Spread the love
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

The New York Times published an article based on ‘feelings rather than facts’ claiming that Russia was paying out monetary bounties to the Taliban to kill US troops in Afghanistan, and Trump knew about it and did nothing.
There’s just one problem with the New York Times reporting — none of what they published was true.
https://twitter.com/FrankFigliuzzi1/status/1276614677229826048
America’s intelligence agencies did not find any validity to reports about Moscow offering bounties on American troops in Afghanistan that were credible enough to inform him or his vice president.
In another blow to the mainstream media ‘anonymously sources,’ credibility, President Donald Trump tweeted on Sunday night that US intelligence “just reported to me that they did not find this info credible, and therefore did not report it to me or [Vice President Mike Pence]”

The New York Times was the first to publish allegations that Russian military intelligence paid Taliban-linked militants in Afghanistan to attack NATO soldiers.

Of course,  Trump faced an avalanche of accusations of treason from headline reading liberals.

However, the New York Times’ latest attempt to create the news rather than report it, quickly fell apart after virtually every side mentioned refuted the claims.

The White House and US Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe denied that the briefing described in the report ever took place.

The Russian Foreign Ministry dismissed it as an “unsophisticated plant” that “clearly illustrates the low intellectual abilities of the propagandists from US intelligence, who, instead of inventing something more plausible, resort to conjuring up such nonsense.”

My God! Even the Taliban ridiculed the New York Times Fake News reporting.

Taliban spokesman Zabiullah Mujahid in a statement stated:

“We categorically reject the notion of ever planning or carrying out targeted attacks against U.S. or foreign forces at the behest of foreign intelligence or for the sake of collecting bounty, and we also reject receiving material support from foreign intelligence because such undertakings are harmful for the sovereign decision-making of any country and movement.”

The most damning part of the New York Times delusion included absolutely zero details:

The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe the delicate intelligence and internal deliberations. They said the intelligence had been treated as a closely held secret, but the administration expanded briefings about it this week — including sharing information about it with the British government, whose forces are among those said to have been targeted.

The intelligence assessment is said to be based at least in part on interrogations of captured Afghan militants and criminals. The officials did not describe the mechanics of the Russian operation, such as how targets were picked or how money changed hands. It is also not clear whether Russian operatives had deployed inside Afghanistan or met with their Taliban counterparts elsewhere.

So the whole smear campaign by the New York Times is based on an anonymous source yet there this supposed “anonymous source” could not provide any details on:
  • How the operation took place.
  • What American troops were targeted.
  • How meetings were conducted.
  • How the Taliban received their payments from Russia.

You would think an official who was speaking under the condition of anonymity would be able to describe in detail such a treasonous operation.

But of course, the liberals aren’t buying any of these facts.
Like the New York Times, the delusional left steadfastly believes ‘feelings are just as factual as facts’.
Right on cue, the New Times double-downed on their idiocy claiming ‘WaPo confirms our story’.
Umm, NO THEY DIDN’T:


Spread the love
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •