Zoals al werd verwacht door velen en zeker door Caitlin Johnstone, is het UFO rapport van de Directeur van de Nationale Veiligheidsdiensten* (Director of National Intelligence >> DNI) geen bevestiging van wat het grote aantal UFO ‘gelovigen’ zeker denkt te weten: dat zich af en aan UFO’s in onze atmosfeer ophouden. Nee, integendeel, het rapport is juist voer voor de figuren die de Koude Oorlog 2.0 ‘in volle glorie’ willen optuigen…….
Ga maar na: in het rapport wordt niet gesteld dat de ‘ontmoetingen’ van luchtmachtpiloten met UFO’s duiden op buitenaards leven, maar dat dit heel goed de nieuwste technieken kunnen zijn van Rusland of China……. Totaal belachelijk daar men alleen de getuigenissen van piloten meeneemt die deze ‘ontmoetingen’ de afgelopen 21 jaar deden, terwijl dezelfde getuigenissen al van na de Tweede Wereldoorlog dateren……..
Met het voorgaande kan je zeggen dat men expres die ‘ontmoetingen’ alleen voor deze eeuw heeft genomen om zo de Russen of Chinezen te kunnen aanwijzen als degenen die deze ‘UFO technologie’ hebben gefabriceerd…… Terwijl deze ‘ontmoetingen’ al plaats vonden vanaf eind 40er jaren van de vorige eeuw…. Veronderstel dat Rusland of China al lang over deze ‘buitenaardse technologie’ zouden hebben beschikt,waarom zou men deze dan niet al lang hebben ingezet tegen de VS??!!!!
Vergeet niet dat de VS al vanaf president George W. Bush en zijn opvolgers Obama, Trump en nu Biden bezig is om Rusland meer en meer te demoniseren……. Waarvoor men het liefst de hulp aanwijst die Rusland gaf aan de in feite zelfstandige enclaves in Georgië** (die men in het westen valselijk een inval van Rusland in Georgië noemt) en de ‘annexatie’ van De Krim, deze 2 zaken ziet men als bewijs van ongebreidelde Russische agressie…… De opstand in Oekraïne werd door de VS georganiseerd en geregisseerd, inclusief het inhuren van de scherpschutters die op het Maidanplein demonstranten en politieagenten doodschoten….. De VS trok voor de hele operatie en de voorbereiding maar liefst 4 miljard dollar uit……
Uiteraard verwachtte de VS (onder Obama) en de NAVO dat Rusland De Krim zou annexeren, daar haar belangrijkste ijsvrije marinehavens zich op De Krim bevonden (en bevinden)…… Echter daarvoor had men Rusland in het geheel niet nodig, daar de bewoners van De Krim met een grote meerderheid, inclusief de oorspronkelijke bewoners, in een door internationale waarnemers als eerlijk en goed verlopen beoordeeld referendum kozen voor aansluiting bij Rusland, dit daar zij tegen de coup waren waarbij de door hen democratisch gekozen president Janoekovytsj werd afgezet…. De bewoners van De Krim wilden eenvoudigweg niet leven onder een neonazi junta die werd geleid door de corrupte fascist Porosjenko…….
Hetzelfde geldt voor de Donbass regio in het oosten van Oekraïne, ook die bewoners daar wensten niet te leven onder de neonazi-junta die in feite werd geparachuteerd door de VS, echter zij besloten niet tot aansluiting bij Rusland, maar verklaarden zich onafhankelijk….. Schandelijk genoeg zegt men nu ook dat Rusland dat gebied zou zijn binnengevallen, te zot voor woorden, immers als het Russische leger zich in Oost-Oekraïne zou bevinden, hadden deze de neonazi-bataljons van het Oekraïense leger al lang en breed het gebied uitgeschopt……. Trouwens waarom zouden de 3 nu onafhankelijke staatjes in Oost-Oekraïne toestaan dat het Russische leger hun gebied zou binnenvallen, terwijl zij zich onafhankelijk verklaarden??!!! Daarnaast: als dit al waar zou zijn, waarom zou de NAVO dan een paar maanden geleden (zo hypocriet) hebben gedemonstreerd tegen de Russische troepensamentrekking voor de grens met Oost-Oekraïne??
Het voorgaande wat betreft De Krim haalde een dikke vette streep door de verwachting van de VS en haar andere NAVO-lidstaten (dat de Rusland De Krim zou binnenvallen), echter men hield en houdt sinds die tijd staande dat Rusland De Krim heeft geannexeerd en dat met grote steun van de westerse reguliere media, die elke onafhankelijkheid jaren geleden al zijn kwijtgeraakt doordat spuugrijke figuren die media hebben overgenomen*** en daarbij wensen dat hun belangen worden gediend en die gaan gelijk op met de belangen van het grote aantal neoliberaal geregeerde westerse landen….. Belangen als het lobbyen voor wapenfabrikanten, door oorlogsvoering van westerse landen in bijvoorbeeld het Midden-Oosten en dit als noodzakelijk te verkopen door die media waarvan de eigenaren grootaandeelhouders zijn van deze wapenfabrikanten, immers hoe meer oorlog hoe meer winst…… (hetzelfde geldt voor de aandelen van oliemaatschappijen, farmaceuten en die van de financiële wereld >> lees de financiële maffia) Bovendien: is het niet vreemd dat er in de reguliere westerse media amper of geen kritiek wordt geleverd op de massamoord op verdachten die de VS middels drones begaat, waarbij meer dan 90% van de slachtoffers niet eens werd verdacht…….
Uiteraard is de ‘UFO openbaring’ van de DNI een nieuw vat olie op het al wakkerende vuur van de Koude Oorlog 2.0 en daarmee een ‘mooie gelegenheid’ om meer geld voor defensie te eisen en dat op een moment dat de VS, de grootste terreurstaat ter wereld, voor 2021 al een budget voor illegale oorlogsvoering (‘defensie’) heeft van 735 miljard dollar….. Tja door angst te zaaien kan je geld loskrijgen bij de regering…… (neem ook de Coronacrisis, die in de VS heeft gezorgd voor een fikse toename van het aantal miljardairs…..)
The Office of the Director of National Intelligence has released its hotly anticipated UFO report,
which at nine pages in length with no new information is about as
spectacular a letdown for UFO enthusiasts as you could possibly get. It
does however contain multiple lines which will likely be useful for cold
warrior policymakers going forward, just as we forecast earlier.
In summary:
The ODNI says there do appear to be unidentified objects in US airspace behaving in ways the government can’t yet explain.
No direct mention is made of the possibility that these objects could be extraterrestrial in origin.
Direct mention is made of the possibility that UFOs could be highly advanced Russian or Chinese technology.
UFOs “pose a hazard to safety of flight” and could be a national security threat.
Those last two points are the only ones which US policymakers of any significance are going to pay attention to.
