOU RUSSIA



***They also assessed WMD's in Iraq,

 

[Colonel Hogan]

Here's a quote from the report

We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary [Hillary] Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump,

Which part did the media get wrong?

Okay. Since that's what the report says, then I stand corrected. But at that point, the hard, raw intelligence that substantiates that assessment of motivation needs to be as solid as that which indicated Russian involvement in the hacking to begin with.

Do we have the details of that analysis as well? A link here would be great.

 

[phrodeau]

We assess*** Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary [Hillary] Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump,


THANK YOU RUSSIA



***They also assessed WMD's in Iraq,

As I recall, AJ, Ishmael, miles, Garbage Can, vetteman and busybody all agreed that there were in fact WMD's in Iraq. Somebody even posted pictures of them.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

As I recall, AJ, Ishmael, miles, Garbage Can, vetteman and busybody all agreed that there were in fact WMD's in Iraq. Somebody even posted pictures of them.

You just made the opposite point that you intended...


Think before you post.



Also quit rewriting history, WMDs were not the deciding factor for us...

It was but one facet of the indictment and subsequent WORLD-ENDORSED warrant for Saddam's arrest.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

You just made the opposite point that you intended...


Think before you post.



Also quit rewriting history, WMDs were not the deciding factor for us...

It was but one facet of the indictment and subsequent WORLD-ENDORSED warrant for Saddam's arrest.

This is a big sore point with me. Because while WMDs were only one facet of the indictment, they were the one that got the most attention. And not just in the press. The Bush administration simply would not shut up about it. They essentially painted themselves into a corner with it.

For my money, the overriding justification for going back into Iraq was simply Saddam's refusal to live up to the terms of the first cease fire. No other reason was necessary.

That is the salient point that will forever be lost whenever the subject comes up.

 

[Desiremakesmeweak]

lol.

And that is all I can say.

Now.

 

[Desiremakesmeweak]

Unfortunately - and I'm desperately trying to be as serious as I possibly can here - there is too too much bullshit out there that passes for 'what we know' (you know, in the hands of one guy/news-crowd or the other). Whereas people as a popular or mass group of 'hearers' all seem to have the memory of a two-day old swamp gnat.

 

[4est_4est_Gump]

This is a big sore point with me. Because while WMDs were only one facet of the indictment, they were the one that got the most attention. And not just in the press. The Bush administration simply would not shut up about it. They essentially painted themselves into a corner with it.

For my money, the overriding justification for going back into Iraq was simply Saddam's refusal to live up to the terms of the first cease fire. No other reason was necessary.

That is the salient point that will forever be lost whenever the subject comes up.

This is exactly the point I have consistently held to lo these many years...

 

[about_average]

Okay. Since that's what the report says, then I stand corrected. But at that point, the hard, raw intelligence that substantiates that assessment of motivation needs to be as solid as that which indicated Russian involvement in the hacking to begin with.

It was more to the claim that the New York times lied. I haven't seen any evidence that they reported incorrectly on the intelligence report.

Do we have the details of that analysis as well? A link here would be great.

I don't know, I haven't seen it. And if it isn't public now I don't expect it will be within the next four years, unless someone leaks it.

That said, I wouldn't be at all surprised if there isn't concrete proof of intent. The CIA has never worked that way. That's the FBI way of working.