russia-insider--2020-07-03--Syria Was the Neocon's Swan Song - We Are Now in a New Era

It has been said that “ the first casualty when war comes is truth.
” Former Governor of California Hiram Johnson spoke these wise words into existence decades ago .
The U.S. ’ role in the Syria Civil War from the Arab Spring up until the writing of this in the Summer of 2020 encapsulates that observation perfectly .
Every western-backed media group would dispute this of course , “ Assad apologist !
” they scream ; without even checking the facts .
“ He gassed his own peepoo !
” without examining the available evidence , or more importantly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s ok , because John McCain said it ’ s true—he wouldn ’ t lie…That foolish naivety is mind-numbing and unwarranted .
Of course , with the media coverage , it is not naivety but complicity .
In this country our citizens should stand for truth and the unmitigated gravity of its nature , no matter the political or financial implications tied to revealing it .
The unyielding pursuit of truth ( in any given context ) is a keystone principle of which ancient philosophers have ruminated and postulated as being the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ societies spring .
If one can not defend truth , then one can not defend existential dignity .
Rigorous examination is the solvent by which skepticism dissolves propaganda and reveals truth .
Doubt is what forces the integrity of institutions — because belief requires no further analysis .
Examining doubts is more important than examining beliefs .
Let us revisit the Syria debacle , a crash course in why skepticism and cynicism should clearly be the default setting in 2020 .
First , let ’ s discuss the reasons why the casus belli @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Resolve ) in the Syrian Civil War against Assad and his Socialist Ba ’ ath Party under the guise of exterminating ISIS was started illegally and continues illegally to this day .
When I say allied , I mean the coalition of the USA , Israel , France , The UK , Turkey , and more importantly their proxies like Al-Nusra and SDF that have caused total mayhem in the Ancient Land .
In the interest of brevity and topical relevance let ’ s focus on the USA .
Let ’ s start @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2018 .
“ The Trump administration has decided that it needs no new legal authority from Congress to indefinitely keep American military forces deployed in Syria and Iraq , even in territory that has been cleared of Islamic State fighters , according to Pentagon and State Department officials.
” [ 1 ] Hmm .
There is no UN resolution that authorizes US forces to be in Syria , and the Assad government explicitly stated their absolute repudiation of the US forces in Syria before the intervention stating : “ any action of any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government would be an attack on Syria.
” The invasion was of course done without the consent of Syria .
Also , we were not defending any treaty ally , or UN member ( regarding UN article 51 ) .
In fact , we were exponentially raising the chances of a direct conflict with a treaty ally with our continued invasion being that Russia was assisting Assad with quelling ISIS with Assad ’ s sovereign volition while Operation Inherent Resolve was waging war on Assad and helping ISIS by furthering the chaos and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : If Russia is attacking ISIS on behalf of Syria and Assad , and The US is also attacking ISIS on behalf of Syria and Assad , then why would Assad and The US be enemies and diametrically opposed ?
There was an obvious logical incongruency there that many Americans simply do not want to see or didn ’ t want to examine because of their ideological blinders coupled with the sheer benighted external propaganda .
Because Obama , the “ good father and husband ” would never do something so blatantly criminal…thus @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Ellen !
Bomb droppers can ’ t dance on Ellen !
” Ellen Degenerate got a Presidential Medal , but Congress didn ’ t even get a say in dropping bombs on a sovereign country during a Civil War ; and voila !
As of 2020 , “ 8,267–13,168 civilian deaths in Iraq and Syria due to Coalition ( USA ) airstrikes , including 1,755–2,346 children.
” [ 2 ] Nice .
The Obama administration apparently believes it had the legal justification to attack ISIS under the resolution that authorized the war @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law quite specifically covers “ those nations , organizations , or persons ” that “ planned , authorized , committed , or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11 , 2001 , or harbored such organizations or persons.
” [ 3 ] Using the AUMF , the groups they are fighting must have a nexus link to AL-Qaeda , and considering AQ and ISIS split , the argument is hard to make .
Not only that , but Al-Nusra , publicly funded by the USA , works with and for Al-Qaeda @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Obama , with the CIA , covertly created Operation Timber Sycamore .
“ In 2012 or 2013 , it supplied money , weaponry and training to rebel forces fighting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in the Syrian Civil War .
According to US officials , the program was run by the CIA ’ s Special Activities Division and has trained thousands of rebels President Barack Obama secretly authorized the CIA to begin arming Syria ’ s embattled rebels in 2013.
” Obama first rejected the plan , but Benjamin Netanyahu lobbied him into @ @ @ @ @ @ @ funded and trained “ moderate rebels ” [ 6 ] who notably didn ’ t fight against ISIS , but strictly Assad .
Must be another coincidence .
That was in 2013 , and in 2016 , according the Council on Foreign Relations , the USA dropped 24,000+ bombs in Syria , [ 7 ] with absolutely no Congressional approval .
The knowledge of Timber Sycamore was likely strategically released , as it ’ s just one of the nesting dolls .
It was likely a PR stunt to account for the millions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ US had shipped to Jordan , which inevitably ended up in the hands of ISIS , ( on purpose . )
The packing lists [ 8 ] were apparently leaked to media by the U.S. Government ’ s Federal Business Opportunities Website showing contract solicitation by US Firms for shipment of 994 tons of cargo , all heavy weaponry and explosives , headed for Turkey and Jordan .
This was just one shipment of many .
It was confirmed that ISIS was receiving heavy weaponry , from the pockets of U.S. Taxpayers [ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ study conducted by private company Conflict Armament Research at the behest of the European Union and Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit found that external support for anti-Assad Syrian rebels “ significantly augmented the quantity and quality of weapons available to [ ISIL ] forces , ” including , in the most rapid case diversion they documented , “ anti-tank weapons purchased by the United States that ended up in possession of the Islamic State within two months of leaving the factory.
” [ 10 ] In the scope of the investigation , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recovery of thousands of weapons recovered from ISIS is staggering .
In another similar case , CAR documented Anti-Tank Missiles on 18 February 2016 in Iraq which had “ had been exported to the United States on 12 December 2015 and recovered in Ramadi on 9 February 2016 indicates that diversion took place in a matter of days or weeks ( between 1 and 59 days ) after its supply.
” This is remarkable in that it displays that the U.S. was violating arms treaties as these shipments of weapons to the U.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ yet , the shipments were diverted and re-routed straight to Turkey and Jordan .
Most of these shipments originated in Romania , Bulgaria , and the EU .
They were supposed to go the U.S. but were diverted to Turkey and Jordan .
Based off some of these ‘ chain of custody ’ timelines , it can easily be deduced that vast caches of weapons were transferred to ISIS almost immediately upon arrival in Turkey and Jordan .
This would simply mean that these “ moderate ” rebels were really just facilitators of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to ISIS on behalf of the United States .
The Rebels/ISIS/Kurds controlled the whole entirety of Syria ’ s side of the Syria-Turkey border , which is coincidently where all the trafficking of standard weapons and chemical weapons was coming from , the report states .
The report noted how remarkable openness and accessibility of corridors from Turkey into Syria allowing this massive transfer of weaponry .
Especially the east-west corridor linking Kobane , Rojava to Mosul , Iraq .