“UAP
[Unidentified Aerial Phenomena] clearly pose a safety of flight issue
and may pose a challenge to U.S. national security,” the report says.
“Safety concerns primarily center on aviators contending with an
increasingly cluttered air domain. UAP would also represent a national
security challenge if they are foreign adversary collection platforms or
provide evidence a potential adversary has developed either a
breakthrough or disruptive technology.”
“UAP
pose a hazard to safety of flight and could pose a broader danger if
some instances represent sophisticated collection against U.S. military
activities by a foreign government or demonstrate a breakthrough
aerospace technology by a potential adversary,” the report adds.
“Some UAP may be technologies deployed by China, Russia, another nation, or a non-governmental entity,” it also says.
Adds “the Defense Department and Intelligence Community have a lot of work to do before we can actually understand whether these aerial threats present a serious national security concern.”
279 likes
156 people are talking about this
While
the authors of the report also say they “currently lack data to
indicate any UAP are part of a foreign collection program or indicative
of a major technological advancement by a potential adversary,” the fact
that Russia or China magically leapfrogging US technology by centuries seventy years ago has
been validated as a possibility by the report is a gift to cold
warriors eager to ramp up aggressions and inflame a high-budget arms
race against those nations.
“For
years, the men and women we trust to defend our country reported
encounters with unidentified aircraft that had superior capabilities,
and for years their concerns were often ignored and ridiculed. This
report is an important first step in cataloging these incidents, but it
is just a first step. The Defense Department and Intelligence Community
have a lot of work to do before we can actually understand whether these
aerial threats present a serious national security concern.”
As I’ve been sayingrepeatedly,
the odds of this new UFO narrative entering mainstream consciousness
courtesy of the Pentagon, military/intelligence operatives, and corrupt
warmongering politicians at the same moment the US begins implementing a
new cold war against Russia and China is far too convenient for mere
coincidence to be a likely explanation. We can expect to see the hawkish
agendas of warmongers like Marco Rubio further advanced by this new UFO
narrative going forward.
_________________________
Sorry for no audio on this one; we’re out of town today.
The best way to make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for at my website or on Substack, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, following me on Facebook, Twitter, Soundcloud or YouTube, or throwing some money into my tip jar on Ko-fi, Patreon or Paypal. If you want to read more you canbuy my books. Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish, use or translate any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here.
* DNI: de directeur van alle veiligheidsdiensten in de VS en dat zijn er meer dan 25, waarvan de bekendsten: de CIA en de NSA.
** Hier wat professor Stephen Cohen zei over de ‘Russische oorlog tegen Georgië’:
STEPHEN
COHEN: I’m not aware that Russia attacked Georgia. The European
Commission, if you’re talking about the 2008 war, the European
Commission, investigating what happened, found that Georgia, which was
backed by the United States, fighting with an American-built army under
the control of the, shall we say, slightly unpredictable Georgian
president then, Saakashvili, that
he began the war by firing on Russian enclaves. And the Kremlin, which
by the way was not occupied by Putin, but by Michael McFaul and Obama’s
best friend and reset partner then-president Dmitry Medvedev, did what
any Kremlin leader, what any leader in any country would have had to do:
it reacted. It sent troops across the border through the tunnel, and
drove the Georgian forces out of what essentially were kind of Russian
protectorate areas of Georgia…..
*** Onlangs nam miljonair Chris Oomen persangentschap ANP over, volgens hem als wapen tegen ‘fake news’ (nepnieuws), waarmee hij in feite de vrijheid van meningsuiting geweld aandoet…… Zie: ‘Miljonair Oomen koopt ANP ‘om nepnieuws (fake news) te kunnen bestrijden….’‘ (en zie de links in dat bericht!!)
Gisteren
schreef ik al een bericht over de nieuwe meer dan belachelijke
aantijgingen van de geheime diensten in de VS als zouden Rusland,
China, Iran, Venezuela en zelfs Hezbollah de verkiezingen in de VS
hebben gemanipuleerd of dat hebben geprobeerd en zoals gewoonlijk
zonder ook maar één nanometer aan bewijs……*
GlennGreenwald heeft een uitgebreid artikel over deze zaak gepubliceerd
op zijn site, waarin hij begint met het analyseren van de leugen gebracht door
geheime diensten en de reguliere (massa-) media in de VS over de het
lekken van gegevens afkomstig van de laptop van Hunter Biden, die in
handen kwam van de New York Post.
De
New York Post publiceerde documenten van deze laptop waaruit bleek
dat Hunter Biden en andere familieleden misbruik maakten van de naam
Joe Biden (die immers eerder vicepresident was onder
oorlogsmisdadiger Obama) om zaken te doen met Oekraïne, China en
andere landen.
Voormalige
hooggeplaatsten van de CIA en leden van andere geheime diensten in de
VS, stelden dat het om Russische desinformatie ging….. Twitter en
Facebook besloten daarop de New York Post de toegang tot hun platform
te ontzeggen……. John Brennan, CIA directeur onder Obama, heeft samen
met de al aangehaalde figuren uit de geheime diensten een brief opgesteld waarin
men stelde dat de zaak alle kenmerken had van Russische informatie
operaties….. Hoewel dezelfde figuren benadrukten dat ze niet
wisten of de gepubliceerde e-mails echt waren en dat ze geen bewijs
hadden van Russische manipulatie…… (moet je nagaan….)
Echter
deze toevoeging was voor de media die deze leugen brachten geen reden
om in te binden, integendeel men ging gewoon door en Facebook stelde
zelfs een algoritme in te zetten om berichtgeving over deze zaak
tegen te houden……. En dan te bedenken dat eerder een zogenaamde
Russische trollenfarm zich in de VS bevond, terwijl al lang bekend is
uit publikaties van de Wikileaks Vault 7
documenten dat de VS op grote schaal hackt en daarbij cyberterreur
begaat en spioneert maar dat op een slimme manier kan doen lijken alsof
bijvoorbeeld Rusland, China, Iran, of Noord Korea de dader is…….
Glenn
Greenwald, van The Intercept, die wel over deze zaak berichtte,werd
terechtgewezen door zijn meerderen die hem wilden dwingen om passages
over Biden weg te laten,waarop zijn artikel niet werd geplaatst
en Greenwald besloot The Intercept te verlaten.
Het
is zelfs zo zot dat een redacteur van de Washington Post stelde dat
‘we de Hunter Biden lekken moeten behandelen alsof ze van een
buitenlandse geheime dienst komen, zelfs als ze dat waarschijnlijk
niet zijn……’ (knettergek!!) De enige keer dat de regering van
de VS reageerde op deze zaak, middels de Director of National
Intelligence (DNI), stelde deze dat Bidens laptop geen deel uitmaakt van
een Russische desinformatie campagne……….
