NY TIMES TELLS NYPD, "DO YOUR JOBS"!

NYPD OFFICER "HARD AT WORK"

The New York Times issued its second editorial against the NYPD in two days, this time excoriating the department for its alleged work slowdown.

The New York Post reported yesterday that police activity had plummeted since the union called for a work “slowdown” in response to Gotham Mayor Bill de Blasio’s remarks following the Eric Garner decision and the ambush-style murder of two NYPD officers. (The protracted contract dispute has a good deal to do with it as well.)

The department’s “list of grievances adds up to very little, unless you look at it through the magnifying lens of resentment fomented by union bosses and right-wing commentators,” the editorial board wrote Wednesday. (On Tuesday they chided the department for its “snarling sense of victimhood”.)

The Times reminded the NYPD Wednesday morning that de Blasio was elected by a landslide to enact the sort of reforms, such as ending Stop and Frisk and quota-based policing, that he had since implemented, and that he had pumped millions of dollars into the department while overseeing a 4.4% drop in crime.

“Do your jobs,” the paper advised. “The police are sworn public servants, and refusing to work violates their oath to serve and protect. Mr. Bratton should hold his commanders and supervisors responsible, and turn this insubordination around.”

[h/t New York Times]

NFTOS

Blogger-In-Chief

Roger West

GOVERNOR KRISPY KREME COMES OUT SWINGING

After being silent on the latest revelation by Christie's long time friend David Wildstein, the governor's office blasted out an email response attacking his former friend and the NY Times.

Governor Christie came out smoking mad against his former friend and the NY Times Saturday afternoon after the Times ran a story on the Friday before the Super Bowl alleging that there is evidence proving the governor knew about the lane closing scandal in Fort Lee while it was happening.

His office sent out a furious email denouncing Wildstein and the Grey Lady.

New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, after a low-key initial response to Friday’s explosive allegations about his involvement in a bridge-closing scandal, mounted an aggressive defense late Saturday afternoon, attacking The New York Times and a former political ally in an email to friends and allies obtained by POLITICO. 

“Bottom line — David Wildstein will do and say anything to save David Wildstein,” the email from the governor’s office says, referring to the former appointee who reignited the controversy. 

A letter from Wildstein’s lawyer, Alan L. Zegas of Chatham, N.J., asserted Friday that “evidence exists … tying Mr. Christie to having knowledge of the lane closures, during the period when the lanes were closed, contrary to what the Governor stated publicly in a two-hour press conference.” 

The subject line of the 700-word email from the governor’s office is: “5 Things You Should Know About The Bombshell That’s Not A Bombshell.” It offers a harshly negative portrayal of Wildstein’s character and judgment. 

The Christie camp begins by criticizing The Times for its initial characterization of the Wildstein letter: “A media firestorm was set off by sloppy reporting from the New York Times and their suggestion that there was actually ‘evidence’ when it was a letter alleging that ‘evidence exists.’ 

Chris Christie tried to lower the boom on his old friend by using the tried and true political character assassination technique, but that's almost laughable at this point. 

“In David Wildstein’s past, people and newspaper accounts have described him as ‘tumultuous’ and someone who ‘made moves that were not productive,’” the email continues. 

“David Wildstein has been publicly asking for immunity since the beginning, been held in contempt by the New Jersey legislature for refusing to testify, failed to provide this so-called ‘evidence’ when he was first subpoenaed by the NJ Legislature and is looking for the Port Authority to pay his legal bills.”

The email dips far back into Wildstein’s past to buttress its portrayal of him, even alleging that “he was publicly accused by his high school social studies teacher of deceptive behavior.”

If David Wildstein was such a bad guy - then why did Gov. Christie appoint him to a high position in the Port Authority at all? Doesn't his failings also indict Christie for being an incompetent boss if what he says is true?

NFTOS

Editor-In-Chief

Roger West

SAY IT ISNT SO DARRELL ISSA

Who the phuck knew?

An incredibly in-depth New York Times report on the Benghazi attack of September 11th, 2012 concludes that there is “no evidence that Al Qaeda or other international terrorist groups had any role in the assault,” instead led by rebel fighters that were supported by the U.S. during the uprising against Moammar Qaddafi. And on top of all that, the Times report says that despite what members of Congress have claimed to the contrary, that the anti-Islam film Innocence of Muslims actually played a pretty significant part in fueling the anger surrounding the attack that left four Americans, including U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens, dead.

The Times says that both major narratives (“the attack was spontaneous” and “the attack was meticulously planned in advance”) surrounding Benghazi are both lacking, and points to what it deems as the real intelligence failure in all this.

The Benghazi-based C.I.A. team had briefed Mr. McFarland and Mr. Stevens as recently as the day before the attack. But the American intelligence efforts in Libya concentrated on the agendas of the biggest militia leaders and the handful of Libyans with suspected ties to Al Qaeda…

Members of the local militia groups that the Americans called on for help proved unreliable, even hostile aide. The fixation on Al Qaeda might have distracted experts from more imminent threats. Those now look like intelligence failures.

The report includes interviews with Libyan rebel fighters, and provides some in-depth details about the attack itself and the security at the Benghazi compound when the attack occurred.

You can read the full report here.

REMEMBER READERS HOW MANY BENGHAZI'S HAPPENED ON BUSH'S WATCH

Here are six major takeaways from the report:

1. Al Qaeda was not involved in the assault. It has become an article of faith for some in the GOP that the Benghazi attack was a highly orchestrated terrorist attack led by the same group that carried out the 9/11 attacks in the U.S. “It was very clear to the individuals on the ground that this was an Al Qaeda-led event,” said Michigan Republican Mike Rogers, chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, in an interview on Fox News in November. But according to the Times report, there is no evidence to support this assertion. 

