"Russian Hacking": THE CIA NEVER LIES?
CIA, Obama criminals, CNN continue to demonise Russia while providing ZERO proof of hacking
By Joe Clifford
Be honest now. Did you believe the US intelligence agencies when they claimed it was a "Slam Dunk" Iraq had WMD? That bit of propaganda cost 5,000 American lives, and more than a million Iraqi lives. To make matters even more horrible, 600,000 children under 5 years old died because of brutal sanctions.
They sold that war using fake, distorted evidence, and outright lies, to support their need for a war. They even introduced "forged" documents from Niger to sell the war.
Tragically the US public bought it, hook line and sinker, even though there were knowledgeable people who saw through the ruse. Experts who knew the intelligence was baseless, were ignored by mainstream media, and the propaganda by government and its mouthpiece, mainstream media, went unchallenged.
These intelligence agencies were the very same who did not foresee the fall of the Berlin wall until it was on the ground in pieces, nor did they see the destruction of the WTC until it too, was on the ground. And this would be the same CIA who this week, submitted a written apology to the Turkish government for making "false claims" about Turkey" oil trading with Daesh.
Now we are told the Russians interfered with our elections, but this time it is different. They don't offer any evidence or proof whatsoever, let alone fake evidence. Their claims are based on anonymous sources, unnamed sources, and terms like "consensus view", with not a shred of absolute proof.
Based on the Iraq lies, they learned you can sell the US public anything, if you just keep repeating the lie. The "Big Lie" theory is alive and well today. If you repeat something enough, it becomes fact. The intelligence agencies refused to brief congress, and they refused to brief the electors before voting for President. Why?
"Who, US? LIE?"
There certainly are experts in the field who should know about the alleged hacking, but they are not allowed to disrupt mainstream media's Russophobe frenzy. Bet you never saw William Binney on mainstream media.
Who is Binney? He is the guy who put together the NSA's elaborate worldwide surveillance system. He has publicly stated on alternative news sites, that if something was "hacked", the NSA would instantly know who, when, and whether the info was passed on to another party. He designed the system. He argues, there was no hacking for that very reason.
Binney insists the e-mails had to have been leaked by an "insider" who had access to the data. Never heard him on mainstream media huh? Next comes Craig Murray a former US Ambassador who claims he knows who leaked the e-mails, because he met with the individual in Washington D.C. Never heard him on mainstream media either huh?
Finally, Julian Assange, the man who released the e-mails. He insisted all along he never got the e-mails from Russia. Another no show on mainstream media. Whatever happened to the journalistic adage of going to the source?
Assange is the source, but no mainstream media journalist, and I use the term very loosely, has ventured to speak with him. The accusation has been repeated countless times, without any evidence, or consulting with any of the above three experts.
Because the big lie has been repeated so many times by corporate media, about half of the US public, according to a recent poll, believes Russia interfered, even though there is not a bit of evidence to support it. Once again they take the bait; hook, line, and sinker.
For believers of Russian hacking, I offer the following analogy. It might, but I doubt it will help, because you cannot undo the effect of propaganda. You are put on trial for murder that you did not commit.
The prosecutor and judge simply say they have reached a "consensus view", the phrase offered by intelligence agencies, that you committed the murder and are guilty. You ask for proof. They offer none.
They just keep repeating that you did it. You challenge and ask how do you know I did it? Answer: we have anonymous sources, but we cannot tell you who they are, nor can we show you proof.
Just as in the fake run-up to the Iraq war, the expert voices of the opposition are not tolerated on mainstream media. Do these folks really want a war with Russia? Are they so upset with Trump's pronouncement that he wanted better relations with Russia?
What sane person would not? Hmmm.
It appears there is a war already raging between the Russophobes, who do not want better relations with Russia, and are doing their best to smear and demonize Putin, and those who do. This is the same tactic used with Manuel Noriega of Panama, Muarmar Gaddafi, and Saddam Hussein, before they made war on all three. Demonize, then make war.
Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. Shame on those who buy into propaganda without any proof.
Think about it and use a little logic.
Russia Removed From U.S. Top Threats List
Bad news for the U.S. military industrial complex, CIA, CNN, Congress warmongers, NATO Nazis
By Peter Korzun
The memo dated December 1 was obtained by Foreign Policy. It was written by Brian McKeon, the acting Undersecretary of Defense for Policy. The priorities were reportedly conveyed to him by Mira Ricardel, a co-leader of Trump's Defense Department transition team.