Ach
het is een herhaling van zetten in de Russiagate leugen, ook daarvoor
is totaal geen bewijs geleverd, echter men houdt gewoon driftig vol
dat dit wel zo is, overigens ook in de rest van het westen, waaronder
Nederland….. Gistermorgen op BNR rond 8.51 u. de meer dan belachelijke
‘buitenlanddeskundige’ Hammelburg, deze enorme flapdrol (letterlijk en
figuurlijk) sprak over de uitlating van Biden dat Putin een
moordenaar is. Daarbij noemde hij Sputnik de ‘roeptoeter van de
Russische overheid’, gelul >> op Sputnik wordt wel degelijk
kritiek geleverd op de overheid, maar zelfs als dat zo zou zijn, zie
de VS, waar niet 1 of 2 mediaorganen de overheid zouden dienen als
roeptoeter, maar een hele reeks, van de New York Times tot CNN en daarvoor is een dossierkast aan bewijzen te leveren…..
Volgens
Biden (en Hammelburg) is Putin een moordenaar als het gaat om Navalny…… Als Putin de neonazi Navalny had willen laten vermoorden was deze bewezen misdadiger al lang en
breed onder de zoden verdwenen, bovendien kan deze ploert niet zijn
vergiftigd met novitsjok daar hij dan dood zou zijn, immers een vergiftiging
daarmee is zonder meer dodelijk voor iedereen die er onbeschermd mee in aanraking
komt!!! Hammelburg durfde NB nog te stellen dat Putin ook een
moordenaar is vanwege het ontwikkelen in Rusland van biologische en
chemische wapens…… ha! ha! ha! ha! (vanmorgen herhaalde Hammelburg zijn leugens op BNR waar hij nu ook de Skripals aan toevoegde….)
Er
zijn 3 naties op de wereld die deze wapens vrij openlijk ontwikkelen
en dat zijn de VS (o.a. in Fort Detrick), Israël en Egypte….. In juli
2019 ontsnapte er ‘een virus’ uit één van de leger laboratoria van
Fort Detrick, waarop de basis werd ontruimd….. Een paar maanden
later vonden de militaire wereldspelen plaats in het Chinese Wuhan en
nog een paar maanden later werden de eerste gevallen van het
Coronavirus gevonden in Frankrijk, hoewel men dat toen nog niet wist,
een herbeoordeling van stalen bloed, afgenomen in november 2019
toonden aan dat deze mensen het… Coronavirus onder de leden
hadden…. Pas meer dan een maand laten, dus eind december 2019 werd
het eerste geval van Coronavirus ontdekt in China……… Ra ra hoe
is het allemaal mogelijk?? Intussen is zelfs bekend geworden dat het Coronavirus al eerder werd gevonden in later opnieuw beoordeelde bloedmonsters……
Uiteraard
herhaalde Hammelburg het verhaal van de geheime diensten in de VS
alsof Rusland, China, Iran e.a. de verkiezingen in de VS hadden
gemanipuleerd of daar een poging toe hadden ondernomen……. Zoals
Hammelburg nog steeds overtuigd is dat Russiagate bewezen is….. ha!
ha! ha! Ha! Deze mislukte zakkenwasser zou eens andere moeten
contacteren als hij weer eens een lulpraatje vertelt voor de radio!!
(hij gaf een aantal maanden gelden toe dat hij vrijwel altijd
‘deskundigen’ raadpleegt voor zijn columns en ander gekoekwaus……
Hé Hammelburg tijd voor echte deskundigen en eigen onderzoek,
waarbij je eens zou moeten zoeken of er bewijzen zijn voor wat je
durft te beweren, enorme hufter!!! (vorig jaar durfde hij mensen die
gebruik maken van de sociale media neer te zetten als kakkerlakken,
je weet wel zoals de nazi’s over minderheden spraken die ze het
liefst wilden uitroeien…….)
En
Hammelburg begin maar met het lezen van het artikel dat Glenn
Greenwald schreef, dan lees je eindelijk een artikel van een echte
deskundige!!
Eager
to obtain vindication for the pre-election falsehood they spread
about the Hunter Biden story, journalists falsely claim that the CIA
blamed Russia for it.
Hunter
Biden (L) and then-Vice President Joe Biden speak on stage at
Organization of American States on April 12, 2016 in Washington, DC.
(Photo by Teresa Kroeger/Getty Images for World Food Program USA)
Journalists
with the largest
and most influential media outlets disseminated an outright and quite
significant lie on Tuesday to hundreds of thousands of people, if not
millions, on Twitter. While some of them were shamed into
acknowledging the falsity of their claim, many refused to, causing it
to continue to spread up until this very moment. It is well worth
examining how they function because this is how they deceive the
public again and again, and it is why public trust in their
pronouncements has justifiably
plummeted.
The
lie they told involved claims of Russian involvement in the
procurement of Hunter Biden’s laptop. In the weeks leading up to
the 2020 election, The
New York Post
obtained that laptop and published a series of articles about the
Biden family’s business dealings in Ukraine, China and elsewhere.
In response, Twitter banned
the posting of any links to that reporting and locked The
Post
out
of its Twitter account for close to two weeks, while Facebook, though
a long-time Democratic operative, announced that it would
algorithmically suppress the reporting.
The
excuse used by those social media companies for censoring this
reporting was the same invoked
by media outlets
to justify their refusal to report the contents of these documents:
namely, that the materials were “Russian disinformation.” That
claim of “Russian disinformation” was concocted by a group of several
dozen former CIA officials
and other operatives of the intelligence community devoted to
defeating Trump. Immediately after The
Post
published its first story about Hunter Biden’s business dealings in
Ukraine that traded on his influence with his father, these career
spies and propagandists, led by Obama CIA Director and serial liar
John Brennan, published a
letter
asserting that the appearance of these Biden documents “has all the
classic earmarks of a Russian information operation.”
News
outlets uncritically hyped this claim as fact even though these
security state operatives themselves admitted:
“We want to emphasize that we do not know if the emails…are
genuine or not and that we
do not have evidence of Russian involvement
— just that our experience makes us deeply suspicious that the
Russian government played a significant role in this case.” Even
though this claim came from trained liars who, with uncharacteristic
candor, acknowledged that they did not “have evidence” for their
claim, media outlets uncritically ratified this assertion.
This
was a topic I discussed extensively in October when I announced
my resignation from The
Intercept
after senior editors — for the first time in seven years —
violated the contractual prohibition on editorial interference in my
journalism by demanding I significantly alter my reporting about
these documents by removing the sections that reflected negatively on
Biden. What I found particularly galling about their pretense that
they have such high-level and rigorous editorial standards —
standards they claimed, for the first time ever, that my article
failed to meet — was that a mere week prior to their censorship of
my article, they published an
article by a different journalist
which, at a media outlet we created with the explicit purpose of
treating government claims with skepticism, instead
treated the CIA’s claims of “Russian disinformation” as fact. Even
worse, when they quoted the CIA’s letter, they omitted the part
where even those intelligence agents acknowledged that they had no
evidence for their assertion. From The
Intercept
on October 21:
Their
latest falsehood once again involves Biden, Ukraine, and a laptop
mysteriously discovered in a computer repair shop and passed to the
New York Post, thanks to Trump crony Rudy Giuliani….. The U.S.
intelligence community had previously warned
the White House that Giuliani has been the target of a Russian
intelligence operation to disseminate disinformation about Biden, and
the FBI has been investigating whether the strange story about
the Biden laptop is part
of a Russian disinformation campaign.
