More battlespace preparations..

In an article, carried in Al Jazeera of all places, titled Jill Abramson talks to John Seigenthaler, we find one tid-bit of information pertinent to the recent conversation about the secretive nature of this WH – the one that claimed it would be the most transparent administration EVAH! back during the early campaign days – and the reason so many people are finally catching on that this den of thieves is up to no good. The bolded text is the question by Seiigebthaler, and the other text is Abramson’s, whom is not a conservative in any sense of the word, answer:

Let me move on to another topic in the Obama administration. How would you grade this administration, compared to others, when it comes to its relationship with the media?

Well, I would slightly like to interpret the question as “How secretive is this White House?” which I think is the most important question. I would say it is the most secretive White House that I have ever been involved in covering, and that includes — I spent 22 years of my career in Washington and covered presidents from President Reagan on up through now, and I was Washington bureau chief of the Times during George W. Bush’s first term.

I dealt directly with the Bush White House when they had concerns that stories we were about to run put the national security under threat. But, you know, they were not pursuing criminal leak investigations. The Obama administration has had seven criminal leak investigations. That is more than twice the number of any previous administration in our history. It’s on a scale never seen before. This is the most secretive White House that, at least as a journalist, I have ever dealt with.

There is a reason the that these people that promised to be the most transparent WH ever have been, and continue to be, so secretive, and it has zero to do with national security or anything positive. And before anyone starts saying this doesn’t reflect on Obama at all, let me post another part of that exchange that will make it very clear that Abramson at least admits the directive has to come from the top man:

And do you think this comes directly from the president?

I would think that it would have to. I don’t know that, but certainly enough attention has been focused on this issue that, if he departed from the policies of his government, I think we’d know that at this point.

So it makes it more difficult for The New York Times to do its job.

Absolutely.

You can, if you like me, have paid attention to and seen the production of what the NYT claims has amounted to them doing their job, have a hearty laugh at the last Q&A there, because the evidence clearly shows that the NYT’s effort has been to provide coveer for this WH, and Obama specifically, but even the NYT is admitting that Obama is the one that has created the directive to control the flow of information.

Looks, information is key. I am not surprised to see Obama and the left think they need to control it. It’s Stalin’s dictatorship rules of control 101.

Yes Abramson, in typical lib fashion then proceeds to pretend like the Boosh administration misled them and the media on Iraq, as if the same information and arguments made by Boosh’s people to them was also not what came from the Clinton administration, or for that matter every other intelligence organization on the planet, which shows her lib creds. It’s the typical need to throw the lib audience a bone after you point out how fucked up one of their heros is. The left remains obsessed with rewritting this chapter of history, and I suspect the reason theya re doubling down now is so Hilllary can claim her vote to go into Iraq was because she was lied to. That would give the rabbid leftoids an out come 2016.

The NYT gets a two-fer. They play hardball with Obama, pretending that they have actually been doing their job, and they get to set up a narrative that benefits the next donkey candidate, another criminal and liar, they are already hard at work shilling for. Par for the course for the NYT.

Comments are closed.