Accuracy in Media

The latest propaganda piece from The Washington Post, “Obama’s secret struggle to punish Russia for Putin’s election assault,” is based, as usual, mostly on anonymous sources determined to make former President Barack Obama look good. The gist is that Obama tried his best to punish Russia for alleged interference in the 2016 election, but he fell short and left the matter in the hands of President Donald Trump, who has done nothing.

So Trump is blamed for Obama’s failure. How convenient.

The essence of the piece is that “intelligence” was “captured” that somehow proved that Russian President Vladimir Putin gave “specific instructions” that he wanted  to “defeat or at least damage the Democratic nominee, Hillary Clinton, and help elect her opponent, Donald Trump.”

Pardon me, but I don’t believe this for a moment. This “intelligence” may be what the Post seeks to expose—Russian “active measures” or disinformation.

As we reported back in January, “Looking at the election objectively, it is possible to say that Russian leader Vladimir Putin may have had a personal vendetta against the former U.S. secretary of state for some reason, stemming from allegations of U.S. meddling in Russian internal affairs. On the other hand, Putin may have preferred that Clinton become the U.S. president because her failed Russian ‘reset’ had facilitated Russian military intervention in Ukraine and Syria, and he believed he could continue to take advantage of her.”

This makes far more sense than the Post story.

Remember that Obama won the 2012 election after dismissing his Republican opponent Mitt Romney’s claim that Russia was a geopolitical threat to the United States. Obama had also been caught on an open mic before the election promising to be “flexible” in changing his positions to benefit Russia.

“These comments provide more evidence that Obama was never the anti-Russian figure he postured as in the final days of his second term,” we noted.

The Post story by Greg Miller and others is an obvious response to the observation that, if Obama thought the Russian interference was such a big deal, what did Obama try to do about it?

One can read the entire article if you are interested in how pro-Obama propaganda is manufactured by the Post. Some parts of the article are more ludicrous than others, such as this paragraph:

“Throughout his presidency, Obama’s approach to national security challenges was deliberate and cautious. He came into office seeking to end wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He was loath to act without support from allies overseas and firm political footing at home. He was drawn only reluctantly into foreign crises, such as the civil war in Syria, that presented no clear exit for the United States.”

The paragraph is designed to mask Obama’s indifference to Russian aggression in places like Crimea, Ukraine and Syria. In regard to the latter, Obama failed to save Syria from Russian aggression and facilitated a conflict—through secret arms shipments to the region—that now stands at 500,000 dead.

Obama’s alleged “cautious” approach in the Middle East was to support jihadist groups in Syria and Libya, and back regimes such as the Muslim Brotherhood government in Egypt, which was overthrown by the military backed by the people.

The hero in the Post account is Obama’s CIA director John Brennan, who joined the agency after admitting to voting for Moscow’s man in the 1976 presidential election, Gus Hall of the Communist Party USA. Suddenly, we are led to believe, as CIA director, he became anti-Russian after discovering a Moscow plot in 2016 to disrupt the presidential election.

“In political terms,” the paper said, “Russia’s interference was the crime of the century, an unprecedented and largely successful destabilizing attack on American democracy.”

This is complete nonsense. There is no evidence any votes were changed as a result of this so-called “interference.”

The crime of the century is bad journalism based on anonymous sources who hide behind papers like the Post to spread their self-serving and partisan propaganda.

“This account of the Obama administration’s response to Russia’s interference is based on interviews with more than three dozen current and former U.S. officials in senior positions in government, including at the White House, the State, Defense and Homeland Security departments, and U.S. intelligence services,” the Post said. “Most agreed to speak only on the condition of anonymity, citing the sensitivity of the issue.”

One paragraph in particular tells you everything you know about the anonymous sources behind this story. “Those closest to Obama defend the administration’s response to Russia’s meddling,” the Post said. Yes, indeed, those “closest to Obama” would certainly do so.

Then we’re told that that “They believe that a series of warnings—including one that Obama delivered to Putin in September—prompted Moscow to abandon any plans of further aggression, such as sabotage of U.S. voting systems.”

There is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for this dramatic statement. It’s completely made up.

Remember, this is the same Obama who once assured Putin that after he won his re-election campaign in 2012, he would have “more flexibility” with the Russian leader and be able to offer more concessions.

Now, all of a sudden, Obama is rough and tough and gets things done with the Russian leader. What a joke.

The paper reported that “Obama confronted Putin directly during a meeting of world leaders in Hangzhou, China. Accompanied only by interpreters, Obama told Putin that ‘we knew what he was doing and [he] better stop or else,’ according to a senior aide who subsequently spoke with Obama. Putin responded by demanding proof and accusing the United States of interfering in Russia’s internal affairs.”

Or else?

It sounds like the red line in Syria that Obama had warned the Syrian regime not to cross. But they crossed it anyway.

Obama’s so-called “secret struggle to punish Russia for Putin’s election assault” exists in the minds of Post reporters who are waging a not-so-secret struggle to rehabilitate the former president’s disastrous foreign policy toward Russia and most of the rest of the world.

Let’s not forget one more debacle—Obama’s deal with Russian client state Iran to facilitate the regime’s nuclear weapons program and world-wide terrorism.

That may end up being another crime of the century, on par with President Bill Clinton’s deal with North Korea that was supposed to prevent the communist regime from getting its hands on nuclear weapons.

Speaking of North Korea, whose nuclear weapons program accelerated under Obama, hear the words of Otto Warmbier’s father about his son being released after Trump took office: “I think the results speak for themselves.”