This week, a group of former intelligence officials issued a letter
saying that the Giuliani laptop story has the classic
trademarks of
Russian disinformation.
Oh
my, marvel at those extremely rigorous editorial standards:
regurgitating serious accusations from ex-CIA operatives without
bothering to note that they were unaccompanied by evidence and that
even those agents admitted they had none. But, as they usually do
these days, The
Intercept
had plenty of company in the corporate media.
That
those materials were “Russian disinformation” became so
reflexively accepted by the U.S. media that it became the principal
excuse to ignore
and even censor the reporting, and it also helpfully handed the Biden
campaign an easy excuse to avoid answering any questions about what
the documents revealed. “I think we need to be very, very clear
that what he’s doing here is amplifying Russian
misinformation,” said Biden
Deputy Campaign Manager Kate Bedingfield when asked about the
prospect that Trump would raise the Biden emails at the debate. From
the CIA’s lips to the mouths of corporate journalists into the
hands of the Biden campaign.
As
the U.S. media disseminated this “disinformation” tale, nobody —
including the Bidens — has ever claimed let alone demonstrated that
a single document was anything other than genuine — something that
would be exceedingly easy to do if the documents were fraudulent.
“The Biden team has rejected some of the claims made in the NY
Post articles,but
has not disputed the authenticity of the [laptop] files upon which
they were based,” acknowledgedThe
New York Times.
Ample evidence corroborates
that the documents are genuine.
As
for the claims of Russian involvement in the laptop story, there was
never any evidence for it: none.
The CIA operatives who invented that storyline acknowledged that. The
week that tale emerged, The
New York Timesreported that
“no concrete evidence has emerged that the laptop contains Russian
disinformation” and the paper said even the FBI has “acknowledged
that it had not found any Russian disinformation on the laptop.” The
Washington Post
published an op-ed by Russia fanatic Thomas Rid who candidly
pronounced:
“We must treat the Hunter Biden leaks as if they were a foreign
intelligence operation — even if they probably aren’t.” And
the only time the U.S. Government has ever spoken on this question
was when the Director of National Intelligence stated:
“Hunter Biden’s laptop is not part of some Russian disinformation
campaign.”
These
documents raised important questions about the presidential
frontrunner’s knowledge of or participation in his family members’
attempt to profit off of their association with him, questions
implicating his integrity, ethics and honesty. Yet those documents
were suppressed by a gigantic fraud, perpetrated by the CIA and their
media allies, which claimed that the documents were forged and that
they came from Russia.
That
is the critical context
for the lie spread yesterday by numerous mainstream journalists. On
Tuesday morning, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence
declassified a short 12-page report
entitled “Foreign Threats to the U.S. 2020 Elections.”
It
reviewed the actions of numerous countries with regard to the 2020
election. The intelligence community claimed — without presenting
any evidence whatsoever — that “Russian President Putin
authorized…influence operations aimed at denigrating President
Biden’s candidacy and the Democratic Party, supporting former
President Trump, undermining public confidence in the electoral
process, and exacerbating sociopolitical divisions in the U.S.” The
New York Times’
largely credulous article
about this report contained this admission, one you would think (or,
rather, hope) would matter to journalists: “The declassified report
did not explain how the intelligence community had reached its
conclusions about Russian operations during the 2020 election.”
Despite
that glaring omission, media outlets predictably treated the
evidence-free assertions from the security state as fact. “Vladimir
Putin did it again,” trumpetedMother
Jones’ David
Corn without an iota of skepticism. CNN’s
Marshall Cohen actually said this:
Marshall Cohen @MarshallCohen
The report confirms what was largely assumed, and barely hidden, last year: Trump and his allies publicly embraced Russia’s disinformation campaign against Biden, met with Kremlin-tied figures who were part of the effort, and promoted their conspiracies
Think
about that: to a CNN
reporter, evidence-free assertions from the U.S. security state are
tantamount to “confirmation.” That they really do think this way
is nothing short of chilling. But that is the standard liberal media
posture of harboring reverence for the U.S. intelligence community
and treating its every utterance as Truth without the need for any
corroborating evidence. It is one of their defining attributes.
But
in this case, many of them went far beyond mere regurgitation of CIA
claims. Well beyond it: here, they fabricated a claim that report
also demonstrated that the Hunter Biden laptop materials were — as
they claimed before the election engineered by Russia. In
reality, the report did not even mention the Hunter Biden laptop
materials or allude to it, let alone claim that it was produced by
the Kremlin, let alone supply evidence that it constituted “Russian
disinformation.” But no matter: numerous journalists united to
spread the false claim far and wide that the report confirmed this
storyline.
The
first journalist to publish the falsehood was Patrick Tucker, an
editor at the journal Defense
One.
The tweet quickly went viral as liberals clicked “retweet” and
“like” so fast that at least several of them likely suffered
digital cartilage damage or at least a mild sprain:
The
claim that this report corroborated Russian involvement in the Hunter
laptop story picked up significant steam when MSNBC
host Chris Hayes endorsed it to his 2.3 million followers:
From
there, the claim was further spread by Hayes’ NBC
News colleague
Ben Collins, who — ironically — works in what the network calls
the “disinformation unit,” combatting the spread of
disinformation (by which Collins means tattling on 4Chan teenagers
and Facebook boomers, while never challenging the lies of real power
centers such as those from the intelligence community; those lies are
ones he amplifies):
With
this MSNBC host and the NBC disinformation agent on board, it was off
to the races. Journalists from across the corporate media sphere
spread this lie over and over. Here was CNN’s
Asha Rangappa:
Perhaps
the most embarrassing example was from S.V. Daté, the White House
correspondent of HuffPost
which, just last week, had dozens of its reporters laid
off
perhaps because, while they have numerous talented reporters, this is
the sort of thing they routinely do, causing them to lose trust among
the public. Daté did not just repeat the lie but used it to mock
those who actually did the reporting on these documents (note that
the section he underlined in red says nothing about the Hunter Biden
documents, nor does it say anything about Russia other than it
“amplified” various news stories):
S.V. Dáte @svdate
Hey, New York Post and everyone else who got suckered into the ridiculous Hunter Biden Laptop story.