Interesting that a town like Kobane , under Kurdish autonomy , who ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hand in the glove with the U.S. wouldn ’ t notice the myriad of illicit shipments flowing through Kobane down into ISIS territory like clockwork .
The steady supply chain running through Kurdish territory to ISIS undetected is just unfathomable .
The city was also split between ISIS and the Kurds throughout the war as the front-line oscillated ; which is particularly interesting in light of Erdogan ’ s outrage with the U.S. air-dropping weapons in Kobane when such a complex situation was occurring stating Unfortunately , despite our conversation , [ with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with three C-130 ’ s and half of it landed in ISIS hands .
So , who is supplying [ ISIL ] , then ?
” [ 11 ] Kurdish territories Kobane were seemingly used as the conduit for clandestine shipments of all sorts of weaponry .
You mean to tell me , in the good ole USA , under the tutelage of Barack “ Democracy , folks ” Obama , the venerable “ epitome of grace , decency and humility ” that a co-opted cabal ( military industrial complex ) covertly circumvented @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the behest of Israel to kill thousands of people by dropping bombs and sending literally billions of dollars of heavy weaponry to “ moderate terrorists ” in order to extrajudicially destroy one of the most historic countries on the planet in the name of fighting the very people we are indirectly ( or directly ) supplying , training , giving cover to , and overtly aiding in their purported goal of bloodshed and destruction in a Civil War in a sovereign country ?
…Yeah .
But hey that “ Democracy ” though , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cries out as it air-strikes you .
But was it a mistake to end a program of death , destruction and massive boon to Israel all on the Taxpayer dime ?
You better believe it was .
Robert Baer , former CIA clandestine operative , and naturally , CNN contributor went full Oh Vey Trump ’ s decision to end Timber Sycamore calling it “ a strategic mistake ” and “ a gift to Putin.
” Worry not that it was a covert repudiation of International and Domestic Law , an Israel First @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the War Powers act [ 12 ] , and the constitution itself .
More importantly , it sheds light on the degree to which the government is co-opted by rogue groups and can persuade our “ Democracy ” into committing atrocities to further their international hegemonic gluttony .
No Pipeline For You !
I will briefly discuss one of the main schools of thought as to why we would invade Syria .
There is course the broader goal of wanting to continue strategic global positioning in key regions such as the Middle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ immutable and magnetic pull of the military industrial complex ’ s desire to attain that goal .
Dovetailed with that is the need to topple any foreign leaders who buck the global hegemony of the dollar , the IMF , World Bank et al .
[ 13 ] Beyond these broader and overarching notions , in Syria ’ s case there seems to be a specific and focused reasoning as to why the Syrian War “ kicked off.
” A pipeline—yes , a pipeline .
In July 2011 , the governments of Syria @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gas pipeline energy agreement which went largely unnoticed during the NATO-Saudi-Qatari war to remove Assad .
The pipeline , envisioned to cost $ 10 billion and take three years to complete , would run from the Iranian Port Assalouyeh near the South Pars gas field in the Persian Gulf , to Damascus in Syria via Iraq territory .
The agreement would make Syria the center of assembly and production in conjunction with the reserves of Lebanon .
This is a geopolitically strategic space that geographically opens for the first time , extending from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
As Asia Times correspondent Pepe Escobar put it , “ The Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline – if it ’ s ever built – would solidify predominantly Shi ’ ite axis through an economic , steel umbilical cord.
” [ 14 ] Qatar proposed a similar US-backed pipeline in 2009 , and Assad refused , due to his loyalty to Russia .
If Qatar got the deal , it would malign Russia ’ s economy significantly .
There were trillions of dollars in Oil and Gas on the line , possibly resulting in hegemonic seismic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through Syria , and Assad chose Russia , not the U.S .
Among other factors , this is a very plausible reason that the United States fomented the Syrian uprisings and facilitated her subsequent destruction .
The somehow simultaneous democratic Arab spring , that just so happened in a kind of unison were in fact not what they seemed as was proven by a very famous WikiLeaks leak , from Megan Healey of Stratfor , an intelligence agency front group for DOD among others .
[ 15 ] “ The Arab Spring is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The label implies that it was a unanimous rejection of the old social order by Arabs in the street , from Egypt to Syria .
In reality it was minorities seeking to topple existing Arab regimes , and not necessarily to replace them with Western-style democracies.
” [ 16 ] What she says is only half-true as the “ spring ” of course was not organic , it was another Saudi-Israel-USA-CIA-Mossad collab .
Add this one to the their “ Greatest Hits.
” It was a subversion ploy to overthrow non-kosher leaders by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ their “ development of skills and networking.
” That how the NY Times quoted Stephen Mcinerney , Executive Director for The Project on Middle East Democracy who admitted to the funding of the uprising .
Also , “ protestors ” were funded and trained in “ programs ” by the National Endowment for Democracy , an NGO headed up by Carl Gershman .
It is of course another NGO tentacle of the State Department .
Don ’ t fret , though , western groups didn ’ t explicitly fund the progenitors prior to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ subsequent to their uprising with a buncha ’ shekels .
So , we are supposed to believe that the word planning is actually just an esoteric Aramaic word for spontaneity .
Since it ’ s been admitted the Arab Spring was carried out by a minority of actual Arab citizens , it ’ s hard to imagine these real and organic fringe leaders planning their mini mutiny , with little to no resources , knowing full well the violent repression which would follow , would ’ ve imagined they would be met with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Even more implausible is the notion that a CIA and State-Department backed cabal operating under the guise of a tax-free NGO committed to “ spreading Democracy ” is literally a vehicle to subvert the will of sovereign peoples across by the globe , in the name of…Democracy .
Because of course Great Democracies can not help but share and spread their gleaming adoration of the wonderful ideas which illuminate their doctrine .
In fact , Great Democracies won ’ t accept no as answer .
You will be subject to the will of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ freedom , empowerment , and enfranchisement .
Yeah , nothing says political enfranchisement like foreign cabals fomenting coups .
Nothing says freedom like subverting the political enfranchisement of an entire nation and then dropping bombs on them and dropping weapons to their assassins .
Former President of the National Endowment for Democracy Allen Weinstein said it best : [ 17 ] “ A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA.
” At least Russia wised up to this NGlow and banned it , by law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Based .
It seems the Syria conflict was the swan song for the neo-con generation who , with the Clean Break Memo in 1996 , engineered the policy vehicle which spread like a toxic wind infecting the likes of Bill Kristol , John McCain , John Bolton et al .
The bellicose doctrine which uses the U.S. like a sacrificial proxy army ensured the destruction of vast swaths in the Middle East and Americans .
In fact , so prophetic was the Clean Break Essay , it predicted “ working with Jordan and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Mission accomplished , courtesy of filthy Feith and pestilent Perle .
Democracy in the Middle East ; by hooks and by crooks .
[ 6 ] Gabbard ’ s “ Stop Arming Terrorists Act ” challenges for the first time in Congress a U.S. policy toward the conflict in the Syrian civil war that should have set off alarm bells long ago : in 2012-13 the Obama administration helped its Sunni allies Turkey , Saudi Arabia , and Qatar provide arms to Syrian and non-Syrian armed groups to force President Bashar al-Assad out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ administration began to provide arms to what the CIA judged to be “ relatively moderate ” anti-Assad groups—meaning they incorporated various degrees of Islamic extremism .
