Why Did "Anonymous" Write That Editorial?

The motivation for someone posting an Op-Ed piece like this in the New York Times may never be known. It is definitely not a creation of the NYT. They have a solid reputation as a newspaper and this would kill them. The source has chosen to remain anonymous to the public, but not to the New York Times.

They know the source. This is common journalistic practice since the founding of the republic. Nothing new there at all. Posting anonymously has removed an ability to attack the poster. This has served its purpose.

 

Sure, that would be a reason for The Times to print it.

I don't see it as a reason for the author to write it, unless his agenda is other than what is being represented.

I just see the editorial as being counterproductive to the author's stated agenda.

 

Assuming these words are the authors honest opinion , it is clear this "steady state" believes they know how to run the nation better than a duly elected President. It makes we wonder how many other Presidents have had this same confrontation with the steady state but quietly capitulated rather than risk being thrown out of office.

As an example, I never thought the Obama Administration would be involved in interfering in the Russian elections or running guns to IS terrorists and I never thought Obama would get the US involved in the ousting of the governments of Syria and Libya and what ever is going on in Yemen. Did President Obama realize he was no match for the bureaucratic machine and let them do as they wished?

 

'Anonymous' didn't write it, it was some NYT ghost writer using snippets of information and pretending to be someone important. The whole thing is a liberal sham. Either way its irrelevant, the left screwed the pooch on how they handled Trump. For going on two years they have created a new outrage every 7-10 days, without exception. The country as a whole is numb to these outrages, its just a dull throbbing buzz in our ears. Only the most rabid progs tune into the nonsense...

 

That was one of the first questions I had about the op-ed. Why? Why would they write this and expose themselves and the supposedly good work for the nation.

The only thing i can fathom is they are hoping Trump resigns or there will be an effort to remove Trump from office with out sufficient evidence (no smoking gun), they need all the PR/gossip they can get.

 

Sometimes people just feel it necessary to make a public statement, like when they're growing increasingly frustrated with the situation they find themselves in. I doubt there is any conspiracy behind it. People sure like to speculate along such paranoid lines, but more than likely this is just what it looks like.

 

To me, it looks like the author is working against himself.

 

Well, maybe. Alea iacta est, right? The die is cast. The writer can't tell the future any more than you or I can.

 

for my part, we don't even know that it was actually written by a trump staffer. hell, it could have been maxine waters... but i know it wasn't her because the grammar is too good and the pronouns are correct.

 

The NYT has plenty of editors, they wouldn't allow an unedited version to be printed.

 

The writings in question speak to me in ways perhaps it doesn't to others. It is a way of leveling the playing field. There were times, when working for corporations, I'd run into a bottle neck, of sorts. That is a moronic manager, sometimes a few levels above my own.

There were times a manager would insist things be done his way, even though everyone else knew he was in the wrong. Once there was this manager who insisted that our products have circuit breakers on the safety ground. Of course, putting a circuit breaker on a safety ground makes the safety ground useless. And it creates a shock hazard.

How we got around it was to create drawings with the circuit breakers in place. We'd get the manager to sign off on them and release the drawings. We would then immediately revise the drawings, which didn't require his signature, removing the unwanted circuit breakers, and release the revised set of drawings to manufacturing.

I always worked in product design, which allowed, even required, that I stick my fingers into all parts of a company. This worked to my advantage when dealing with troublesome higher-ups. A troublesome manager tends to be troublesome to a lot of people. By being friendly with the guy in incoming inspection, feeding him drawings, with less hassle than through formal channels, and the subtle flirtations, the lady in purchasing and I played at work, it became easy to frustrate, to gently push priorities.

However the most effective was in letter writing. Being in a position to see a manager in action, to see his effects on those under him, and those from other departments who have to deal with him, all the while seeing how it is effecting quality and productivity, put me in a position to honestly paint a bad manager in all of his ill effects.

The thing is, to write such a letter is insubordination, perhaps the worse crime an employee can commit against a corporation.

However, a letter sent quietly to those at the top, detailing the incompetencies and abuses of a particular middle manager, even if it is signed, fly on the wall, can have a profound impact.