2. Anger at the “Innocence of Muslims” video motivated the initial assault and fueled the anger that powered the attack. After the film appeared online dubbed into Arabic in September 2012, media in Cairo played a major role in stoking the rage that led to an assault on the American embassy in Benghazi. Witnesses on the ground at the attack recount numerous ways in which leaders of the assault used the video to stoke the rage of militiamen. 

3. The spontaneous response to the video stoked another attack that was already in the works, planned by smaller militia not affiliated with Al Qaeda. Evidence suggests that hardline elements within the complex web of Islamist militias operating in Benghazi, including an uneducated loner and contrarian named Ahmed Abu Khattala, had been planning an attack, though it’s unclear when they had intended to strike. The U.S. government has sought to have Khattala apprehended in order to press charges, but authorities and powerful Islamist elements in Libya have closed ranks around the hardliner. 

4. American officials were overly reliant on moderate Islamist elements for protection. As the assault turned full fledged, officials called on the leaders of militias that had been publicly friendly to the U.S. to come to their aid. But when the time came, almost none turned up to rescue Americans trapped inside the compound. “Whatever happened, they were other Libyans,” said one Islamist leader who eventually did enter the compound after resisting at first. 

5. Inside the compound, attackers looted and plundered wildly. Witnesses describe men taking out suits on hangers, televisions and found food. One man reportedly poured what appeared to be Hershey’s chocolate syrup into his mouth. 

6. Benghazi joined the list of Faux News scandals such as- Obama's birth certificate is fake, he's Muslim, he's appointing more "czars" than anyone before, he's playing more golf than anyone before, he's creating FEMA camps, the IRS targeting the Tea Party gave him the election, he's a Marxist because he said "spread the wealth around".....

Fox News, Darrell Issa, Lindsey Graham, and other radical tin foil hat society members owe many apologies, most going to Susan Rice.

Reiterating, who the phuck knew Darrell Issa? You sir are today's asshat of the year! Congratulations Einstein, maybe you should go back to doing what you do best.....stealing cars.

NFTOS

Editor-In-Chief

Roger West
 

Is The NY Times Helping Andrew Breitbart Lie?

In today's New York Times profile, Jeremy Peters writes of Andrew Breitbart's smear of Shirley Sherrod (emphasis added):

Less than ethical Andie Breitbart

The most notorious video he put up -- one that almost ruined his career -- was a two-minute clip of Ms. Sherrod, a black Agriculture Department official, telling an N.A.A.C.P. gathering that she did not help a white man as much as she could have with his failing farm. The headline said "NAACP Awards Racism."  

The most notorious video he put up -- one that almost ruined his career -- was a two-minute clip of Ms. Sherrod, a black Agriculture Department official, telling an N.A.A.C.P. gathering that she did not help a white man as much as she could have with his failing farm. The headline said "NAACP Awards Racism."

But when the N.A.A.C.P. released a longer version of the video, it showed clearly that Ms. Sherrod's story was about overcoming racial prejudice, and that she did indeed go to great lengths to help the farmer. Defending himself, Mr. Breitbart said that the video came to him already edited, and that the crowd applauded when Ms. Sherrod said she did not help the man.

Critics seized on it as evidence that Mr. Breitbart selectively chooses content that reflects poorly on political opponents. But the episode only seemed to help bolster his status as a rising star on the political right.

Let's ignore how pathetic it is that part of Breitbart's defense is that he didn't care enough about the facts to find the full context of that video clip before he posted it on his website. Instead, let's focus on the way that the Times' Peters allows Breitbart to lie about the content of that clip.

Whether "the crowd applauded when Ms. Sherrod said she did not help the man" is not an opinion; it is an assertion of fact that can easily verified. One can go to Breitbart's website, find that clip, and listen for the alleged applause that Breitbart is citing to defend himself. It doesn't take long to do this bare minimum of fact-checking; the out-of-context clip is only 2 minutes 36 seconds long. Go ahead and watch it. I'll wait.  

Did you hear the applause? Of course not: It doesn't exist. But rather than actually attempting to verify Breitbart's claims, Peters simply reports them. Which is a smart thing to do when you're profiling a known liar.

This is not a new defense for Breitbart; he literally has been lying about this for 11 months. In interviews on July 20 and July 21 of last year, after his Sherrod smear had been completely debunked, Breitbart desperately tried to maintain his credibility by making up the applause story. As media began uncritically reporting his new claim, we did the due diligence that they (and Peters) did not, and actually reviewed the tape.

We found that, contrary to Breitbart's claim, the audience does not applaud at any point during Sherrod's story about her interaction with the farmer. We weren't the only ones to come to this conclusion. CNN's Anderson Cooper and NBC's Chuck Todd also checked the video and reported that Breitbart's claim was false.

You know who else debunked Andrew Breitbart's claim? Andrew Breitbart! In his initial post on the Sherrod clip, the one he says was supposed to definitively prove that the "NAACP Awards Racism," Breitbart didn't report that "the crowd applauded when Ms. Sherrod said she did not help the man"; he instead said that their reaction was one of "nodding approval and murmurs of recognition and agreement" (reactions explained by the fact that the clip leaves out that Sherrod previewed her story by explaining that it was one of redemption). If he really thought they were applauding, why didn't he mention that?

Because he's lying. And so we ask again: Why is the NY Times helping him lie?


NFTOS