That policy , ostensibly aimed at helping replace the Assad regime with a more democratic alternative , has actually helped build up al Qaeda ’ s Syrian franchise al Nusra Front into the dominant threat to Assad .
https : //www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/how-america-armed-terrorists-in-syria/ [ 12 ] Conceptually , the War Powers Resolution can be broken down into several distinct parts .
The first part states the policy behind the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities , ” and that the President ’ s powers as Commander in Chief are exercised only pursuant to a declaration of war , specific statutory authorization from Congress , or a national emergency created by an attack upon the United States ( 50 USC Sec .
1541 ) .
The second part requires the President to consult with Congress before introducing U.S. armed forces into hostilities or situations where hostilities are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as long as U.S. armed forces remain in such situations ( 50 USC Sec .
1542 ) .
The third part sets forth reporting requirements that the President must comply with any time he introduces U.S. armed forces into existing or imminent hostilities ( 50 USC Sec .
1543 ) ; section 1543 ( a ) ( 1 ) is particularly significant because it can trigger a 60 day time limit on the use of U.S. forces under section 1544 ( b ) .
The fourth part of the law concerns Congressional actions @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Section 1544 ( b ) , which requires that U.S. forces be withdrawn from hostilities within 60 days of the time a report is submitted or is required to be submitted under Section 1543 ( a ) ( 1 ) , unless Congress acts to approve continued military action , or is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States .
Section 1544 ( c ) requires the President to remove U.S. armed forces that are engaged in hostilities “ without a declaration of war or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ if Congress so directs by a Concurrent Resolution ( 50 USC 1544 ( external link ) ) .
Concurrent Resolutions are not laws and are not presented to the President for signature or veto ; as a result the procedure contemplated under Section 1544 ( c ) is known as a “ legislative veto ” and is constitutionally questionable in light of the decision of the United States Supreme Court in INS v. Chadha , 462 U.S. 919 ( 1983 ) .
Further sections set forth expedited Congressional procedures for considering proposed legislation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ forces , as well as similar procedures regarding proposed legislation to withdraw U.S. forces under Section 1544 ( c ) ( 50 U.S. 1545-46a ) .
[ 13 ] Almost all of Iraq ’ s oil exports under the United Nations oil-for-food programme have been paid in euros since 2001 .
Around 26 billion euros ( £17.4bn ) has been paid for 3.3 billion barrels of oil into an escrow account in New York .
https : //www.theguardian.com/business/2003/feb/16/iraq.theeuro [ 15 ] They reveal the inner workings of a company that fronts as an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ services to large corporations , such as Bhopal ’ s Dow Chemical Co. , Lockheed Martin , Northrop Grumman , Raytheon and government agencies , including the US Department of Homeland Security , the US Marines and the US Defense Intelligence Agency .
The emails show Stratfor ’ s web of informers , pay-off structure , payment laundering techniques and psychological methods .
https : //wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/13/1338974_re-arab-spring-paragraph-.html

Truth and Doubt
It has been said that “the first casualty when war comes is truth.” Former Governor of California Hiram Johnson spoke these wise words into existence decades ago. The U.S.’ role in the Syria Civil War from the Arab Spring up until the writing of this in the Summer of 2020 encapsulates that observation perfectly. Every western-backed media group would dispute this of course, “Assad apologist!” they scream; without even checking the facts. “He gassed his own peepoo!” without examining the available evidence, or more importantly, the lack thereof. But it’s ok, because John McCain said it’s true—he wouldn’t lie…That foolish naivety is mind-numbing and unwarranted. Of course, with the media coverage, it is not naivety but complicity.
In this country our citizens should stand for truth and the unmitigated gravity of its nature, no matter the political or financial implications tied to revealing it. The unyielding pursuit of truth (in any given context) is a keystone principle of which ancient philosophers have ruminated and postulated as being the fertile soil from which great men and societies spring. If one cannot defend truth, then one cannot defend existential dignity. Rigorous examination is the solvent by which skepticism dissolves propaganda and reveals truth. Doubt is what forces the integrity of institutions — because belief requires no further analysis. Examining doubts is more important than examining beliefs. Let us revisit the Syria debacle, a crash course in why skepticism and cynicism should clearly be the default setting in 2020.
Violence is Consent
First, let’s discuss the reasons why the casus belli for the coalition intervention (Operation Inherent Resolve) in the Syrian Civil War against Assad and his Socialist Ba’ath Party under the guise of exterminating ISIS was started illegally and continues illegally to this day. When I say allied, I mean the coalition of the USA, Israel, France, The UK, Turkey, and more importantly their proxies like Al-Nusra and SDF that have caused total mayhem in the Ancient Land. In the interest of brevity and topical relevance let’s focus on the USA. Let’s start with a quote by Pentagon officials from 2018. “The Trump administration has decided that it needs no new legal authority from Congress to indefinitely keep American military forces deployed in Syria and Iraq, even in territory that has been cleared of Islamic State fighters, according to Pentagon and State Department officials.”[1]
Hmm. There is no UN resolution that authorizes US forces to be in Syria, and the Assad government explicitly stated their absolute repudiation of the US forces in Syria before the intervention stating: “any action of any kind without the consent of the Syrian government would be an attack on Syria.” The invasion was of course done without the consent of Syria. Also, we were not defending any treaty ally, or UN member (regarding UN article 51). In fact, we were exponentially raising the chances of a direct conflict with a treaty ally with our continued invasion being that Russia was assisting Assad with quelling ISIS with Assad’s sovereign volition while Operation Inherent Resolve was waging war on Assad and helping ISIS by furthering the chaos and destruction.
It raises and interesting question: If Russia is attacking ISIS on behalf of Syria and Assad, and The US is also attacking ISIS on behalf of Syria and Assad, then why would Assad and The US be enemies and diametrically opposed? There was an obvious logical incongruency there that many Americans simply do not want to see or didn’t want to examine because of their ideological blinders coupled with the sheer benighted external propaganda. Because Obama, the “good father and husband” would never do something so blatantly criminal…thus spake the Boomer. “He dances on Ellen! Bomb droppers can’t dance on Ellen!” Ellen Degenerate got a Presidential Medal, but Congress didn’t even get a say in dropping bombs on a sovereign country during a Civil War; and voila! As of 2020, “8,267–13,168 civilian deaths in Iraq and Syria due to Coalition (USA) airstrikes, including 1,755–2,346 children.”[2] Nice.
Shiver Me Timber Sycamore!
