"The Op-Ed is a Forgery Written by the New York Times"
This, according to author Paul Craig Roberts. In his urgent and compelling essay, he breaks the discovery down piece by piece. You'll want to follow the link below and read it yourself for the full effect of the logic in action. Here are a few of his key assertions:
The op-ed is a forgery. As a former senior official in a presidential administration, I can state with certainty that no senior official would express disagreement anonymously. Anonymous dissent has no credibility. Moreover, the dishonor of it undermines the character of the writer.
The New York Times’ claim to have vetted the writer lacks credibility, as the New York Times has consistently printed extreme accusations against Trump and against Vladimir Putin without supplying a bit of evidence. The New York Times has consistently misrepresented unsubstantiated allegations as proven fact. There is no reason whatsoever to believe the New York Times about anything.
Roberts is convinced that this obviously forged op-ed is an attempt to break up the Trump administration by creating suspicion throughout the senior level. Unfortunately, Trump has fallen for the hoax and may not realize his mistake before significant damage is done.
The New York Times motive for this deception, and the reason for the op-ed in the first place, is to serve the interests of the military/security complex, which has long been the newspaper's primary objective. They desperately seek to compel a paranoid nation to hold on to the enemies with whom Trump prefers to make peace.
For example, the alleged “senior official” misrepresents, as does the New York Times, President Trump’s efforts to reduce dangerous tensions with North Korea and Russia as President Trump’s “preference for autocrats and dictators, such as President Vladimir Putin of Russia and North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-un” over America’s “allied, like-minded nations.” This is the same non-sequitur that the New York Times has expressed endlessly.
Why is resolving dangerous tensions a “preference for dictators” and not a preference for peace? The New York Times has never explained, and neither does the “senior official.”
How is it that Putin, elected three times by majorities that no US president has ever received, is a dictator? Putin stepped down after serving the permitted two consecutive terms and was again elected after being out of office for a term. Do dictators step down and sit out for 6 years?
The “senior official” also endorses as proven fact the alleged Skripal poisoning by a “deadly Russian nerve agent,” an event for which not one scrap of evidence exists. Neither has anyone explained why the “deadly nerve agent” wasn’t deadly. The entire Skripal event rests only on assertions. The purpose of the Skripal hoax was precisely what President Trump said it was: to box him into further confrontation with Russia and prevent a reduction in tensions.
If the “senior official” is really so uninformed as to believe that Putin is a dictator who attacked the Skripals with a deadly nerve agent and elected Trump president, the “senior official” is too dangerously ignorant and gullible to be a senior official in any administration. These are the New York Times’ beliefs or professed beliefs as the New York Times does everything the organization can do to protect the military/security complex’s budget from any reduction in the “enemy threat.”
Roberts points out another favorite attack on President Trump used by the New York Times, that he is unstable and unfit for office. He notes that even the wording of the attack is reproduced in the fake op-ed:
“Given the instability many witnessed, there were early whispers within the cabinet of invoking the 25th Amendment, which would start a complex process for removing the president,” writes the invented and non-existent “senior official.”
Americans are an insouciant people. But are any so insouciant that they really think that a senior official would write that the members of President Trump’s cabinet have considered removing him from office? What is this statement other than a deliberate effort to produce a constitutional crisis—the precise aim of John Brennan, James Comey, Rod Rosenstein, the DNC, and the New York Times. The level of mendacity and evil in this plot against Trump is unequaled in history.
This op-ed hoax puts people in grave danger, all for the financial gain of the war profiteers. There is not a politician left in America that has the nerve to stand up against this atrocity. They are all owned and fearful; they know full well a factual and moral criticism against these inhumane wars and designated enemies will instantly destroy their careers. They will be banished from the Capitol. It is up to the people themselves to denounce the coup government that is waging these illegal wars and destabilizing the world.
In America today, and in Europe, people are living in a situation in which the liberal-progressive-left’s blind hatred of Donald Trump, together with the self-interested power and profit of the military security complex and election hopes of the Democratic Party, are recklessly and irresponsibly risking nuclear Armageddon for no other reason than to act out their hate and further their own nest.
This plot against Trump is dangerous to life on earth and demands that the governments and peoples of the world act now to expose this plot and to bring it to an end before it kills us all.
Read the entire article:
I Know Who the “Senior Official” Is Who Wrote the New York Times Op-Ed
by Paul Craig Roberts