As
this false claim went massively viral, conservativejournalists
— and only
they
— began vocally objecting that the report made no mention
whatsoever of the Hunter Biden laptop, let alone supplied proof for
this claim. That is because, with a few noble exceptions (such as The
Washington Post’s
media critic ErikWemple),
liberal journalists at corporate outlets will eagerly endorse but
never denounce or correct each other’s falsehoods. For that reason,
if you confine yourself to the liberal corporate media bubble, and
refuse to follow conservative journalists as well, you will be
propagandized and deceived.
Hayes,
to his credit, was one of the only journalists who helped spread this
falsehood and then quickly retracted it. He first acknowledged that,
upon reading the report, it did not appear that it actually made any
reference to the Hunter laptop, and then announced he would delete
his original tweet, conceding that the original claim was false. Note
how the original false claims go mega-viral, while the tweets which
subsequently acknowledge their falsity are seen by very few people:
With
one of his earliest boosters having jumped ship, Tucker himself, the
originator of this lie, first began backtracking while vowing he
would never delete the tweet, only to then relent and delete it,
acknowledging its falsity. Again compare the meager audience that
learns of the backtracking and acknowledgment of falsity compared to
the huge number exposed to the original false claim:
Patrick Tucker @DefTechPat
I’ve deleted a tweet that suggested that a recent ODNI report made explicit reference to the Hunter Biden laptop story. It makes reference to Andrii Derkach, a pro-Russian Ukrainian politician who was trafficking information remarkably similar to what showed up in the Post report
March 16th 2021
Thanks
to multiple journalists with large platforms spreading Tucker’s
original false tweet, it received thousands upon thousands of likes
and re-tweets. So, too, did the tweets of other journalists that
false claim, such as the one from HuffPost’s
White House Correspondent and this one from one of David
Brock’s goons
specifically claiming that the security state’s evidence-free
report somehow proves that my pre-election reporting on it was wrong.
Yet Tucker’s announcement that he was deleting his tweet on the
ground that the report does not make “explicit reference to the
Hunter Biden laptop story” has a grand total of three
retweets.
Indeed,
other than Hayes, it is difficult to find a journalist who
acknowledged that what they spread was a lie. Both CNN’s
Rangappa and NBC
News’
Collins simply allowed the tweet to quietly disappear from their
timeline when Tucker finally deleted his, saying nothing to the
thousands or tens of thousands of people they misled. Meanwhile, the
tweet from HuffPost’s
Daté is still
up
a full twenty-four hours after the key journalists who spread this
have acknowledged it was false.
Do
you see how
they behave? Take a look. Prior to the election, out of desperation
to ensure that Biden won, they censored and maligned this reporting
by mindlessly endorsing an assertion from life-long CIA operatives
that never had any evidence: ignore
these documents; they are Russian disinformation. They
not only invoked that claim to justify ignoring the story but also to
successfully agitate for its censorship by Twitter and Facebook. So
they spent weeks spreading an utter lie in order to help the
candidate that they favored win the election. Remember, these are journalists doing
that.
Then,
yesterday, the intelligence community issued a report that does not
even purport to contain any evidence: just assertions. And they all
jumped to treat it as gospel: no questioning of it, no skepticism, no
demands to see evidence for it, not even any notation that no
evidence was provided. They just instantly enshrined claims from the
CIA and NSA as Truth. How can you possibly be a journalist with even
minimal knowledge of what these agencies do and look in the mirror as
you do this?
But
so much worse, in this case, they just outright lied about what the
report said — just fabricated assertions that the report did not
even allude to, in order to declare their lies from last October to
be vindicated. Even if this report had asserted that the Hunter Biden
laptop materials were manufactured by the Kremlin, that
would prove nothing.
Evidence-free assertions from the U.S. intelligence community merit
skepticism, not blind faith — especially from people calling
themselves journalists.
But
the report did not even claim that. And when some of them realized
this, they did virtually nothing to rectify the severe disinformation
they had spent the day spreading. These are the people who claim to
be so profoundly opposed to conspiracy theories and devoted to
combating “disinformation”; as usual, they are the ones who
spread disinformation most recklessly and frequently.
The
fact that the false tweet from HuffPost’s
White House correspondent is still up is quite revealing, given that
that outlet just had to lay off a significant portion of its staff.
As newly arrived Substack writer Michael Tracey wrote in his
first article
on this platform (headlined: “Why Journalists Hate Substack”),
journalists are very good at lamenting when their outlets are forced
to lay off journalists but very poor at examining whether the content
their outlet is producing may be part of why it is failing:
So
when you see another round of layoffs, followed by another round of
exasperated Twitter lamentation about how horrible the industry is,
you have to wonder if these rituals ultimately function as an excuse
for journalists to forgo any kind of real self-examination. For
instance, why it is that the media organizations they inhabit always
seem to be in a constant state of free-fall? Sure, there are economic
factors at play that the journalists themselves cannot control. But
it would seem to behoove these journalists to maybe spend a little
bit less time complaining in the abstract about the depredations of
“the industry”—as though they are its hapless, beleaguered
casualties—and a little bit more time analyzing whether they have
contributed to the indisputable reality that huge cross-sections of
the public distrust
and despise the
media.
There
are multiple potential explanations for this dynamic worth
considering. Maybe it’s the tedious
hyper-partisanship and
weirdly outdated content
aggregation tactics
that much of the online media still employs. Maybe it’s the
constant five-alarm-fire
tone and incessant hyping of overblown threats that
was characteristic of the Trump years. Maybe it’s some combination
of all these and more—but you won’t see many axed journalists
offering up any kind of critical introspection, because when the
layoffs arrive it can never have anything to do with their own
ideological myopia or other shortcomings.
Indeed,
when anyone, including journalists, loses their job, it is
lamentable. But when one witnesses behavior like what these
journalists did yesterday, the only confounding part of the collapse
of this part of the media industry is that it is not happening
even more quickly and severely.
Altijd
leuk om weer een bevestiging tegen te komen over de leugen dat
Rusland de presidentsverkiezingen in de VS heeft beïnvloed t.g.v.
Donald Trump, de ‘lichtelijk’ imbeciele psychopaat.
Er
kunnen niet genoeg van deze berichten verschijnen, zeker als je dag
in dag uit westerse ‘journalisten’, politici en ‘deskundigen’ de leugen hoort
herhalen dat de Russen wel degelijk deze verkiezingen hebben
gemanipuleerd, iets waarvoor tot op heden geen flinter bewijs is
geleverd….. Zoals er ook geen nanometer bewijs is voor Russische bemoeienis met de Brexit, de roep om onafhankelijkheid in Catalonië of verkiezingen in de EU, terwijl ook dat bijna dagelijks de revue passeert……
Lees
het hieronder opgenomen artikel en verbaas je ook over het gemak
waarmee de wereld werd en nog steeds wordt voorgelogen met een zo
doorzichtig aantal leugens….. In deze geopenbaard door Jack
Matlock, een voormalig VS ambassadeur in Moskou. Hij stelt o.a. dat de aanname dat de VS inlichtingendiensten achter deze leugens staan, op zich al een leugen van formaat is en dat het zogenaamde inlichtingen rapport vooral politiek gemotiveerd is (o.a. om Hillary Clinton uit de wind te houden en de winst van Trump bij de presidentsverkiezingen ter discussie te stellen, Ap):
Former
US Ambassador: Intel Report on Russian Interference “Politically
Motivated”
Prominent
journalists and politicians seized upon a shabby, politically
motivated, “intelligence” report as proof of “Russian
interference” in the U.S. election without the pretense of due
diligence, argues Jack Matlock, a former U.S. ambassador in Moscow.