The Obama administration apparently believes it had the legal justification to attack ISIS under the resolution that authorized the war on terror in 2001. But that law quite specifically covers “those nations, organizations, or persons” that “planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons.”[3] Using the AUMF, the groups they are fighting must have a nexus link to AL-Qaeda, and considering AQ and ISIS split, the argument is hard to make. Not only that, but Al-Nusra, publicly funded by the USA, works with and for Al-Qaeda.[4]
More skullduggery followed. Obama, with the CIA, covertly created Operation Timber Sycamore. “In 2012 or 2013, it supplied money, weaponry and training to rebel forces fighting Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in the Syrian Civil War. According to US officials, the program was run by the CIA’s Special Activities Division and has trained thousands of rebels President Barack Obama secretly authorized the CIA to begin arming Syria’s embattled rebels in 2013.” Obama first rejected the plan, but Benjamin Netanyahu lobbied him into submission.[5] The CIA funded and trained “moderate rebels”[6] who notably didn’t fight against ISIS, but strictly Assad. Must be another coincidence. That was in 2013, and in 2016, according the Council on Foreign Relations, the USA dropped 24,000+ bombs in Syria,[7] with absolutely no Congressional approval. The knowledge of Timber Sycamore was likely strategically released, as it’s just one of the nesting dolls. It was likely a PR stunt to account for the millions of dollars of heavy weaponry that the US had shipped to Jordan, which inevitably ended up in the hands of ISIS, (on purpose.)
The packing lists[8] were apparently leaked to media by the U.S. Government’s Federal Business Opportunities Website showing contract solicitation by US Firms for shipment of 994 tons of cargo, all heavy weaponry and explosives, headed for Turkey and Jordan. This was just one shipment of many. It was confirmed that ISIS was receiving heavy weaponry, from the pockets of U.S. Taxpayers[9]. Based.
“A study conducted by private company Conflict Armament Research at the behest of the European Union and Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit found that external support for anti-Assad Syrian rebels “significantly augmented the quantity and quality of weapons available to [ISIL] forces,” including, in the most rapid case diversion they documented, “anti-tank weapons purchased by the United States that ended up in possession of the Islamic State within two months of leaving the factory.”[10]
In the scope of the investigation, the chain of custody, from export to recovery of thousands of weapons recovered from ISIS is staggering. In another similar case, CAR documented Anti-Tank Missiles on 18 February 2016 in Iraq which had “had been exported to the United States on 12 December 2015 and recovered in Ramadi on 9 February 2016 indicates that diversion took place in a matter of days or weeks (between 1 and 59 days) after its supply.” This is remarkable in that it displays that the U.S. was violating arms treaties as these shipments of weapons to the U. S. were signed with non-re-export clauses, yet, the shipments were diverted and re-routed straight to Turkey and Jordan. Most of these shipments originated in Romania, Bulgaria, and the EU. They were supposed to go the U.S. but were diverted to Turkey and Jordan.
Based off some of these ‘chain of custody’ timelines, it can easily be deduced that vast caches of weapons were transferred to ISIS almost immediately upon arrival in Turkey and Jordan. This would simply mean that these “moderate” rebels were really just facilitators of heavy weapon transfers from the Syrian-Turkish border to ISIS on behalf of the United States.
The Rebels/ISIS/Kurds controlled the whole entirety of Syria’s side of the Syria-Turkey border, which is coincidently where all the trafficking of standard weapons and chemical weapons was coming from, the report states. The report noted how remarkable openness and accessibility of corridors from Turkey into Syria allowing this massive transfer of weaponry. Especially the east-west corridor linking Kobane, Rojava to Mosul, Iraq. Interesting that a town like Kobane, under Kurdish autonomy, who’s military and security officials were working hand in the glove with the U.S. wouldn’t notice the myriad of illicit shipments flowing through Kobane down into ISIS territory like clockwork.
The steady supply chain running through Kurdish territory to ISIS undetected is just unfathomable. The city was also split between ISIS and the Kurds throughout the war as the front-line oscillated; which is particularly interesting in light of Erdogan’s outrage with the U.S. air-dropping weapons in Kobane when such a complex situation was occurring stating Unfortunately, despite our conversation, [with Obama] they dropped whatever was needed with three C-130’s and half of it landed in ISIS hands. So, who is supplying [ISIL], then?”[11] Kurdish territories Kobane were seemingly used as the conduit for clandestine shipments of all sorts of weaponry.
You mean to tell me, in the good ole USA, under the tutelage of Barack “Democracy, folks” Obama, the venerable “epitome of grace, decency and humility” that a co-opted cabal (military industrial complex) covertly circumvented Congress, teamed up the CIA at the behest of Israel to kill thousands of people by dropping bombs and sending literally billions of dollars of heavy weaponry to “moderate terrorists” in order to extrajudicially destroy one of the most historic countries on the planet in the name of fighting the very people we are indirectly (or directly) supplying, training, giving cover to, and overtly aiding in their purported goal of bloodshed and destruction in a Civil War in a sovereign country?…Yeah. But hey that “Democracy” though, folks. Nice. Seems like Democracy cries out as it air-strikes you.
But was it a mistake to end a program of death, destruction and massive boon to Israel all on the Taxpayer dime? You better believe it was. Robert Baer, former CIA clandestine operative, and naturally, CNN contributor went full Oh Vey Trump’s decision to end Timber Sycamore calling it “a strategic mistake” and “a gift to Putin.” Worry not that it was a covert repudiation of International and Domestic Law, an Israel First Neo Con last stand, a violation of the War Powers act[12], and the constitution itself. More importantly, it sheds light on the degree to which the government is co-opted by rogue groups and can persuade our “Democracy” into committing atrocities to further their international hegemonic gluttony.
No Pipeline For You!
I will briefly discuss one of the main schools of thought as to why we would invade Syria. There is course the broader goal of wanting to continue strategic global positioning in key regions such as the Middle East to buttress Israel, and the immutable and magnetic pull of the military industrial complex’s desire to attain that goal. Dovetailed with that is the need to topple any foreign leaders who buck the global hegemony of the dollar, the IMF, World Bank et al.[13] Beyond these broader and overarching notions, in Syria’s case there seems to be a specific and focused reasoning as to why the Syrian War “kicked off.” A pipeline—yes, a pipeline. In July 2011, the governments of Syria, Iran and Iraq signed an historic gas pipeline energy agreement which went largely unnoticed during the NATO-Saudi-Qatari war to remove Assad.
The pipeline, envisioned to cost $10 billion and take three years to complete, would run from the Iranian Port Assalouyeh near the South Pars gas field in the Persian Gulf, to Damascus in Syria via Iraq territory. The agreement would make Syria the center of assembly and production in conjunction with the reserves of Lebanon. This is a geopolitically strategic space that geographically opens for the first time, extending from Iran to Iraq, Syria and Lebanon. As Asia Times correspondent Pepe Escobar put it, “The Iran-Iraq-Syria pipeline – if it’s ever built – would solidify predominantly Shi’ite axis through an economic, steel umbilical cord.”[14]
Qatar proposed a similar US-backed pipeline in 2009, and Assad refused, due to his loyalty to Russia. If Qatar got the deal, it would malign Russia’s economy significantly. There were trillions of dollars in Oil and Gas on the line, possibly resulting in hegemonic seismic shifts. The pipeline had to go through Syria, and Assad chose Russia, not the U.S. Among other factors, this is a very plausible reason that the United States fomented the Syrian uprisings and facilitated her subsequent destruction. The somehow simultaneous democratic Arab spring, that just so happened in a kind of unison were in fact not what they seemed as was proven by a very famous WikiLeaks leak, from Megan Healey of Stratfor, an intelligence agency front group for DOD among others.[15] “The Arab Spring is a lesson in Western wishful thinking. The label implies that it was a unanimous rejection of the old social order by Arabs in the street, from Egypt to Syria. In reality it was minorities seeking to topple existing Arab regimes, and not necessarily to replace them with Western-style democracies.”[16]
Go Fund Me: Arab Spring
What she says is only half-true as the “spring” of course was not organic, it was another Saudi-Israel-USA-CIA-Mossad collab. Add this one to the their “Greatest Hits.” It was a subversion ploy to overthrow non-kosher leaders by funding, contriving and organizing protestors and their “development of skills and networking.” That how the NY Times quoted Stephen Mcinerney, Executive Director for The Project on Middle East Democracy who admitted to the funding of the uprising. Also, “protestors” were funded and trained in “programs” by the National Endowment for Democracy, an NGO headed up by Carl Gershman. It is of course another NGO tentacle of the State Department. Don’t fret, though, western groups didn’t explicitly fund the progenitors prior to the uprising, but only funded them subsequent to their uprising with a buncha’ shekels. So, we are supposed to believe that the word planning is actually just an esoteric Aramaic word for spontaneity.
