“Anger” Brian Williams’ newest lie

MSNBC’s Brian Williams Says US Dropped Atomic Bomb ‘In Anger’

Pilot of bomber said: “I sleep clearly every night.”

Randy DeSoto May 27, 2016 | Western Journalism

MSNBC breaking news host Brian Williams once again is finding his on-air comments coming under scrutiny, after characterizing the United States’ use of the atomic bomb against Japan as being “in anger.”

The former NBC Nightly News anchor was responding to a point being made by his colleague, Andrea Mitchell, who was praising former Sens. Dick Lugar and Sam Nunn for their work on nuclear non-proliferation.

“[T]hat is still the threat that people worry about that this material will fall into the wrong hands,” said Williams. “If people have found the U.S. to be preachy in the years since Hiroshima and Nagasaki about the use of nuclear weapons, it’s because we’re the only nation to have used them in anger.”

“Sometimes, I am amazed that the world has been without these weapons all the years since, but it is a point of great pride by the people who have seen to it,” the MSNBC host added.

Obama observed that 60 million died during the war in all manner of brutality. “Yet in the image of a mushroom cloud that rose into these skies, we are most starkly reminded of humanity’s core contradiction,” he said. In other words, the United States, by choosing to drop the atomic bombs on Japan, was just as guilty of brutality as Nazi Germany or the Japanese.

He contended the images of those mushroom clouds, which resulted in the deaths of 140,000 in Hiroshima and 70,000 in Nakasaki, bringing an end to World War II, eclipse the images of the 6 million killed by the Nazis in concentration camps and the hundreds of thousands killed, brutalized and raped by the Japanese in nations throughout Asia.

President Harry S. Truman, who made the decision to drop the atomic bombs in August 1945, said he never lost sleep because of it. In 1963, he penned a letter (see below) expressing appreciation for a columnist who supported the wartime decision against those in the years following who had second-guessed his call.

The former president observed, “You must always remember that people forget, as you said in your column, that the bombing of Pearl Harbor was done while we were at peace with Japan and trying our best to negotiate a treaty with them.”

“All you have to do is to go out and stand on the keel of the Battleship in Pearl Harbor with the 3,000 youngsters underneath it who had no chance whatever of saving their lives. That is true of two or three other battleships that were sunk in Pearl Harbor. Altogether, there were between 3,000 and 6,000 youngsters killed at that time without any declaration of war. It was plain murder,” he continued.

“I knew what I was doing when I stopped the war that would have killed a half a million youngsters on both sides if those bombs had not been dropped. I have no regrets and, under the same circumstances, I would do it again — and this letter is not confidential,” Truman concluded.

The pilot of the plane that dropped the bomb on Hiroshima also stated he believed he did the right thing. “You’ve got to take stock and assess the situation at that time. We were at war. … You use anything at your disposal,” Enola Gay B-29 bomber pilot Paul Tibbets said in a 1975 interview. “I sleep clearly every night,” he added.

Thirty years later, on the 60th anniversary of the bombing in 2005, Tibbets told The Columbus Dispatch, “I knew when I got the assignment it was going to be an emotional thing. We had feelings, but we had to put them in the background. We knew it was going to kill people right and left. But my one driving interest was to do the best job I could so that we could end the killing as quickly as possible.”

Enola Gay navigator Theodore Van Kirk, who was the last surviving member of the crew, said in a 2010 interview that countless veterans who were slated to invade Japan thanked him over the years for saving their lives.

He added that the Japanese were spared the far greater destruction and death that would have resulted from a full-scale invasion by the United States.

“Whether they will accept it or not, dropping the atomic bomb saved their lives and our lives. If we had had to invade Japan, the Japanese casualties would have been much, much higher,” Van Kirk said.

Article at: http://www.westernjournalism.com/msnbcs-brian-williams-says-anger-caused-us-to-use-atomic-bomb/

Leave it to Williams to say something like that and not be challenged on it, as if it were fact. It is not new for BS Williams, but to have an anchor state this on a TV report is stupidity on steroids.

After talking to a my friend Pepp, who noted the word angry is also a common euphemism used for Trump and his supporters, I think that could be part of the impetus for it. So could that have been part of Williams political motivation for saying it? But he was wrong anyway. And he’s not far from Obama’s rhetoric either.

What emotion could have caused Williams’ labyrinth of lies?

