Elites Feel That Shiver Up The Spine — And It's Not
By Kenneth R. Timmerman
You know a
candidate is in trouble when she deflects softball
questions about her policies to talk about her
phony "press conference," where she took six
questions from friendly reporters and filibustered
nearly half of the time to trash-talk
Donald Trump, shows a candidate and a
campaign that is disintegrating in broad daylight.
Washington Post noted
there were "no questions about her emails," Topic A
of the news cycle. Clinton's reckless mishandling of
classified material — reinforced by her 39 memory
"lapses" in her FBI interview — should disqualify
her from office. And Americans get it.
elites are in a panic. They witnessed the meltdown
of their candidate in broad daylight and can feel
that shiver up their spine — except that this time,
it is not the delight of victory they are feeling,
but the dread of defeat.
They watched her spar unsuccessfully over this issue
with Clinton Global Initiative member and NBC
morning news anchor Matt Lauer during Wednesday
night's national security forum, and blamed her poor
performance on — Matt Lauer.
The Washington Post is now essentially an arm of the
Democratic National Committee. It has done this with
deep investigative dive into
the penetralia of the Trump empire and no
equivalent reporting about the Clinton emails, the
Clinton Foundation's corrupt pay-to-play scheme or
the nonstop lies from Clinton herself.
NBC and CBS have
jumped on the bandwagon, highlighting Clinton's
latest desperate claim that Trump is the favored
candidate of the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria
American voters just aren't that stupid, but these
news organizations wouldn't know anything about
that. That's why they are called the media elites.
On Thursday, The Washington Post editorial board
took the occasion of Libertarian spoiler
Gary Johnson's ignorance on the Syrian
civil war as an opportunity to trash Trump.
"Gary Johnson’s Aleppo gaffe was bad. But Trump's
consistent ignorance is worse," a
lead editorial trumpeted.
The Post found Johnson, whom they called "clueless,"
nevertheless to be "refreshing" when compared to
Trump, "who in a televised national security forum
Wednesday offered a staggering array of ignorant and
mendacious assertions — and acknowledged no regrets
According to the Post, Trump repeated "his false
claims to have opposed the U.S. interventions in
Iraq and Libya."
Really? The only time Trump ever said he might
support a U.S. war in Iraq was with radio shock-jock
Howard Stern in 2002. Here is how that exchange
"Are you for invading Iraq?" Stern asked. "Yeah
[pause] ... I guess so," Trump replied.
Anyone who listens to the audio of that exchange
will not recognize the bold colors of the Trump they
know. Instead, they heard a man who clearly hadn't
given the Iraq war that much thought (after all, he
was a private businessman at the time). Trump added,
"You know, I wish the first time it was done
Even so, that was enough for the Post,
NBC News, and other media elites to say Trump
"lied" when he said he opposed the 2003 Iraq War.
Not exactly a "gotcha" moment.
Then there's this. Trump once again asserted in
Wednesday night's forum that the Bush administration
should have left local Iraqis in charge of the
country but kept control of "various sections where
they have the oil."
The Post sneered at "the jaw-dropping imbecility of
this idea." I guess they have forgotten the
widespread media reporting in the run-up and
aftermath of the 2003 Iraq war, claiming that
President George W. Bush was waging a "war for oil."
"No Blood for Oil," protesters shouted, bursting
into congressional hearings.
Post columnist Mary McGrory
went further. "We're starting a war not just for
oil or for Ariel Sharon, but because we can win it."
Of course, in Europe and the Arab world, "everyone
knew" Iraq was a war for oil, Post columnist
David Ignatius reminded readers at the time.
can recall being invited to a French television
debate in Paris on Oct. 25, 2004. I was the only
Republican guest on a round table of Americans to
discuss the 2004 presidential elections. Asked about
the allegations that Iraq was a "war for oil," I
said, "Of course, it was." I then added, "But it was
a war for oil fought by [then French President
Jacques] Chirac to preserve
$100 billion in contracts for [French oil
companies] Elf and Total."
Trump went on to say that regardless of the decision
over going to war, the United States should not have
left Iraq precipitously, announcing that decision
ahead of time so our enemies so hunker down and wait
us out. "And the way they got out really caused
ISIS, if you think about it," Trump told Larry King
on Russia Today (RT).
Predictably, the Post didn't put that comment in
context of Trump’s view of the 2003 war, but
only reported it because he said it on RT.
have already "fact-checked" Trump's
claim that Clinton and Obama were "founders of ISIS"
and found it to be true not just because the
precipitous U.S. withdrawal created a security
vacuum for ISIS to exploit, but because it was the
policy of the U.S. government at the time to
reinforce and arm the groups that morphed into ISIS,
as a now-declassified Defense Intelligence Agency
report from August 2012 shows.
Of course, The Washington Post and the media elites
dismissed Trump's claim with a predictable sneer.
The American people have understood the media’s bold
double-standard when it comes to the truth. Hillary
Clinton’s pathological lying
is okay, but anything they don’t like spoken by
Trump is not.
Now the elite media is waking up to the fact that
they no longer control the narrative, and they are
in a panic.
Kenneth Timmerman’s latest book
The Making of the YouTube
Hillary and Obama Blamed for Benghazi. He is a