Since it’s been admitted the Arab Spring was carried out by a minority of actual Arab citizens, it’s hard to imagine these real and organic fringe leaders planning their mini mutiny, with little to no resources, knowing full well the violent repression which would follow, would’ve imagined they would be met with any success barring significant international assistance. Even more implausible is the notion that a CIA and State-Department backed cabal operating under the guise of a tax-free NGO committed to “spreading Democracy” is literally a vehicle to subvert the will of sovereign peoples across by the globe, in the name of…Democracy.
Because of course Great Democracies cannot help but share and spread their gleaming adoration of the wonderful ideas which illuminate their doctrine. In fact, Great Democracies won’t accept no as answer. You will be subject to the will of their powerful Democratic values, such as freedom, empowerment, and enfranchisement. Yeah, nothing says political enfranchisement like foreign cabals fomenting coups. Nothing says freedom like subverting the political enfranchisement of an entire nation and then dropping bombs on them and dropping weapons to their assassins.
Former President of the National Endowment for Democracy Allen Weinstein said it best:[17]“A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA.” At least Russia wised up to this NGlow and banned it, by law, in 2015.[18] Based.
It seems the Syria conflict was the swan song for the neo-con generation who, with the Clean Break Memo in 1996, engineered the policy vehicle which spread like a toxic wind infecting the likes of Bill Kristol, John McCain, John Bolton et al. The bellicose doctrine which uses the U.S. like a sacrificial proxy army ensured the destruction of vast swaths in the Middle East and Americans. In fact, so prophetic was the Clean Break Essay, it predicted “working with Jordan and Turkey to “roll-back” Syria.”
Mission accomplished, courtesy of filthy Feith and pestilent Perle. Democracy in the Middle East; by hooks and by crooks.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/22/us/politics/isis-syria-american-troops.html
[2] https://airwars.org/conflict/coalition-in-iraq-and-syria/
[3] https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-war-on-isis-has-no-legal-basis/
[4] https://www.rand.org/blog/2017/03/al-qaeda-in-syria-can-change-its-name-but-not-its-stripes.html
[5] https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/02/world/middleeast/cia-syria-rebel-arm-train-trump.html
[6] Gabbard’s “Stop Arming Terrorists Act” challenges for the first time in Congress a U.S. policy toward the conflict in the Syrian civil war that should have set off alarm bells long ago: in 2012-13 the Obama administration helped its Sunni allies Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar provide arms to Syrian and non-Syrian armed groups to force President Bashar al-Assad out of power. And in 2013 the administration began to provide arms to what the CIA judged to be “relatively moderate” anti-Assad groups—meaning they incorporated various degrees of Islamic extremism.
That policy, ostensibly aimed at helping replace the Assad regime with a more democratic alternative, has actually helped build up al Qaeda’s Syrian franchise al Nusra Front into the dominant threat to Assad. https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/how-america-armed-terrorists-in-syria/
[7] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-president-barack-obama-bomb-map-drone-wars-strikes-20000-pakistan-middle-east-afghanistan-a7534851.html
[8] https://web.archive.org/web/20161205081205/http://www.janes.com/article/59374/us-arms-shipment-to-syrian-rebels-detailed
[9] https://www.thenational.ae/world/death-of-a-syrian-arms-salesman-1.144999
[10] https://www.conflictarm.com/reports/weapons-of-the-islamic-state/
[11] http://www.al-monitor.com/pulse/originals/2015/01/turkey-kurds-kobani-defeat-turkish-policy.html
[12] Conceptually, the War Powers Resolution can be broken down into several distinct parts. The first part states the policy behind the law, namely to “insure that the collective judgment of both the Congress and the President will apply to the introduction of United States Armed Forces into hostilities,” and that the President’s powers as Commander in Chief are exercised only pursuant to a declaration of war, specific statutory authorization from Congress, or a national emergency created by an attack upon the United States (50 USC Sec. 1541).
The second part requires the President to consult with Congress before introducing U.S. armed forces into hostilities or situations where hostilities are imminent, and to continue such consultations as long as U.S. armed forces remain in such situations (50 USC Sec. 1542). The third part sets forth reporting requirements that the President must comply with any time he introduces U.S. armed forces into existing or imminent hostilities (50 USC Sec. 1543); section 1543(a)(1) is particularly significant because it can trigger a 60 day time limit on the use of U.S. forces under section 1544(b). The fourth part of the law concerns Congressional actions and procedures. Of particular interest is Section 1544(b), which requires that U.S. forces be withdrawn from hostilities within 60 days of the time a report is submitted or is required to be submitted under Section 1543(a)(1), unless Congress acts to approve continued military action, or is physically unable to meet as a result of an armed attack upon the United States. Section 1544(c) requires the President to remove U.S. armed forces that are engaged in hostilities “without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization” at any time if Congress so directs by a Concurrent Resolution (50 USC 1544 (external link)). Concurrent Resolutions are not laws and are not presented to the President for signature or veto; as a result the procedure contemplated under Section 1544(c) is known as a “legislative veto” and is constitutionally questionable in light of the decision of the United States Supreme Court in INS v. Chadha, 462 U.S. 919 (1983). Further sections set forth expedited Congressional procedures for considering proposed legislation to authorize the use of U.S. armed forces, as well as similar procedures regarding proposed legislation to withdraw U.S. forces under Section 1544(c) (50 U.S. 1545-46a).
