Now the first thing I noticed about the New York Times piece is their outright refusal to call Ben Carson "doctor." His name was evoked several times in the rather lengthy piece, and each time, they used Mr., not Dr.
I thought that odd. Could it be that the Times is so threatened by Dr. Carson, a black neurosurgeon, that they felt the need to delegitimize him by demoting him to simply a Mister? Again, I thought this purposeful omission rather curious.
Now, I don't know if the Chinese are physically in Syria, and, frankly, neither does anyone else, to be certain. We can assume they are not because no one else has mentioned them, but that doesn't prove Dr. Carson is ill-informed or lying or both.
The Times begins by writing that, "Ben Carson's remarks on foreign policy have repeatedly raised questions about his grasp of the subject, but never more seriously than in the past week, when he wrongly asserted that China had intervened militarily in Syria and then failed, on national television, to name the countries he would call on to form a coalition to fight the Islamic State." Actually, that's not what he said. And as to the "coalition" question, his answer was simply to lead from the front. Begin an offensive campaign - others will see you're serious and follow your lead – and, voila, you have a coalition.
I'm not a Carson guy, but who is to say the Chinese aren't there, in some form or another. Are we to take only the word of the "experts" in the Obama administration – you know, the same ones who insist there is no threat of ISIS within the mass "refugee" infiltration into the United States? You mean those guys.
But the Times has evidently found someone who can shed light on Carson's buffoonery, and they make him out to be one of Carson's own and an impeccably reliable source. It's 83-year-old ex-CIA agent Duane R. Clarridge who is, according to the Times, a top Carson adviser, but who, according to the Carson campaign, is not.
"Nobody has been able to sit down with him [Carson] and have him get one iota of intelligent information about the Middle East," said a top adviser Duane R. Clarridge to Mr. Carson on terrorism and national security. He also said Mr. Carson needed weekly conference calls briefing him on foreign policy so "we can make him smart." Notice the Mr. Carson?
The Times writes that knowledge of foreign policy has been thrust to the fore, due to the recent terror attacks in Paris, but "both the White House and China denied that China had intervened militarily in Syria," and neither of them have ever been known to lie. One thing I've learned is that if you can't trust Obama and China, who can you trust?
Apparently, Carson and an aide spoke to an intelligence operative who said that Chinese military advisers were in the region working with the Russians. Although I have no way of knowing, I personally find that completely plausible, considering Russia's and China's collective hatred of the U.S.
Yet, the New York Times takes those comments by Carson and equates them directly to what Mr. Clarridge says. Clarridge tells the Times that the operative in Iraq had "overleaped" in suggesting that Chinese troops are in Syria, adding of the operative, "You know how it goes when people are desperate for some headline."
I don't mean to split hairs, but this is worth splitting. Chinese military advisers are a lot different that "Chinese troops." Don't we have "military advisers" in the region? Yet Obama has said repeated that we don't have "troops" in Syria, nor have we "intervened militarily." A few bombing runs isn't a military intervention. So I wonder who really is telling tall tales.
I also find it very interesting that the Times trots out Clarridge as being some rock of trust, when, back in 2011, the very same New York Times ran a smear piece on Clarridge, calling his intelligence dispatches "an amalgam of fact, rumor, analysis and uncorroborated reports…" They also claim he has fed information "to conservative commentators, including Oliver L. North, a compatriot from the Iran-contra days and now a Fox News analyst, and Brad Thor, an author of military thrillers and a frequent guest of Glenn Beck." Not Fox News and Glenn Beck! How could we ever trust him?
So, four years ago, ex-CIA agent Clarridge was an unhinged wacko and now he is a reliable source. Huh.Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.