(CN Op-ed) — Did
the U.S. “intelligence community” judge that Russia interfered in
the 2016 presidential election?
Most
commentators seem to think so. Every news report I have read of the
planned meeting of Presidents Trump and Putin in July refers to
“Russian interference” as a fact and asks whether the matter will
be discussed. Reports that President Putin denied involvement in the
election are scoffed at, usually with a claim that the U.S.
“intelligence community” proved Russian interference. In fact,
the U.S. “intelligence community” has not done so. The
intelligence community as a whole has not been tasked to make a
judgment and some key members of that community did not participate
in the report that is routinely cited as “proof” of “Russian
interference.”
I
spent the 35 years of my government service with a “top secret”
clearance. When
I reached the rank of ambassador and also worked as Special Assistant
to the President for National Security, I also had clearances for
“codeword” material. At that time, intelligence reports to the
president relating to Soviet and European affairs were routed through
me for comment. I developed at that time a “feel” for the
strengths and weaknesses of the various American intelligence
agencies. It is with that background that I read the January 6,
2017 report of
three intelligence agencies: the CIA, FBI, and NSA.
This
report is labeled “Intelligence Community Assessment,” but in
fact it
is not that.
A report of the intelligence community in my day would include the
input of all the relevant intelligence agencies and would reveal
whether all agreed with the conclusions. Individual agencies did not
hesitate to “take a footnote” or explain their position if they
disagreed with a particular assessment. A report would not claim to
be that of the “intelligence community” if any relevant agency
was omitted.
The
report states that it represents the findings of three intelligence
agencies: CIA, FBI, and NSA, but even
that is misleading in
that it implies that there was a consensus of relevant analysts in
these three agencies. In fact, the report was prepared by a group of
analysts from the three agencies pre-selected by their directors,
with the selection process generally overseen by James Clapper, then
Director of National Intelligence (DNI). Clapper told the Senate in
testimony May 8, 2017, that it was prepared by “two dozen or so
analysts—hand-picked, seasoned experts from each of the
contributing agencies.” If you can hand-pick the analysts, you can
hand-pick the conclusions. The analysts selected would have
understood what Director Clapper wanted since he made no secret of
his views. Why would they endanger their careers by not delivering?
What
should have struck any congressperson or reporter was that the
procedure Clapper followed was the same as that used in 2003 to
produce the report falsely claiming that Saddam Hussein had retained
stocks of weapons of mass destruction. That should be worrisome
enough to inspire questions, but that is not the only anomaly.
The
DNI has under his aegis a National Intelligence Council (NIC) whose
officers can call any intelligence agency with relevant expertise to
draft community assessments. It was created by Congress after 9/11
specifically to correct some of the flaws in intelligence collection
revealed by 9/11. Director Clapper chose not to call on the NIC,
which is curious since its duty is “to act as a bridge between the
intelligence and policy communities.”
Unusual
FBI Participation
During
my time in government, a judgment regarding national security would
include reports from, as a minimum, the CIA, the Defense Intelligence
Agency (DIA), and the Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) of
the State Department. The FBI was rarely, if ever, included unless
the principal question concerned law enforcement within the United
States. NSA might have provided some of the intelligence used by the
other agencies but normally did not express an opinion regarding the
substance of reports.
What
did I notice when I read the January report? There was no mention of
INR or DIA! The exclusion of DIA might be understandable since its
mandate deals primarily with military forces, except that the report
attributes some of the Russian activity to the GRU, Russian military
intelligence. DIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency, is the U.S.
intelligence organ most expert on the GRU. Did it concur with this
attribution? The report doesn’t say.
The
omission of INR is more glaring since a report on foreign political
activity could not have been that of the U.S. intelligence community
without its participation. After all, when it comes to assessments of
foreign intentions and foreign political activity, the State
Department’s intelligence service is by far the most knowledgeable
and competent. In my day, it reported accurately on Gorbachev’s
reforms when the CIA leaders were advising that Gorbachev had the
same aims as his predecessors.
This
is where due diligence comes in. The first question responsible
journalists and politicians should have asked is “Why is INR not
represented? Does it have a different opinion? If so, what is that
opinion? Most likely the official answer would have been that this is
“classified information.” But why should it be classified? If
some agency heads come to a conclusion and choose (or are directed)
to announce it publicly, doesn’t the public deserve to know that
one of the key agencies has a different opinion?
The
second question should have been directed at the CIA, NSA, and FBI:
did all their analysts agree with these conclusions or were they
divided in their conclusions? What was the reason behind hand-picking
analysts and departing from the customary practice of enlisting
analysts already in place and already responsible for following the
issues involved?
State
Department Intel Silenced
As
I was recently informed by a senior official, the
State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence Research did, in fact,
have a different opinion but was not allowed to express it.
So the January report was not one of the “intelligence community,”
but rather of three intelligence agencies, two of which have no
responsibility or necessarily any competence to judge foreign
intentions. The job of the FBI is to enforce federal law. The job of
NSA is to intercept the communications of others and to protect ours.
It is not staffed to assess the content of what is intercepted; that
task is assumed by others, particularly the CIA, the DIA (if it is
military) or the State Department’s INR (if it is political).
The
second thing to remember is that reports of the intelligence agencies
reflect the views of the heads of the agencies and are not
necessarily a consensus of their analysts’ views. The heads of both
the CIA and FBI are political appointments, while the NSA chief is a
military officer; his agency is a collector of intelligence rather
than an analyst of its import, except in the fields of cryptography
and communications security.
One
striking thing about the press coverage and Congressional discussion
of the January report, and of subsequent statements by CIA, FBI, and
NSA heads is that questions were never posed regarding the position
of the State Department’s INR, or whether the analysts in the
agencies cited were in total agreement with the conclusions.
Let’s
put these questions aside for the moment and look at the report
itself. On the first page of text, the following statement leapt to
my attention:
“We
did not make an assessment of the impact that Russian activities had
on the outcome of the 2016 election. The US Intelligence Community is
charged with monitoring and assessing the intentions, capabilities,
and actions of foreign actors; it does not analyze US political
processes or US public opinion.”
