As Goldberg's story unravels, the dying legacy media shifts its focus. What's up with that?
What do we do now that it's shifted?
In case you haven’t noticed, the Goldberg’s story is falling apart. He started out saying that they discussed war plans. Then he claimed that they were discussing “attack” plans. Neither of which was the case, causing his original premise to fall apart
What happens when a narrative starts unraveling? The dying legacy media shifts its focus, hoping we’ll forget the discredited narrative and that’s exactly what appears to be happening.
This morning I read a post that claimed the Signal story was far worse than previously reported. Supposedly, there was a text stating the terrorist was walking into his girlfriend’s apartment. I say supposedly because I don’t recall seeing that particular text message until now. However, I’m not here to discuss the veracity of the chat screenshot. Rather I’m interested in the attempt to shift the narrative away from its original premise claiming it posed a national security threat - the greatest ever, no less.
Funny, how it suddenly shows up after Goldberg’s story starts unraveling. Now instead of focusing on the very troubling potential breach of national security, they want us to focus on how the Signal chat shows the Trump administration doesn’t care about innocent civilians.
Give me a break. They certainly didn’t care about all the innocent lives that were lost during the Afghanistan withdrawal or those they left behind.
More to the point, they don’t care about all the innocent lives the Houthis have taken. They attacked unarmed vessels in the shipping lanes. I don’t recall the Dems or dying legacy media screaming about the Houthis harming those civilian lives. Nor did they really do anything about it. Neither have I heard them grieve over all the lives Houthis took in their own territory.
Before I go any further. Let me first point out the purpose of Goldberg’s original story. First, it was to make Trump’s administration look incompetent, even dangerous with the intent of bringing down his poll numbers. Second, it was to obscure the real story.
Goldberg didn’t succeed with their first objective. It didn’t hurt Trump’s popularity. In fact, the majority of people now believe the country is headed in the right direction.
However, it accomplished the second one somewhat effectively. Think about it. We saw no headlines about the successful killing of terrorists. If they truly cared about innocent civilians, they would be rejoicing that these terrorists, right? They did not.
When the story started to unravel, did they drop the narrative? No, they shifted the premise, claiming that the chat shows the Trump administration was callous and dangerous, hoping to make us forget the original faulty narrative and the success of the mission.
Of course, they also hoped to drive Trump’s poll numbers down. I suspect too they hoped to get Waltz or Hegseth to resign. So far, nothing is working for them. However, that won’t keep them from milking it until the next “mistake.”
Now I have to give the author of the aforementioned post some credit, at least he called out Goldberg for his unreliability. If he had any integrity, Goldberg would have identified himself and/or got off the phone, but he didn’t, again revealing his lack of integrity.
Actually, we should question anything coming from the Atlantic and the other usual suspects, considering their abysmal record. Their narratives have a way of unraveling and turning out to be fiction more than truth. Think the climate change hoax, the faux pandemic, the efficacy of the COVID vaccine and the list goes on and on.
What set off alarm bells in my head about the story in the first place?
It was the timing of it. Why did he wait 8 days to publish this earth shattering story? This could have been his Pentagon Papers moment. Considering his hatred for Trump, why didn't he expose immediately?
Instead, he just “happens” to expose it right before the Senate Intelligence briefing. What a coincidence. And why was any of the intelligence briefing done in public? Aren’t they usually held behind closed doors since supposedly they cover classified info. Maybe it’s OK now because Biden left classified docs in his garage, among other places and Hunter was allowed to attend classified briefings, even though he had no security clearance.
That makes me wonder, was the timing of the exposé to create a media circus and give the Dems an opportunity to voice how “very troubling” this could be to our national security and claim it as the greatest national security scandal ever. Never mind that they said nothing about Hillary’s server and again Biden’s gross mishandling of classified docs. Nor did they say anything when Lloyd Austin was MIA. Later, we found out he intentionally hid his hospitalization from Biden.
Nor were they concerned when 13 servicemen actually died. Nor were they bothered about the billions of dollars’ worth of equipment we left behind. After all, it was only taxpayer money. Since the withdrawal happened so quickly, I also wonder if there was time to burn all classified documents. It seems unlikely but we haven’t heard anyone express any concerns about that. I find all that happened with the Afghanistan withdrawal “very troubling,” especially that no one was held accountable or fired.
Why did the CIA preload the Signal app on their government phone?
I’m not the only one to be suspicious about the Signal story. I ran across a wonderful article by David Strom that spoke to this.
Somebody made a big mistake--we don't yet know who--or something hinky happened, but war plans were not leaked to a Trump-hating "journalist."
He goes on to list eight reasons why we should question the story, one being the one I asked. Why was the Signal app preloaded on the principals’ phones? I highly recommend reading it. At the end he states:
No doubt someone will contend that I am buying into a conspiracy. Again, based on the abysmal record of Jeffrey Goldberg, who is more of a fiction writer than a journalist, I absolutely question it. Why would I believe him with this story when every other story of his about Trump has turned out to be distorted and/or false? If a person lies once, I for sure question them going forward especially if they keep changing their story. That’s what my mother taught me and like Trump she was usually right.
There are indeed many unanswered questions regarding Goldberg’s story. So, before we follow the narrative shift, we need all the facts surrounding the original narrative. Of course, the point of shifting the story is to keep us from doing just that.
Reagan famously said: “trust but verify.” I’ve adopted his approach but in reverse: “verify first and then trust.”
If there is anyone’s words we should verify first before trusting, it’s Jeffrey Goldberg’s and, of course, the dying legacy media. If we do that, we have a chance of not falling for their distorted, ever changing narratives.
Most importantly, it gets us closer to the truth and above all else, that’s what we need - the truth.