The memo focuses on the fight against the Islamic State, boosting the efficiency of defense policy, eliminating caps from the Budget Control Act, improving force strength, size, and readiness of the armed forces as well as working on a new cyber strategy.
Until now, Russia has been listed as number one threat by US officials, including Defense Secretary Ashton Carter, Gen. Joseph Dunford, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper emphasized that Russia was a special threat.
Evelyn Farkas, a former senior Pentagon official dealing with Russia, told Foreign Policy that Defense Department officials "would be pretty concerned" to see Moscow missing from the list. The removal of Russia from the top threats' list is in stark contrast with the stance of Council on Foreign Relations, which believes that a potential Russia-NATO conflict is a top risk in 2017.
The Trump's calls for better relations with Russia have influenced public opinion in Moscow's favor. He has recently dismissed the affirmations made by US intelligence community that Russia hacked into Democratic Party systems during the election.
Obama warmongers, CIA, NSA, Congress lose their #1 bogeyman - and most likely a huge chunk of their funding
The nomination of Rex Tillerson for the position of State Secretary is viewed as a sign of the president-elect's intention to shift on Russia policy.
Actually, it makes no sense for Washington to view Moscow as a top threat when both countries face one common enemy - the Islamic State and the like.
With arms control on the verge of collapse, tensions running high in Europe, a possible cyberwar at the door, hopes for cooperation in Syria frustrated, Russian diplomats activities in the US to be restricted and the Congress doing its best to prevent any thaw in the relationship, the time is right for turning the tide.
Gravy train of endless war coming to an end for Congress criminals
The United States' failure to cooperate with Moscow on Syria resulted in a new format initiative launched by Russia, Turkey and Iran to address the issue. The group can be joined by other states, including the US. Donald Trump has stated that regime change in Syria would only cause more instability in the region. He believes that the Assad government stems the spread of terrorism.
The president-elect has suggested putting an end to the support for Syrian rebels. With Islamic State (IS) pushed out of, the parties could define the zones of influence and mutual obligations till international negotiations produce results.
Mr. Trump supports the idea of joining together with Russia. He said, "Wouldn't it be nice if we got together with Russia and knocked the hell out of ISIL (IS)?" President Bashar Assad said he was ready to cooperate with the US president-elect. If so, how come Russia or Syria could be viewed as top threats to the US?
There are many burning issues waiting to be addressed. This is the time to launch meaningful talks to tackle the arms control agenda as the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (New START) expires in February 2021 and the fate of the 1987 Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty is not certain.
NATO's increased presence near its borders makes Russia take retaliatory measures. It increases the role of tactical nuclear forces in its military planning. Something should be done about the US-NATO ballistic missile defense (BMD) plans in Europe. It's time to break the deadlock.
The B61-12 upgraded warheads deployed in Europe and the future of the plutonium agreement are also the problems to be addressed without delay in a constructive way.
There are chances to turn the tide. A group of European nations led by Germany has recently come up with a proposal to start talks on a new Russia-NATO arms control agreement to comprise regional caps on armaments, transparency measures, rules covering new military technology such as drones, and the ability to control arms even in disputed territories. The US can play the key role to make this proposal bring concrete results. The Russian and US leaders could launch a joint initiative to organize a OSCE-sponsored conference.
With Ukraine set aside as a separate problem, arms control talks could become a venue for dialogue on other pressing issues to be tackled within the framework of OSCE and the NATO-Russia Council. The agenda could encompass regional conflicts and the global fight against IS. Donald Trump has said he is ready to ally with Russia in the fight against the terrorist group. It could be a good start.
Libya appears to be an issue of common concern. This is a promising area of Russia-US cooperation. Joining together to address the problem of Afghanistan would also be a step in the right direction.
Lifting the anti-Russia sanctions would greatly enhance the prospects for success. As Politico puts it, Donald Trump can do it with a stroke of a pen. And he promises to consider this possibility.
At the recent meeting of the Valdai Discussion Club, Russian President Vladimir Putin said he hoped for improvement of Russia-US relationship after a new president takes office in Washington. According to him, Russia and the United States should "break out of this vicious circle" and proceed to a new level of relations. The Russian president would welcome new agreements with the US on issues of common interest.
WWII: U.S. and Russian forces link up on the Elbe
The absence of Russia in the US president-elect's threats list is a symbolic sign to indicate the advent of new thinking and new approaches. There is a fresh wind blowing. Prone to business-like approach, the president-elect is set to turn the tide because he is independently minded and not tied to the "establishment."
He has demonstrated the ability to stand up to pressure and do things his way. At last, there is a chance for both countries to set aside the differences and address the issues of common interest.