Now,
how can one judge whether activity “interfered” with an election
without assessing its impact? After all, if the activity had no
impact on the outcome of the election, it could not be properly
termed interference. This disclaimer, however, has not prevented
journalists and politicians from citing the report as proof that
“Russia interfered” in the 2016 U.S. presidential election.
As
for particulars, the report is full of assertion, innuendo, and
description of “capabilities” but largely devoid of any evidence
to substantiate its assertions. This is “explained” by claiming
that much of the evidence is classified and cannot be disclosed
without revealing sources and methods. The assertions are made with
“high confidence” or occasionally, “moderate confidence.”
Having read many intelligence reports I can tell you that if there is
irrefutable evidence of something it will be stated as a fact. The
use of the term “high confidence” is what most normal people
would call “our best guess.” “Moderate confidence” means
“some of our analysts think this might be true.”
Guccifer
2.0: A Fabrication
Among
the assertions are that a persona calling itself “Guccifer 2.0”
is an instrument of the GRU, and that it hacked the emails on the
Democratic National Committee’s (DNC) computer and conveyed them to
Wikileaks. What the report does not explain is that it is easy for a
hacker or foreign intelligence service to leave a false trail. In
fact, a program developed by CIA with NSA assistance to do just that
has been leaked and published*.
Retired
senior NSA technical experts have examined the “Guccifer 2.0”
data on the web and have concluded that “Guccifer 2.0’s” data
did not involve a hack across the web but was locally downloaded.
Further, the data had been tampered with and manipulated, leading to
the conclusion that “Guccifer 2.0” is a total fabrication.
The
report’s assertions regarding the supply of the DNC emails to
Wikileaks are dubious, but its final statement in this regard is
important: “Disclosures
through WikiLeaks did not contain any evident forgeries.” In
other words, what was disclosed was the truth! So, Russians are
accused of “degrading our democracy” by revealing that the DNC
was trying to fix the nomination of a particular candidate rather
than allowing the primaries and state caucuses to run their course. I
had always thought that transparency is consistent with democratic
values. Apparently those who think that the truth can degrade
democracy have a rather bizarre—to put it mildly–concept of
democracy.
Most
people, hearing that it is a “fact” that “Russia” interfered
in our election must think that Russian government agents hacked into
vote counting machines and switched votes to favor a particular
candidate. This, indeed, would be scary, and would justify the most
painful sanctions. But this is the one thing that the “intelligence”
report of January 6, 2017, states did not happen. Here is what it
said: “DHS
[the Department of Homeland Security] assesses that the types of
systems Russian actors targeted or compromised were not involved in
vote tallying.”
This
is an important statement by an agency that is empowered to assess
the impact of foreign activity on the United States. Why was it not
consulted regarding other aspects of the study? Or—was it in fact
consulted and refused to endorse the findings? Another obvious
question any responsible journalist or competent politician should
have asked.
Prominent
American journalists and politicians seized upon this shabby,
politically motivated, report as proof of “Russian interference”
in the U.S. election without even the pretense of due diligence. They
have objectively acted as co-conspirators in an effort to block any
improvement in relations with Russia, even though cooperation with
Russia to deal with common dangers is vital to both countries.
This
is only part of the story of how, without good reason, U.S.-Russian
relations have become dangerously confrontational. God willin and the
crick don’t rise, I’ll be musing about other aspects soon.
‘Campagne Clinton, smeriger dan gedacht…………‘ (met daarin daarin opgenomen de volgende artikelen: ‘Donna Brazile Bombshell: ‘Proof’ Hillary ‘Rigged’ Primary Against Bernie‘ en ‘Democrats in Denial After Donna Brazile Says Primary Was Rigged for Hillary‘)
Zie ook het volgende artikel daterend van 26 oktober 2017: ‘‘Death Sentence for Local Media’: Warnings as FCC Pushes Change to Benefit Right-Wing Media Giant‘ Met o.a.:“At a time when broadcast conglomerates like Sinclair are gobbling up new stations and pulling media resources out of marginalized communities, we still need the main studio rule to help connect broadcasters to the local viewers and listeners they’re supposed to serve.” —Dana Floberg, Free Press. Vergeet niet dat bijvoorbeeld de lokale dagbladen in ons land intussen zo ongeveer allemaal zijn ondergebracht bij de grote dagbladen, allen in bezit van op winst beluste eigenaren, dan wel (beursgenoteerde) politiek rechtse organisaties, die een eigen belang hebben bij voor hen gunstig gekleurde berichtgeving in de bladen die zij onder het beheer hebben, waarbij deze eigenaren allen grote aanhangers zijn van het ijskoude, inhumane neoliberalisme en grote voorstanders zijn van de VS terreur, waar ter wereld die ook wordt uitgeoefend……..
GRU in Nederlands GROe, label veranderd op 5 oktober 2018.
Associated Press (AP) en de New York Times (NYT) hebben toegegeven dat de bewering als zouden alle 17 geheime diensten in de VS achter de claim staan, dat Rusland de VS presidentsverkiezingen zouden hebben beinvloed t.b.v. van het beest Donald Trump.
De directeur van de National Intelligence (DNI), Clapper, die over alle geheime diensten gaat, zou hebben bedoeld dat het om 3 diensten ging, de CIA, de FBI en de NSA. Echter daar deze directeur over 17 diensten gaat, nam men aan, dat het de bevinding van 17 diensten was, dat Rusland de verkiezingen t.g.v. het beest Trump had beïnvloed……..
De democratische kandidaat, hare kwaadaardigheid Clinton stelde dat er geen twijfel is als alle 17 diensten hetzelfde stellen……….
Eerlijk gezegd snap ik al niet, dat er nog iemand is, die ook maar gelooft wat welke geheime VS dienst dan ook verklaart, daarvoor hebben deze diensten, om het zachtjes te stellen, iets te vaak laten zien, dat liegen één van hun belangrijkste eigenschappen is……….
Het is dan ook aan politici als Koenders en Rutte en de reguliere westerse media te danken dat de leugens van de bedoelde VS diensten hier als waarheid worden verkocht…….
Hier kan nog het volgende punt bij opgeteld worden: NB de NSA heeft bewezen ingebroken in computers en telefoons van regeringen in het buitenland, zelfs van haar partners zoals Duitsland (en gegarandeerd ook in Nederland), m.a.w. de zwarte pot verwijt een niet zwarte ketel zwart te zijn!!! Daarnaast is de VS sinds 1945 verantwoordelijk voor een flink aantal staatsgrepen (ook voor 1940, ‘maar goed….’)……
Moet je nagaan, hoeveel onzinnige energie en hysterie er al in de valse claim is gestoken, dat Rusland alles en iedereen zou hacken en manipuleren…….. Als gevolg waarvan men geen maatregelen nam, de boel beter te beveiligen, zo bleek onlangs weer met de 2 ransomware aanvallen…….