More than once, I've seen troublesome managers quietly resign after such letters have been written. Are the US citizens not the higher-ups of Donald Trump.

Then there is the instigation angle. It is meant to play with the mind of Donald Trump. It frustrates him and makes him distrustful of those around him. There are even those who say that the letter writer could have been his daughter.

 

Wow..I think this takes the prize for conspiracy theories

 

It worked for Stalin!

 

spreading distrust and division in the Trump Camp.

 

They probably did, but making it "inside the white house" flavor gets a lot more play.

 

>
Why Did "Anonymous" Write That Editorial?

Likely for the same reason everyone else either leaves or gets taken....FEAR.

 

That is why the NYT wrote it, because they can sell papers and no fear.

By the way, is this the Hillary way, with a 150 dead bodies near them over the years?

 

…...HILLARY!!!....

 

Name all the dead people around Trump! I cannot even think of ONE. Just ask Vince.

 

I will tell you why. We have a President who embraces communist dictators and antagonizes our allies, the Western democracies.

Trump has complimented Kim Jong Un's authoritarian rule in North Korea. "He's the head of a country, and I mean he's the strong head," Trump told Fox News Channel. "Don't let anyone think anything different. He speaks and his people sit up at attention. I want my people to do the same."

Trump, in an interview with Fox News’ Sean Hannity, again complimented Kim Jong Un after their Singapore summit. “He’s got a very good personality, he’s funny, and he’s very, very smart,” Trump said. “He’s a great negotiator, and he’s a very strategic kind of a guy.”

To this day Trump has never singled out Russia for interfering in our 2016 Presidential election. At the Helsinki summit he rejected American intelligence and agreed with the communist dictator. Standing alongside Russian President Vladimir Putin he touted Putin's vigorous denial and pivoted to complaining about the Democratic National Committee's server and missing emails from Hillary Clinton's personal account."I have great confidence in my intelligence people, but I will tell you that President Putin was extremely strong and powerful in his denial today," Trump said during a joint news conference.

This contrasts sharply with Trump's treatment of our friends and allies. On June 1st he imposed a 25% steel tariff and a 10% aluminum tariff on Canada, Mexico, Japan, Australia, and the 28 countries of the EU. As a consequence Trump became persona non grata at the G-7 Summit in June. Trump had arrived late to the summit and left early. In between a war of words erupted between Trump and our G7 allies. In the process he made a new enemy, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. Imagine that, Canada, for crying out loud. There is something seriously wrong when an American President makes an enemy of Canada.

Next came the NATO summit and matters did not improve. Indeed, Trump made matters worse, as if that were possible. The New York Times wrote, "NATO, a pillar of the global order, emerged from a two-day confrontation with President Trump on Thursday intact but distracted and shaken, a further challenge to the alliance as it faces an expansionist Russia and growing authoritarianism among some of its own members.

"Wrapping up talks with fellow leaders of the 29-nation trans-Atlantic alliance, Mr. Trump reaffirmed support for NATO, but only after stirring more discord with a vague threat that the United States could go its own way if the allies resisted his demands for additional military spending, capping a summit meeting punctuated by his escalating complaints."

Next, Trump traveled to Britain. Britain has been our staunches ally (along with Canada) for over a hundred years. Standing alongside
Prime Minister Theresa May Trump announced that May’s Conservative party rival, Boris Johnson, who had resigned as foreign secretary, would be a great prime minister.

If it were not for Trump's loyal base, to whom he can do no wrong, Trump approval rating would be hovering around 10%.

 

That's my suspicion as well. The editorial came out in conjunction with the publicity roll out of Woodward's book.

 

You wrote an essay. Good job!

What did the Times editorial's author hope to accomplish?

Why would he, on the one hand claim to be satisfied with the results, so far, while undercutting the potential for future positive results?

 

NYT was caught in 2011 calling an anonymous source (who turned out to be an intern) a 'senior official'

 

Do you, then, believe that the editorial, and/or the representation of its author is a fraud?