[13] Almost all of Iraq’s oil exports under the United Nations oil-for-food programme have been paid in euros since 2001. Around 26 billion euros (£17.4bn) has been paid for 3.3 billion barrels of oil into an escrow account in New York. https://www.theguardian.com/business/2003/feb/16/iraq.theeuro
[14] https://www.globalresearch.ca/the-secret-stupid-saudi-us-deal-on-syria/5410130
[15] They reveal the inner workings of a company that fronts as an intelligence publisher, but provides confidential intelligence services to large corporations, such as Bhopal’s Dow Chemical Co., Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon and government agencies, including the US Department of Homeland Security, the US Marines and the US Defense Intelligence Agency. The emails show Stratfor’s web of informers, pay-off structure, payment laundering techniques and psychological methods. https://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/13/1338974_re-arab-spring-paragraph-.html
[16] https://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/13/1338974_re-arab-spring-paragraph-.html
[17] https://www.propublica.org/article/the-national-endowment-for-democracy-responds-to-our-burma-nuclear-story
[18] http://europe.newsweek.com/russia-draws-first-list-undesirable-ngos-be-banned-329983


russia-insider--2020-07-03--TRADITIONAL MARRIAGE WINS: Russia's Constitutional Rejection of Same Sex 'Marriage' Becomes Official

In an overwhelming win for the Church , millions of Orthodox Christians are coming to the polls , showing widespread support for the new Constitution and its traditional definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman .
Mark your calendars .
July 1 , 2020 .
This is the day when the world 's largest nation enshrines traditional Christian values in its constitution , defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman .
The new constitution also openly honors the Christian faith , officially recognizing the role of the Orthodox Church in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In an overwhelming win for the Church , millions of Orthodox Christians are coming to the polls , showing widespread support for the new Constitution and its traditional definition of marriage .
While today is the big day for the official vote , the polls have already been open for the past couple days .
And the exit polls are stunning .
VtsIOM , which stands for the All-Russian Public Opinion Research Center , polled more than 163,000 voters in 25 regions of Russia .
They found that 76 % of respondents @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
President Putin issued a clear statement to the Russian people , reminding them that they alone could decide whether to accept the new Constitution : And with an overwhelming majority of Russian citizens voting in favor of the new Constitution , now the protection of traditional Christian marriage is not only popular — it is also the law .

In an overwhelming win for the Church, millions of Orthodox Christians are coming to the polls, showing widespread support for the new Constitution and its traditional definition of marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
Mark your calendars. July 1, 2020. This is the day when the world's largest nation enshrines traditional Christian values in its constitution, defining marriage as a union between one man and one woman.
The new constitution also openly honors the Christian faith, officially recognizing the role of the Orthodox Church in the history and founding of the Russian state.
In an overwhelming win for the Church, millions of Orthodox Christians are coming to the polls, showing widespread support for the new Constitution and its traditional definition of marriage.
While today is the big day for the official vote, the polls have already been open for the past couple days. And the exit polls are stunning. VtsIOM, which stands for the All-Russian Public Opinion Research Center, polled more than 163,000 voters in 25 regions of Russia. They found that 76% of respondents voted in favor of the Constitutional reforms.
President Putin issued a clear statement to the Russian people, reminding them that they alone could decide whether to accept the new Constitution:
"I will outline my stand once again. It is clear, unchangeable and absolutely firm: the updated constitution, all the proposed amendments will enter into force only if you approve and support them."
And with an overwhelming majority of Russian citizens voting in favor of the new Constitution, now the protection of traditional Christian marriage is not only popular — it is also the law.


russia-insider--2020-07-03--NY Times' David Sanger Is a Notorious Liar - He's Being Called Out for the 'Afghan Bounties' Nonsens

NY Times' David Sanger Is a Notorious Liar - He's Being Called Out for the 'Afghan Bounties' Nonsense

After examining his record , New York Times readers should be skeptical of anything David Sanger writes , including his latest artful works of deception .
The New York Times is pulling out all the stops in promoting its dubious story on Russia offering bounty for dead U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan .
Wednesday ’ s installment , a “ news analysis ” by Times veteran writers David E. Sanger and Eric Schmitt , treats the allegations that Russia paid Taliban or Taliban-related terrorists to kill U.S. troops as flat fact : This is presented as “ bolstering other evidence of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The take from the Afghan-run interrogations is , ipso facto , highly dubious ; and we need to know a lot more about the alleged new “ electronic data.
” Sanger and Schmitt put the “ bounty ” story atop a “ list of Russian aggressions in recent weeks rival [ ing ] some of the worst days of the Cold War.
” They hold up to ridicule White House statements that the president wants to have only “ verified ” intelligence , claiming that this prompts “ derision from officials who have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and say it is most valuable when filled with dissenting interpretations and alternative explanations.
” Granted , such dissent might have been helpful to President George W. Bush , rather than having PDB briefers like Michael Morell ( later to become deputy CIA director ) parroting the line of then-Director George Tenet and Vice President Dick Cheney that there were tons of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq .
But what is wrong with preferring “ verified ” intelligence rather than a menu of options attempting to explain unverified reporting reeking of political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ TV to call for the covert murder of Russians and Iranians in Syria . )
I helped prepare The President ’ s Daily Brief for Presidents Nixon , Ford , and Reagan , and personally conducted the one-on-one morning briefings in the Oval Office from 1981 to 1985 .
In those days we did our best to corroborate reporting — especially on highly sensitive issues — and did not try to cover our derrieres by alerting the president and his top aides to highly dubious reporting , however sexy .
Later , Cheney @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ yellowcake uranium ” going to Iraq from Niger did not pass the smell test , for example , something that it took the International Atomic Energy Agency only a day or two of investigation to demolish .
Seymour Hersh wrote in the March 24 , 2003 New Yorker , just days after the attack on Iraq : “ On March 7th , Mohamed ElBaradei , the Director-General of the IAEA in Vienna , told the UN Security Council that the documents involving the Niger-Iraq uranium sale were fakes .
‘ The I.A.E.A @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of outside experts , that these documents .
.
.
are in fact not authentic , ’ ElBaradei said .
One senior I.A.E.A .
official went further .
He told [ Hersh ] , ‘ These documents are so bad that I can not imagine that they came from a serious intelligence agency .
It depresses me , given the low quality of the documents , that it was not stopped .
At the level it reached , I would have expected more checking . '
” Intelligence analysts must pay close attention @ @ @ @ @ @ @ What is this or that source ’ s record for accuracy , for reliability .
What kind of trough might this or that source be feeding from ; and what agenda might she or he have ?
Discriminating readers of the corporate media — and especially the Times — should do the same with respect to journalists .
When they see the byline of David Sanger they need to examine his record .
Those who look back to before the U.S./UK attack on Iraq will discover that Sanger was heavily promoting the existence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In a July 29 , 2002 article co-written with Thom Shanker , for example , Iraq ’ s ( non-existent ) “ weapons of mass destruction ” appear no fewer than seven times as flat fact .
This Sanger/Shanker article , apparently fed by intelligence sources , came just nine days after the head of British intelligence , Sir Richard Dearlove , was briefed by CIA chief Tenet at CIA headquarters in Langley , VA. Three days later , on July 23 , Dearlove told then Prime Minister Tony Blair that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ deal .
We did not know this until May 2005 when The Times of London was given the text of what became known as the Downing Street Memo — the minutes of the briefing that Dearlove gave Blair on July 23 , 2002 .
No one has disputed its authenticity .
Here ’ s an excerpt : “ C [ [ Sir Richard Dearlove , head of MI6 ] ] reported on his recent talks in Washington [ [ with George Tenet , CIA director at CIA headquarters on July 20 , three @ @ @ @ @ @ @ action was now seen as inevitable .
Bush wanted to remove Saddam , through military action , justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD .
But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.