Media in Meltdown Mode

First we had Brian Williams in liar-gate and now the steaming fresh George Stephanopoulos ‘donation derriere-gate’. But what is the message, other than media is not the responsible organ of public trust it ought to be? Media seems to be in a meltdown.

It makes an overall statement of lamestream’s credibility — right, it has none. More importantly to the point, what is the error it committed? They knew the track record and who these guys were when they negotiated and signed these mega contracts.

Breitbart: (Stephanopoulosis worse than Williams)

“Clinton Cash” author Peter Schweizer argued George Stephanopoulos’ behavior is worse than Brian Williams’ on Monday’s “Hannity” on the Fox News Channel.

Earlier, Schweizer said … “He certainly knew that he had donated to the Clinton Foundation and he also knew that — as I lay out in the article, he had participated in all these events. I mean, we’re not just talking about George Stephanopolous’ time — his money. We’re also talking about his time.

Does the MSM think a huge contract is going to change who they are? Does creating a nice job around them change anything?

Let’s take it a step further. The Clintons are perfect examples. Do we think the money or prestige of a large charitable foundation, in their name, is going to change who they are? Put some more lipstick on that pig. Was making her Secretary of State? Is running for president? Of course MSM knows who these people are and so do we. They are who they’ve always been.

So what is the shock and consternation from the media corporates? They knew what they were getting. Most of us saw the red flags when Stephanopoulos first surfaced as a media mogul. Sure they can install George at the head of a division or anything else, but guess what? He is still George Stephanopoulos — not wonder boy, Mediatron. Progressives love to reinvent themselves, they do it all the time, but it doesn’t change who they are.

Now we’ll have the debate, controversy about Brian Williams coming back. That gave me an idea. Why not put him back on journalism and embed him in Hillary Clinton’s campaign on the road? Between the two of them they would be able to create some of the best alternative reality we’ve ever heard. And that might be just the thing to kick start Hillary’s campaign. It would make for the most fascinating air-brushed coverage to draw the viewers, too. It’s the best of both worlds, media and politics, which in their case are pretty much the same thing. But they would know what they are getting.

Media and WH follow the same script

The only plausible explanation for Brian Williams — soon to become a verb — is that those notable prior anchors had correspondent experience in war zones etc. Some for many years. Williams wanted to embellish his slim resume. So he did.

So how would it feel to go home over the weekend and learn your version of reality doesn’t exist – and never did? Obama must have had several of those experiences.

Actually, Susan Rice and Hillary had similar experiences. It even happened at the IRS.
Of course their credibility required the willing suspension of disbelief anyway.

Brian Williams excuse road tour

Now that everyone in the free world knows the blunder Brian Williams made, let me put it in context. He made an attempt to apologize.

At least one guy, Christopher Chabris, is hypothesizing for newsy Brian that it could be a case of “false memory”.

An analogy of Brian’s tale is this: the difference between experiencing the effects of a tornado, to surveying the damage ten minutes after it went through.There is a huge difference. One does remember that kind of distinction. To conflate one with the other is a false memory? There’s also a difference between landing and a “hard landing” as he claimed.

But it is curious how many others in the media come to his defense, volunteering to attest to his honesty, bravery, and gutsy character. Enter Dan Rather.

Brian is an honest, decent man, an excellent reporter and anchor–and a brave one. I can attest that — like his predecessor Tom Brokaw — he is a superb pro, and a gutsy one.”

Of course a “false memory” could be whether you turned the coffee pot off or locked the door before leaving. But this distinction is breathtaking. I really thought it was me face-jumping off that building. I would have soon remembered, correctly, that it wasn’t. Because if this were an honest mistake, it required also denying the truth.

I bet that Baghdad Bob was probably a professor of false memory. Hillary Clinton is probably one person who wished Williams wouldn’t have said that right now.

Liar’s club

I think Liar’s Anonymous just found a new poster boy.

Like: Hi, I’m Brian Williams and I’m a liar. Nah, that is more than he’ll admit.

Williams was telling a story that he was on a helicopter in Iraq that was hit by an RPG and forced to land. The story comes from 2003, but he just repeated it again Friday at an event for a hero.

Then caught, he claims he doesn’t know why he misremembered it in that way. Maybe he and Hillary should get together sometime and share war stories.

See this article at Stars and Stripes.

Kind of begs the question how much of NBC’s newscast is misrepresentation?