Subscribe to the IHARE Blog

State of American History, Civics, and Politics

Suppose the New York Times and Anonymous Already Plan on Going Public

Another Delivery to the New York Times

Suppose the New York Times and Anonymous already plan on going public. In the past 24-hours or so, I have heard a great many people on radio and TV and I have read articles in print and on the web about Anonymous. One common comment is “Why now?” Another relates to how does this op-ed piece advance the cause to which Anonymous aspires. The follow-up thought declares that its publication makes no difference, causes no change, solves no problem…unless simply ticking off the impulsive child President was the goal.

At the same time, Anonymous is referred to a senior administration official in the singular. One possibility floated about is that Anonymous has military/security/diplomatic experience.

Let’s follow through on that supposition. People with that kind of experience make plans. They consider different scenarios. They ponder alternatives. They anticipate reactions. Is it possible that the New York Times and Anonymous never considered what would happen after the publication? We know they were aware of the possibility of being fired but did it ever occur to them that the identity of Anonymous would not remain a secret for long? Did they expect that everything would go back to normal after Hurricane Anonymous passed?

It seems more likely, that they anticipated the disclosure of the identity of Anonymous and decided to take control of the situation. After all, isn’t that what you expect if Anonymous had military background? We can see that deceptiveness is in the author’s toolkit. The use of the word “lodestar” is not a clue to author’s identity…except showing a familiarity with Mike Pence’s vocabulary. The Capital’s biggest brown nose is on a mission from God to become President. There are no circumstances under which he could be Anonymous.

The delay in announcing the identity of Anonymous is deliberate. It is a set up. It provides an opportunity for people to go on record in response to the op-ed piece. It provides an opportunity to prove the claims in the op-ed piece are true. It provides an opportunity to nail people to the wall and hang them out to dry once they have publicly responded.

Let’s consider the reactions of the target President, Congressional Republicans, and Fox.

As expected, the impulsive immature child was in full volcanic mode. There is nothing new there. What is interesting to observe is his choice of words to condemn the action. He called it “TREASONOUS.” One can be a traitor to one’s country. Even the person who thinks Canada burned the White House and Lincoln was a Democrat probably has heard of Benedict Arnold. Treasonous acts do threaten the national security, should be investigated, and should be punished. However, the narcissist is defining treason in terms of himself and not his country. Again, there should be no surprise there. But it substantiates the claims made about his amoral lack of values.

Between Woodward and Anonymous, he is in full form. He is an A+ president, doing a great job, possibly the greatest job ever by an American President. He anticipates a red wave. His polling numbers are great. No one can touch him in 2020. No doubt, Republicans, who, like the Chinese, only get their news from one source, the government-authorized propaganda media, agree. Anyone who reports otherwise is the enemy of the people engaging in FAKE NEWS.

Suppose the very stable genius is wrong about the red wave. Suppose the Democrats win control of the House. Suppose the Democrats act on that basis and investigate all the items on the Republican hit list of potential problems where they are at risk. Will the President honor the election results? If a blue wave puts Democrats in charge will the President of the United States honor the results or will he demand a full investigation into the rigged results?

Suppose the very stable genius is wrong about 2020 (assuming he is still in office and chooses to run again)? Will the President honor the election results? Will the President leave the White House voluntarily? Will he demand a full investigation into the rigged results? Will he remain in the White House until the investigation by his Attorney General (not a stupid Southerner)is completed? (Can he go without playing golf for that long?)

Our A+ President who is doing a great job can’t be subpoenaed, can’t be impeached, and can’t be voted out of office.

If Anonymous (and Woodward’s) goal was to expose the truth, getting his reactions has been priceless.

Turning now to the Congressional Republicans, the response to Anonymous is not surprising. They couldn’t care less about the merits of what Anonymous wrote. Their only interest is to punish Anonymous. This reaction confirms my longstanding belief that when the little boy exclaimed that the Emperor was naked, he would immediately be stomped to death by an enraged mob that didn’t want to know the truth.

Finally, there is Fox News. Fox has been hyperventilating about the Deep State subverter of the vote of the American people. They don’t care about the Russian violation of that vote. They do care about how the duly-elected President is being thwarted by unelected people who think they know better than the American people what should be done. Fox vehemently castigates the White House Resistance (plural) who put their judgment over that of the We the People. One almost gets the impression that Fox considers Anonymous and the Resistance to consist of Democrats, holdovers from the Obama administration.

Now let’s return to the original suggestion: suppose the New York Times and Anonymous already plan on going public. Imagine if Anonymous is a composite. Imagine if multiple people contributed to its writing. No one would be trumping if they denied writing it since no one person did write it. Now imagine say, H. R. McMasters, John Kelly, and James Mattis, as military hero John McCain was dying, finally saying, “enough is enough.” Suppose the career military officers who have been repeatedly humiliated by the ignorant 5th grader decided that they had had it. Suppose these people decide to go public and expose Crazytown. Suppose these people decided to set up Congressional Republicans as ballless and Fox as brainless. Suppose these people publicly sited chapter and verse documenting that the incumbent President lacks the emotional maturity, knowledge, and character to hold that position and that he should be removed from office as soon as possible. Then what?

It’s not Seven Days in May. It’s not Dr. Strangelove. But it’s not General McArthur either.

Obviously I am speculating but it is unreasonable to assume that Anonymous is a one-act event. There’s more to come.

2 thoughts on “Suppose the New York Times and Anonymous Already Plan on Going Public

  1. Great piece!!!!!!! i love how you do a step by step, almost like Dayenu!!!!! anyway, its so well done. I posted it on my Facebook page

    He’s absolutely right that they wouldn’t have published without weighing the consequences. I do hope that it’s a self-reveal; that would be honorable and confirm that indeed this person(s?) will stand up for what they wrote. What worries me is that they only wrote it when it seems they might be outed anyway by the Woodward book. Not because of “good people on both sides” or children separated and interned at the border or any of the host of other dreadful acts perpetrated by the administration.

  2. Best thing I’ve seen from you in a while.


    Dr. Adam Garfinkle
    Editor, The American Interest
    1730 Rhode Island Avenue, NW
    Suite 707
    Washington, DC 20036-3116

Comments are closed.