” More instructive still , in May 2005 , when first-hand documentary evidence from the now-famous “ Downing Street Memorandum ” showed that President George W. Bush had decided by early summer 2002 to attack Iraq , The New York Times ignored it for six weeks until David Sanger rose to the occasion with a tortured @ @ @ @ @ @ @ title given his article of June 13 2005 was “ Prewar British Memo Says War Decision Wasn ’ t Made.
” Against this peculiar reporting record , I was not inclined to take at face value Sanger ’ s Jan. 6 , 2017 report “ Putin Ordered ‘ Influence Campaign ’ Aimed at U.S. Election , Report Says.
” Or the report he authored , with Michael Shear the following day , “ Putin Led a Complex Cyberattack Scheme to Aid Trump , Report Finds.
” And Therein Lies the Rub … or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say .
The fable of the Russian hack has now gone the way of Russia-Trump collusion .
( See , for example : “ Mueller ’ s Forensic-free Findings.
” When will New York Times readers catch on to David Sanger ’ s story telling ?
Sadly , there are plenty of Pulitzer presstitutes — particularly on Russiagate , but Sanger is the archdeacon of them all — by far the most accomplished at the art .
Ray McGovern works for Tell the Word , a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his 27-year CIA career , he worked on The President ’ s Daily Brief under Nixon , Ford , and Reagan , briefing it in person from 1981 to 1985 .
In retirement , he co-founded Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity ( VIPS ) .

After examining his record, New York Times readers should be skeptical of anything David Sanger writes, including his latest artful works of deception.
The New York Times is pulling out all the stops in promoting its dubious story on Russia offering bounty for dead U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan.
Wednesday’s installment, a “news analysis” by Times veteran writers David E. Sanger and Eric Schmitt, treats the allegations that Russia paid Taliban or Taliban-related terrorists to kill U.S. troops as flat fact:
“Russia’s complicity in the bounty plot came into sharper focus on Tuesday as the The New York Times reported that American officials intercepted electronic data showing large financial transfers from a bank account controlled by Russia’s military intelligence agency to a Taliban-linked account.”
This is presented as “bolstering other evidence of the plot, including detainee interrogations.” The take from the Afghan-run interrogations is, ipso facto, highly dubious; and we need to know a lot more about the alleged new “electronic data.”
Sanger. (Wikimedia Commons)
Sanger and Schmitt put the “bounty” story atop a “list of Russian aggressions in recent weeks rival[ing] some of the worst days of the Cold War.” They hold up to ridicule White House statements that the president wants to have only “verified” intelligence, claiming that this prompts “derision from officials who have spent years working on the daily brief and say it is most valuable when filled with dissenting interpretations and alternative explanations.”
Oh, yeah?
The President’s Daily Brief (PDB)
Granted, such dissent might have been helpful to President George W. Bush, rather than having PDB briefers like Michael Morell (later to become deputy CIA director) parroting the line of then-Director George Tenet and Vice President Dick Cheney that there were tons of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. But what is wrong with preferring “verified” intelligence rather than a menu of options attempting to explain unverified reporting reeking of political agendas? (Morell later went on TV to call for the covert murder of Russians and Iranians in Syria.)
I helped prepare The President’s Daily Brief for Presidents Nixon, Ford, and Reagan, and personally conducted the one-on-one morning briefings in the Oval Office from 1981 to 1985. In those days we did our best to corroborate reporting — especially on highly sensitive issues — and did not try to cover our derrieres by alerting the president and his top aides to highly dubious reporting, however sexy.
Later, Cheney’s fascination/fixation with the yarn about “yellowcake uranium” going to Iraq from Niger did not pass the smell test, for example, something that it took the International Atomic Energy Agency only a day or two of investigation to demolish.
‘Not Authentic’
Seymour Hersh wrote in the March 24, 2003 New Yorker, just days after the attack on Iraq:
“On March 7th, Mohamed ElBaradei, the Director-General of the IAEA in Vienna, told the UN Security Council that the documents involving the Niger-Iraq uranium sale were fakes. ‘The I.A.E.A. has concluded, with the concurrence of outside experts, that these documents . . . are in fact not authentic,’ ElBaradei said. One senior I.A.E.A. official went further. He told [Hersh], ‘These documents are so bad that I cannot imagine that they came from a serious intelligence agency. It depresses me, given the low quality of the documents, that it was not stopped. At the level it reached, I would have expected more checking.'”
Sources
Dearlove.
Intelligence analysts must pay close attention, of course, to provenance. What is this or that source’s record for accuracy, for reliability. What kind of trough might this or that source be feeding from; and what agenda might she or he have? Discriminating readers of the corporate media — and especially the Times — should do the same with respect to journalists. When they see the byline of David Sanger they need to examine his record.
Those who look back to before the U.S./UK attack on Iraq will discover that Sanger was heavily promoting the existence of WMD in Iraq as a certainty. In a July 29, 2002 article co-written with Thom Shanker, for example, Iraq’s (non-existent) “weapons of mass destruction” appear no fewer than seven times as flat fact.
This Sanger/Shanker article, apparently fed by intelligence sources, came just nine days after the head of British intelligence, Sir Richard Dearlove, was briefed by CIA chief Tenet at CIA headquarters in Langley, VA. Three days later, on July 23, Dearlove told then Prime Minister Tony Blair that the coming attack on Iraq was a done deal.
We did not know this until May 2005 when The Times of London was given the text of what became known as the Downing Street Memo — the minutes of the briefing that Dearlove gave Blair on July 23, 2002. No one has disputed its authenticity. Here’s an excerpt:
“C [[Sir Richard Dearlove, head of MI6]] reported on his recent talks in Washington [[with George Tenet, CIA director at CIA headquarters on July 20, three days earlier]]. … Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.” More instructive still, in May 2005, when first-hand documentary evidence from the now-famous “Downing Street Memorandum” showed that President George W. Bush had decided by early summer 2002 to attack Iraq, The New York Times ignored it for six weeks until David Sanger rose to the occasion with a tortured report claiming just the opposite. The title given his article of June 13 2005 was “Prewar British Memo Says War Decision Wasn’t Made.”
Against this peculiar reporting record, I was not inclined to take at face value Sanger’s Jan. 6, 2017 report “Putin Ordered ‘Influence Campaign’ Aimed at U.S. Election, Report Says.” Or the report he authored, with Michael Shear the following day, “Putin Led a Complex Cyberattack Scheme to Aid Trump, Report Finds.”
And Therein Lies the Rub
… or the rubbish, as the British might say. The fable of the Russian hack has now gone the way of Russia-Trump collusion. (See, for example: “Mueller’s Forensic-free Findings.”
When will New York Times readers catch on to David Sanger’s story telling? Sadly, there are plenty of Pulitzer presstitutes — particularly on Russiagate, but Sanger is the archdeacon of them all — by far the most accomplished at the art.
Ray McGovern works for Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. During his 27-year CIA career, he worked on The President’s Daily Brief under Nixon, Ford, and Reagan, briefing it in person from 1981 to 1985. In retirement, he co-founded Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).


russia-insider--2020-07-06--Is Washington Trying to Get India to Start a War With China?