Obama’s “cautious and deliberate” approach was to let the young man languish in a North Korean prison while being tortured to near death.




Ready to fight back against media bias?
Join us by donating to AIM today.

Comments

  • jug

    Par for the course with Obutthole’s Commiecrat administration!
    Thank God the voters woke up and elected Trump!

  • TED

    The real ‘crime of the century’ is being attempted in the U.S. Senate at this very moment!

  • John Cunningham

    For the Liberal cause, making Barack Obama from a sow’s ear into a silk purse. It must have been really hard to admit Barack Obama was a total failure as President. I am sure that decision was made in the first year of his presidency. May I suggest the Democrat party enlist the North Korean Propaganda arm for help.

  • sox83cubs84

    The Washington Compost is one of the leaders in fake news.

  • james warren

    The Crime of the Century is that you are overwhelmed by the free press.

    It’s the only business mentioned in our founding document.

    “The basis of our government being the opinion of the people, the very first object should be to keep that right; and were it left to me to decide whether we should have a government without newspapers, or newspapers without a government, I should not hesitate a moment to prefer the latter.”
    –Thomas Jefferson

    Surely you’ve heard of John Peter Zenger in high school.

    As long as the government is running, journalists are going to ask questions and report on what they find.

  • james warren

    I’m so glad you folks treated him with decency, respect and fairness.

  • John Cunningham

    Barack Obama treated the Presidency like his very own Kingdom. He was accepted and we on the Right gave him a chance. He did everything he could to shut America down and created a huge entitlement Government. He deserves everything he is going to get.

  • james warren

    He took our guns–even sending thugs to break into people’s homes and steal their firearms.
    He was a Muslim traitor who was attending a mosque in Canada and had another family all set up in Toronto.
    He thought he was better than us. Looking at him I could just tell.
    He said he was a Christian, yet he killed women and children with his drones.
    He doesn’t even know the meaning of “love your enemies.”
    His wife was ugly and so were his kids.
    They were out of control and left piles of garbage and trash all over the White House.
    The only thing I can give him credit for was that he was a master legislator with his health care. We have the GOP in the majority and we have the White House but can’t seem to get anything passed.

  • james warren

    LOL! The Washington “Compost.” I get it! How clever.

  • John Cunningham

    That is some good information I just hope one day it is common knowledge. With Democrats, one burps the other says excuse me. They never even speak until the talking points are published. Republicans are the opposite. One says blue another says its green.
    They think that is what they are supposed to do. I still think we need another Political Party.

  • james warren

    Sorry, that was meant as sarcasm. I took some talking points and carried them far enough to a nonsensical, ridiculous extreme.

    I thought it would be evident, but I was clearly wrong.

    Body language, NLP eye movements, voice tone and skin color cannot be utilized when it comes to online communication. I should have realized that.

  • John Cunningham

    So was mine!

  • John Cunningham

    report not create, that is the question.

  • james warren

    “Great minds run in the same channel.”

  • james warren

    I am old enough by now to realize what someone sees, hears [or reports on] is frequently very different than what someone else sees, hears and reports on.

    The good thing about this–in my view–is that everyone’s point of view adds to the overall pool of meaning.

  • John Cunningham

    sometimes!

  • John Cunningham

    No! I don’t Joseph Goebbels would agree nor Pravda. I remember in the 60’s when America was fighting Communism all over the World, we would hear a lot of propaganda that was way out of this World. Same thing is happening now only for different reasons. The Left leaning Media hates Donald Trump but, it wouldn’t have mattered who won on the Right, the Media would have skewered them.

  • james warren

    “Fools think alike.”

  • james warren

    Propaganda is a feature of all nations.

    If it weren’t for the Russians, World War II would have been lost.

    The media is going to keep on asking questions.
    Sorry to be blunt.

  • John Cunningham

    heard that too!

  • james warren

    When I am foolish I can find plenty of people that agree with me!

  • james warren

    Check out Trump 10 years ago and Trump today…

    Trump used to speak more fluently with words and phrases such as “subsided,” “inclination,” “discredited,” “sparring session,” and “a certain innate intelligence.”

    He tossed off well-turned sentences such as, “It could have been a contentious route,” and, “These are the only casinos in the United States that are so rated.” He even offered thoughtful, articulate aphorisms: “If you get into what’s missing, you don’t appreciate what you have,” and, “Adversity is a very funny thing.”

    Today’s Trump says things like:

    “People want the border wall. My base definitely wants the border wall, my base really wants it — you’ve been to many of the rallies. OK, the thing they want more than anything is the wall. My base, which is a big base; I think my base is 45 percent. You know, it’s funny. The Democrats, they have a big advantage in the Electoral College. Big, big, big advantage. … The Electoral College is very difficult for a Republican to win, and I will tell you, the people want to see it. They want to see the wall.”

    Does this show deterioration or is he today trying to speak in ways that better resonate with his base?
    NOTE:

    All answers and ideas will be considered. If I don’t agree with them, I will not call them “fake news,” nor will I use immature name-calling and mockery with those who see things differently with me.

  • Paul Anderson

    Journalism is bad, when the truth is absent. When truth becomes relative, personal opinion replaces truth.
    The intended absence of truth in Journalism: is for the purpose of corrupting America’s culture.

  • Larry Sparks

    The crime of the journalistic century is dishonest journalism by liberals.

  • TED

    The actual ‘crime of the century’ may well turn out to be the conduct of the current president and his administration … along with the theft of Medicaid from some 23.000,000 Americans!