You ever watch a video online and have to double check that it is not fake. I was watching video from MSNBC’s “The Last Word” with anchor Lawrence O’Donnell and I began to wonder if maybe the first successful brain transplant had been performed between O’Donnell and Alex Jones. If you have read my blog for any length of time then you know I have issues when mundane events are explained with overly complex and dramatic conspiracy theories because while they can be entertaining they are just lazy thinking in the way that they hammer square facts into round story holes. The latest that O’Donnell was shopping to his viewers… all twelve of them, was a scheme in which Putin had planned a false flag operation with Syria’s Bashar al-Assad to purposefully deploy a small scale chemical weapons attack to allow President Trump to unleash a missile strike against Syria in order to distract the American public. Uh okay… this is the talk of the insane and one of the producers at MSNBC needs to take Mr. O’Donnell in to have his medication dosages checked.
O’Donnell’s descent down to crazy town begins with him outlining a potential conversation that he believes that there is some probability that might have occurred between Vladimir Putin and Bashar al-Assad in which Putin suggests that Syria kill women and children in horrible ways with chemical weapons so Donald Trump in the White House can watch it on TV and then bomb the crap out of his country. I can rephrase this a 100 different ways and each and every time it is looney tunes.
“It’s perfect, just perfect. I wish it wasn’t. If Vladimir Putin, if, if, if Vladimir Putin masterminded the last week in Syria, he has gotten everything he could have asked for. Vladimir Putin was essentially the man in charge of making sure that Syria got rid of all of its chemical weapons under a deal with the Obama administration. And so it makes perfect sense to question whether President Bashar al-Assad would have checked with his most important patron, Vladimir Putin, before using chemical weapons that Vladimir Putin was supposed to have helped get rid of. It would be terribly embarrassing to Vladimir Putin if President Assad had exposed Vladimir Putin as having completely failed to get rid of those chemical weapons. You wouldn’t want to be Bashar al-Assad in a conversation with Vladimir Putin after that, unless you had a conversation with him before that. Unless Vladimir Putin said, ‘I have an idea. go ahead, do a small chemical attack, nothing like the big ones you’ve done in the past, just big enough to attract media attention. So that my friend in the White House will see it on TV. And then, Donald Trump can fire some missiles at Syria, that’ll do no real damage, and then the American news media will change the subject from Russian influence in the Trump campaign and the Trump transition and the Trump White House.’ It’s perfect.”
Towards the end of his little diatribe he says, “you will hear opinion in this hour that is counter to the possible scenario that I have just outlined, but what you won’t hear is proof that that scenario that I’ve just outlined is impossible.” So I have grown pretty numb to the mainstream media floating accusations against President Trump that are based upon rumor and innuendo without offering any proof, but here is where O’Donnell has truly gone off the deep end. He is now suggesting that he can offer up any bat crap crazy scenario and if you cannot immediately disprove the impossible we must therefore accept that there is a possibility that it occurred. This sets a dangerous precedent for any journalist or opinionist on any mainstream media as they can simply libelously slander any person who they wish to discredit with any story, even if the percentage chance of the story actually being true is a remote .000003% then they are within their rights to run with it, if definitive proof cannot immediately be offered to counter their accusation.
In his crazy theory he builds in both his justification (It might be right) and his out (It might be wrong) and then demands that his reporting be disproved by the viewer. Historically we have asked reporters to actually provide facts and details that support the story on which they report, but in this case he lays out a case that while exceedingly unlikely almost certainly cannot be disproved and then uses this newly created narrative to discredit the President. At best it is nakedly bias and at worse it is dangerously negligent, but in either case I am sure this is how Orwell’s Ministry of Truth begins.