Remember when the New York Times broke the fake Russia bounties story? The WaPo fact-checker gave him four Pinocchios for his claim that the story was a hoax.
Now we know it’s a hoax, but will WaPo apologize for getting it so dreadfully wrong? Don’t hold your breath.
News sites apologize but propaganda sites never do. At the time the intel community admitted they never briefed anyone at the White House because the story was just an internet rumor.
Now, President Trump is having the last laugh as he has always done when fighting the lamestream press.
This came to light again during a Psaki press confere3nce when she was asked if Biden regre3tted lying about Trump when he constantly repeated the story as true.
Psaki wouldn’t answer but we all know lying in ingrained in liberal DNA, so we don’t expect anything less from them.
Last July, the New York Times reported that U.S. intelligence said that Russia was offering bounty money to the Taliban for killing American soldiers without so much as a single crumb of proof.
Considering the fact that almost no servicemen or women were killed during the period the bounty was allegedly being paid made the story less than credible. The intel community denials did not change the way the propaganda sites reported on the story.
The Daily Beast’s Adam Rawnsley explained further:
It was a blockbuster story about Russia’s return to the imperial “Great Game” in Afghanistan. The Kremlin had spread money around the longtime central Asian battlefield for militants to kill remaining U.S. forces. It sparked a massive outcry from Democrats and their #resistance amplifiers about the treasonous Russian puppet in the White House whose admiration for Vladimir Putin had endangered American troops.
But on Thursday, the Biden administration announced that U.S. intelligence only had “low to moderate” confidence in the story after all. Translated from the jargon of spyworld, that means the intelligence agencies have found the story is, at best, unproven—and possibly untrue.
WaPo has not updated their rating which will allow them to continue to report on the story as true when President Trump runs in 2024.
Would it be difficult to link to the WaPo story that forms the headline?
An assessment of “moderate confidence” is more than sufficient to justify action; even military action.