Benieuwd hoe lang figuren al Hubert Smeets, Rob de Wijk, Han ten Broeke (VVD hufter), Arend Jan Boekestijn (ook al VVD, maar dan een echte sufferd) en vele anderen uit de politiek en de reguliere westerse media, de leugen blijven volhouden dat Rusland de VS (en andere) verkiezingen heeft gemanipuleerd…….
New
York Times and AP Finally Retract False Claims on Russia Hacking
Nearly
a year into the hacking scandal, both the New
York Times and
the Associated
Press are
finally copping to the fact that this allegation is untrue, and
retracting it outright. The AP confirmed falsely making the claim in
at least four distinct articles, most
recently on Thursday.
What
actually happened? The Director of National Intelligence made the
allegation, claiming it was based on information from three US
agencies, the CIA, FBI, and NSA. The Director of National
Intelligence nominally represents all 17 intelligence agencies, and
that was quickly and incorrectly extrapolated into all 17 agencies
being in consensus.
In
practice, however, the DNI is an increasingly politicized office, and
their publications aren’t necessarily in line with actual reality,
let alone proof of a consensus among the intelligence agencies.
Indications are that the overwhelming majority of the US intelligence
agencies were never even involved in assessing the Russia hacks.
Nor
would they be expected to be. It would be bizarre if the Pentagon’s
intelligence agency, for example, was probing US elections, or if the
National Reconnaissance Office, which operates spy satellites looking
for missile launches, was chiming in on the Trump Campaign.
It
sounded better, particularly for those trying to make this into a
bigger scandal, however, to claim that “all 17” US intelligence
agencies had agreed on the narrative, because this would give the
impression that it’s indisputable fact, as opposed to a heavily
politically-motivated assertion backed up by limited circumstantial
evidence dug up by a couple of US spy agencies.
Hier een bericht van Information Clearting House, geschreven door Robert Parry, dat iets uitgebreider bericht over deze zaak (onder dat artikel kan u klikken voor ‘een Dutch vertaling’):
NYT
Finally Retracts Russia-gate CanardA
founding Russia-gate myth is that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies
agreed that Russia hacked into and distributed Democratic emails, a
falsehood that The New York Times has belatedly retracted, reports
Robert Parry.By
Robert Parry
June
30, 2017 “Information
Clearing House” – The New York Times has finally admitted
that one of the favorite Russia-gate canards – that all 17 U.S.
intelligence agencies concurred on the assessment of Russian hacking
of Democratic emails – is false.
On
Thursday, the Times appended a
correction to a June 25 article that
had repeated the false claim, which has been used by Democrats and
the mainstream media for months to brush aside any doubts about the
foundation of the Russia-gate scandal and portray President Trump as
delusional for doubting what all 17 intelligence agencies supposedly
knew to be true.
In
the Times’ White House Memo of June 25, correspondent Maggie
Haberman mocked Trump for “still refus[ing] to acknowledge a basic
fact agreed upon by 17 American intelligence agencies that he now
oversees: Russia orchestrated the attacks, and did it to help get him
elected.”
However,
on Thursday, the Times – while leaving most of Haberman’s
ridicule of Trump in place – noted in a correction that the
relevant intelligence “assessment was made by four intelligence
agencies — the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the
Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and
the National Security Agency. The assessment was not approved by all
17 organizations in the American intelligence community.”
The
Times’ grudging correction was vindication for some Russia-gate
skeptics who had questioned the claim of a full-scale intelligence
assessment, which would usually take the form of a National
Intelligence Estimate (or NIE), a product that seeks out the views of
the entire Intelligence Community and includes dissents.
The
reality of a more narrowly based Russia-gate assessment
was admitted in
May by President Obama’s Director of National Intelligence James
Clapper and Obama’s CIA Director John Brennan in sworn
congressional testimony.
Clapper testified before
a Senate Judiciary subcommittee on May 8 that the Russia-hacking
claim came from a “special intelligence community assessment” (or
ICA) produced by selected analysts from the CIA, NSA and FBI, “a
coordinated product from three agencies – CIA, NSA, and the FBI –
not all 17 components of the intelligence community,” the former
DNI said.
Clapper
further acknowledged that the analysts who produced the Jan. 6
assessment on alleged Russian hacking were “hand-picked” from the
CIA, FBI and NSA.
Yet,
as any intelligence expert will tell you, if you “hand-pick” the
analysts, you are really hand-picking the conclusion. For instance,
if the analysts were known to be hard-liners on Russia or supporters
of Hillary Clinton, they could be expected to deliver the one-sided
report that
they did.
Politicized
Intelligence
In
the history of U.S. intelligence, we have seen how this selective
approach has worked, such as the phony determination of the Reagan
administration pinning the attempted assassination of Pope John Paul
II and other acts of terror on the Soviet Union.
CIA
Director William Casey and Deputy Director Robert Gates shepherded
the desired findings through the process by
putting the assessment under the control of pliable analysts and
sidelining those who objected to this politicization of intelligence.
The
point of enlisting the broader intelligence community – and
incorporating dissents into a final report – is to guard against
such “stove-piping” of intelligence that delivers the politically
desired result but ultimately distorts reality.
Another
painful example of politicized intelligence was President George W.
Bush’s 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq’s WMD
that removed
State Department and other dissents from
the declassified version that was given to the public.
Since
Clapper’s and Brennan’s testimony in May, the Times and other
mainstream news outlets have avoided a direct contradiction of their
earlier acceptance of the 17-intelligence-agencies canard by simply
referring to a judgment by “the intelligence community.”
That
finessing of their earlier errors has allowed Hillary Clinton and
other senior Democrats to continue referencing this fictional
consensus without challenge, at least in the mainstream media.
For
instance, on May 31 at a technology conference in California, Clinton
referred to
the Jan. 6 report,
asserting that “Seventeen agencies, all in agreement, which I know
from my experience as a Senator and Secretary of State, is hard to
get. They concluded with high confidence that the Russians ran an
extensive information war campaign against my campaign, to influence
voters in the election.”
The
failure of the major news organizations to clarify this point about
the 17 agencies may have contributed to Haberman’s mistake on June
25 as she simply repeated the groupthink that nearly all the
Important People in Washington just knew to be true.
But
the Times’ belated correction also underscores the growing sense
that the U.S. mainstream media has joined in a political vendetta
against Trump and has cast aside professional standards to the point
of repeating false claims designed to denigrate him.
That,
in turn, plays into Trump’s Twitter complaints that he and his
administration are the targets of a “witch hunt” led by the “fake
news” media, a grievance that appears to be energizing his
supporters and could discredit whatever ongoing investigations
eventually conclude.
Investigative
reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The
Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest
book, America’s
Stolen Narrative,either
in print
here or
as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com).
Op 18 december 2017 heb ik de kop en een het label AP aangepast. Waar eerder AP stond, staat nu Ass. Press, (Associated Press), daar de letters ‘AP’ al werden gebruikt voor de Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens.
