“This forgery is an attempt to break up the Trump administration by creating suspicion throughout the senior level. If Trump falls for the New York Times’ deception, a house cleaning is likely to take place wherever suspicion falls. A government full of mutual suspicion cannot function (…)
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.”
BY PAUL CRAIG ROBERTS – I know who wrote the anonymous “senior Trump official” op-ed in the New York Times. The New York Timeswrote it.
The op-ed (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/50194.htm) is an obvious 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. A real dissenter would use his reputation and the status of his high position to lend weight to his dissent.
The New York Times’ claim to have vetted the writer also 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 theNew York Timesabout anything.
Consider also whether a member of a conspiracy working “diligently” inside the administration with “many of the senior officials” to “preserve our democratic institutions while thwarting” Trump’s “worst inclinations” would thwart his and his fellow co-conspirators’ plot by revealing it!
This forgery is an attempt to break up the Trump administration by creating suspicion throughout the senior level. If Trump falls for the New York Times’ deception, a house cleaning is likely to take place wherever suspicion falls. A government full of mutual suspicion cannot function.
The fake op-ed serves to validate from within the Trump administration the false reporting by theNew York Timesthat serves the interests of the military/security complex to hold on to 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 theNew York Timeshas 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.”
Do you remember when Condoleezza Rice prepared the way for the US illegal invasion of Iraq with her imagery of “a mushroom cloud going up over an American city”? Iraq had no nuclear weapons, and everyone in the government knew it. There was no prospect of such an event. However, there is a very real prospect of mushroom clouds going up over many American and European cities if the crazed Russiaphobia of the New York Times and the other presstitutes along with the Democratic Party and the security elements of the deep state continue to pile lie after lie, provocation after provocation on Russia’s patience. At some point, the only logical conclusion that the Russian government can reach is that Washington is preparing Americans and Europeans for an attack on Russia. Propaganda vilifying and demonizing the enemy precedes military attacks.
The New York Times’ other attack on President Trump – that he is unstable and unfit for office – 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.A constitutional crisis is what the hoax of Russiagate is all about.
The level of mendacity and evil in this plot against Trump is unequaled in history.Have any of these conspirators given a moment’s thought to the consequences ofremoving a president for his unwillingness to worsen the dangerously high tensions between nuclear powers?The next president would have to adopt a Russophobic stance and do nothing to reduce the tensions that can break out in nuclear war or himself be accused of “coddling the Russian dictator and putting America at risk.”
The reason that America is at risk is that the CIA and the presstitute media have put America – and Europe – at risk by frustrating President Trump’s intention to reduce the dangerous level of tensions between the two major nuclear powers.Professor Steven Cohen, America’s premier Russian expert, says that never during the Cold War were tensions as high as they are at this present time. As a former member of The Committee on the Present Danger, I myself am a former Cold Warrior, and I know for a fact that Professor Cohen is correct.
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.
5 thoughts on “Paul Craig Roberts: I know who wrote the NYT Op-Ed”
A brilliant penetrating piece by PCR.
As I myself know that had Hillary won we would already have been a dying species in a post nuclear war fall out scenario, then why is it that none of the super smart talking heads that we see paraded nightly on tv talking about how bad Trump is do not realise that also, as well as realising that someone with her instability attributes would replace Trump – apparently the very outcome they are rooting for, and then they too, along with everyone else on the planet, would soon be dead, either immediately, or later from the global fallout.
@DNC , important to keep Trump where he is, for had Hillary got in we would all be dead by now as she was pushing for nuclear war with Russia. Any DNC/RNC replacement in the event of assassination, or the 25th, that u would approve of, would have her policies towards Russia.
3:47 AM – 9 Sep 2018
Roberts is anti white-nationalist, violently anti-Hitler, and looking at his complexion and the way he sometimes slurs his speech, a lush.
Absolutely.
“Professor Steven Cohen, America’s premier Russian expert, says that never during the Cold War were tensions as high as they are at this present time. As a former member of The Committee on the Present Danger, I myself am a former Cold Warrior, and I know for a fact that Professor Cohen is correct.”
I’m sure Cohen IS correct because he and his )ewess wife (editor and publisher of “The Nation” and “trustee” of the Communist NGO think tank, “Institute for Policy Studies”,Katrina vanden Heuvel) have been working relentlessly for decades to ensure that tension remain high.
The fact that P.C. Roberts uses Cohen, whom we have been told ad nauseam, is the United States’ “premier Russian expert” (aka the wolf helping to guard the chicken coop) in order to add gravitas to Roberts’ claims tells you where Roberts’ head is at. He CANNOT (or chooses not to) get out of his own way and therefore continues to obscure who is doing what to whom. I wouldn’t trust Cohen and vanden Heuvel with picking up dog excrement.
A brilliant penetrating piece by PCR.
As I myself know that had Hillary won we would already have been a dying species in a post nuclear war fall out scenario, then why is it that none of the super smart talking heads that we see paraded nightly on tv talking about how bad Trump is do not realise that also, as well as realising that someone with her instability attributes would replace Trump – apparently the very outcome they are rooting for, and then they too, along with everyone else on the planet, would soon be dead, either immediately, or later from the global fallout.
@DNC , important to keep Trump where he is, for had Hillary got in we would all be dead by now as she was pushing for nuclear war with Russia. Any DNC/RNC replacement in the event of assassination, or the 25th, that u would approve of, would have her policies towards Russia.
3:47 AM – 9 Sep 2018
Roberts is anti white-nationalist, violently anti-Hitler, and looking at his complexion and the way he sometimes slurs his speech, a lush.
Absolutely.
“Professor Steven Cohen, America’s premier Russian expert, says that never during the Cold War were tensions as high as they are at this present time. As a former member of The Committee on the Present Danger, I myself am a former Cold Warrior, and I know for a fact that Professor Cohen is correct.”
I’m sure Cohen IS correct because he and his )ewess wife (editor and publisher of “The Nation” and “trustee” of the Communist NGO think tank, “Institute for Policy Studies”,Katrina vanden Heuvel) have been working relentlessly for decades to ensure that tension remain high.
The fact that P.C. Roberts uses Cohen, whom we have been told ad nauseam, is the United States’ “premier Russian expert” (aka the wolf helping to guard the chicken coop) in order to add gravitas to Roberts’ claims tells you where Roberts’ head is at. He CANNOT (or chooses not to) get out of his own way and therefore continues to obscure who is doing what to whom. I wouldn’t trust Cohen and vanden Heuvel with picking up dog excrement.