During the Lewinsky days of president Bill Clinton, he tried to justify something that he said by quibbling about the definition of the word "is". It was one of his lowest moments because it showed him desperately trying to cover up a lie, and the whole nation could see it for what it was. Now we have a similar situation with the disclosure that the Obama FBI and CIA planted an informant inside the Trump campaign in 2016 without there being any evidence of wrongdoing by those in the campaign. Indeed, it appears that the Obama intelligence agencies planted a mole in the Trump campaign to spy illegally on the Republicans and even to plant information inside that campaign. Today the new "is" comes from the New York Times which has been the cheerleader for nearly two years in the Russia-Trump collusion story. Embarrassed by the disclosure of the illegal activities by the leadership of the CIA and FBI as well as the Director of National Intelligence under Obama, the Times now says that the person or people that were planted inside the Trump campaign were there to "investigate" and not to "spy" on that campaign.
Think about it. The New York Times is actually trying to justify this mess by saying the FBI/CIA was investigating and not spying. Is that correct? Investigate has about 20 words listed as synonyms on thesaurus.com, and guess what, one of them is "spy". "Investigate" is defined as to carry out research to discover facts or information about something. "Spy" is defined as to secretly try to get information about something, usually for a government. In other words, to spy is to investigate secretly. So, was Stefan Halper, the Obama CIA/FBI plant inside the Trump campaign there secretly? Of course he was. It has taken a year and a half for word of the spy to come out. For the last week, the New York Times has been arguing vigorously that his name had to be kept SECRET because identifying by name might endanger him. Certainly, no one told the Trump campaign that there was a mole placed inside of it by president Obama and his intelligence agencies. IT WAS A SECRET. So the silly distinction by the NY Times of investigating rather than spying is wrong.
One would normally think that the Times would be embarrassed to make this ridiculous argument. Surely, the editors of the Times understand that this guy was a spy. So why are they doing this? Again, the answer is clear: they have no other justification to offer for Obama's domestic spying on political opponents. What else could they say? Obama's DNI Clapper came up with the crazy statement that it was a good thing that the FBI and CIA planted an informant in the opposition political party's campaign. That is never going to fly. Americans recognize what is best described as new secret police with a political agenda as something alien to basic American values. What the Obama CIA/FBI did is more akin to something coming from the KGB or the Gestapo than the American government. It's an outrage that threatens people's basic rights; it's not a good thing. There's no other excuse. The Times is going with denial.
But here's the real news for the Times. It isn't going to work.
Think about it. The New York Times is actually trying to justify this mess by saying the FBI/CIA was investigating and not spying. Is that correct? Investigate has about 20 words listed as synonyms on thesaurus.com, and guess what, one of them is "spy". "Investigate" is defined as to carry out research to discover facts or information about something. "Spy" is defined as to secretly try to get information about something, usually for a government. In other words, to spy is to investigate secretly. So, was Stefan Halper, the Obama CIA/FBI plant inside the Trump campaign there secretly? Of course he was. It has taken a year and a half for word of the spy to come out. For the last week, the New York Times has been arguing vigorously that his name had to be kept SECRET because identifying by name might endanger him. Certainly, no one told the Trump campaign that there was a mole placed inside of it by president Obama and his intelligence agencies. IT WAS A SECRET. So the silly distinction by the NY Times of investigating rather than spying is wrong.
One would normally think that the Times would be embarrassed to make this ridiculous argument. Surely, the editors of the Times understand that this guy was a spy. So why are they doing this? Again, the answer is clear: they have no other justification to offer for Obama's domestic spying on political opponents. What else could they say? Obama's DNI Clapper came up with the crazy statement that it was a good thing that the FBI and CIA planted an informant in the opposition political party's campaign. That is never going to fly. Americans recognize what is best described as new secret police with a political agenda as something alien to basic American values. What the Obama CIA/FBI did is more akin to something coming from the KGB or the Gestapo than the American government. It's an outrage that threatens people's basic rights; it's not a good thing. There's no other excuse. The Times is going with denial.
But here's the real news for the Times. It isn't going to work.
No comments:
Post a Comment