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in a recent video conference suggested that the US might move some of its troops from Germany to the region around India , citing growing US security concerns in the Asian region .
Given the dramatic rise in tensions between India and China over disputed borders in the region of Nepal and Bhutan where several soldiers from both sides reportedly died in hand-to-hand combat , the question is whether Washington is deliberately trying to fan fires of war between the two Asian giant powers .
As unlikely as that might be at present , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ becoming amid the ‘ coronavirus economic depression ’ , and the perceived power vacuum of a US in retreat .
Speaking to a virtual Brussels German Marshall Fund Forum on June 25 , Secretary of State Pompeo was asked about recent statements that the US military planned withdrawing a contingent of its forces from Germany .
He replied that the Chinese threat to India and Southeast Asian nations was one of the reasons America was reducing its troop presence in Europe and deploying them to other places .
He cited unspecified recent Chinese @ @ @ @ @ @ @ threats to Vietnam , threats to Malaysia , Indonesia and the South China Sea challenge , ” adding , “ We are going to make sure the US military is postured appropriately to meet the challenges.
” The borders between China and India and Pakistan are one of the most complex and arguably most sensitive regions for potential conflict ever since in 1947 British Viceroy Lord Mountbatten partitioned the British Indian Empire into a dominantly Muslim Pakistan and a dominantly Hindu but secular India .
That partition was opposed by Gandhi and other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ instead for a unified federal India with majority Muslim states or Hindu states retaining significant autonomy within a unified India .
Mountbatten instead unveiled the secretly-drawn borders of a new Pakistan and India in a manner that fed a devastating slaughter between Hindu and Muslim as 14 million people were suddenly displaced based along the so-named Radcliffe Line that arbitrarily split the Punjab and Bengal provinces of British India between the new Pakistan and India .
At the same time , as Mountbatten went back to England , he deliberately left the status @ @ @ @ @ @ @ insured a permanent tension and potential war trigger between the two former parts of British India .
Radcliffe , who had never before been in India , was made a Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the British Empire in 1948 for his service .
Now we turn today to the unresolved region which has been a constant point of friction since the British partition , namely Kashmir .
In 1972 both countries , India and Pakistan , agreed on a provisional line of control in Kashmir which ceded Jammu and Kashmir @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Northern Areas to Pakistan .
Since the 1962 Sino-India War , China has claimed the northeastern part of Ladakh .
Here is where we have the intersection of China , China ’ s major Belt , Road Initiative partner Pakistan , and India , which has remained steadfastly outside the BRI project .
All three are nuclear powers as well .
Until 2019 , Ladakh was a region of the state of Jammu and Kashmir .
Then in August 2019 , the Parliament of India passed an act by which Ladakh became @ @ @ @ @ @ @ October 2019 .
That did not meet with applause in Beijing .
Because Ladakh is part of the strategic Kashmir region the Indian Army maintains a strong presence there .
China charged India with illegally building defense facilities across the border into Chinese territory in the Galwan Valley region of Ladakh .
The PLA responded by building its presence in the region .
Beijing claimed that India was also planning an airbase in Ladakh , something regarded as a strategic threat , as India has a military agreement with the USA which could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a war situation .
At that point reportedly , China began moves to block Indian plans in Ladakh .
Despite the fact Modi and China ’ s Xi Jinping agreed to talks to de-escalate matters , on June 13 the situation in Ladakh exploded into deadly clashes between Indian and Chinese PLA soldiers with numerous dead on both sides in hand-to-hand combat .
That was the context in which Pompeo declared , “ The PLA ( People ’ s Liberation Army ) has escalated border tensions with India , the world ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ militarizing the South China Sea and illegally claiming more territory there , threatening vital sea lanes.
” At the same time as tensions between Beijing and Washington escalate , three US aircraft carrier strike groups have been deployed in the Indo-Pacific zone , and there are plans to deploy American missiles in Asia , including India , as Washington looks to establish more bases in the Indo-Pacific region .
Indian journalists say that India ’ s Darbuk–Shyok–DBO Road infrastructure project in Ladakh is seen by the Chinese as a tool by India to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ BRI .
They claim that China attempted to capture the Galwan Valley as a pre-emptive measure to stall this DBO Road infrastructure project in Ladakh .
According to this report , “ China wants to stall the construction of the winding 255-km Darbuk-Shyok-Daulat Beg Oldie road that would give the Indian army easy access to the last military post south of the dominating Karakoram Pass .
The Indian side is , however , determined to complete construction of the entire stretch by this summer including the 60-metre bridge across the Galwan rivulet or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with Shyok river .
“ The legacy of the British partition of 1947 today is stark .
As the clashes in Ladakh between China and India were still fresh , reports emerged that Chinese construction of key facilities inside the India-claimed disputed territory of Arunchal Pradesh , in the far northeast of India bordering China , was underway .
According to a BJP member of Indian Parliament , Tapir Gao from Arunchal East , Chinese workers from the PLA were building concrete bridges , hydro-electric projects , helipads some 12 kilometers inside the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Arunachal Pradesh in an area once occupied by the Indian Army .
In recent years India has also accused China of making illegal encroachments on its perimeter in Bhutan and Nepal , further straining relations .
Nepal , historically a predominantly Hindu buffer country between Imperial China and British India , underwent a ten-year bloody civil war led by the Communist Party-Maoist of Nepal .
In 2007 the Nepal monarchy officially ended and a secular republic was established in 2008 .
In recent years China has initiated a number of economic projects @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to Beijing , Nepal Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli , from the Communist Party-Maoist , signed a Memorandum of Understanding for construction of a railway linking Shigatse in Tibet with Kathmandu .
Oli also signed on to Beijing ’ s Belt Road Initiative .
That marked a major departure for Nepal which previously was considered by China as India ’ s sphere of influence , separated from China by the high mountain barrier .
The same year China also agreed to allow Nepal use of four Chinese ports to end the country ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli , relations with India have deteriorated as Oli ’ s ties to Beijing have strengthened .
Bhutan is another strategic buffer state between India and China .
In 2017 India and the Royal Bhutanese Army accused China of constructing a road in the disputed territory towards Doklam plateau .
India intervened then , supporting Bhutan ’ s stand and asking China to halt its construction work .
As one Indian analyst describes it , “ The valley holds strategic significance for India , China as well as Bhutan @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pointed towards its so-called ‘ chicken ’ s neck ’ sector in the Northeast and rapid Chinese road construction in Tibet could make things difficult for India.
” As seen from New Delhi , the combined actions of China around its perimeter bordering Tibet in China ominously reminds them of the 1950 declaration by Mao that considers Tibet to be China ’ s right hand palm , with five fingers on its periphery : Ladakh , Nepal , Sikkim , Bhutan , and Arunachal Pradesh , and that it is China ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This , known as the Tibet Five Fingers Policy , one never appearing in print apparently , is causing considerable tension in Indian strategic circles .
Seen from Beijing , as relations with Washington become more overtly hostile in recent years and as India and the US appear to be drawing closer together , Chinese actions along India ’ s perimeter from Kashmir to Arunachal Pradesh seem to be prudent steps to secure Chinese borders as well as China ’ s strategic BRI corridor in Pakistan from any future Indian threat .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ US Secretary of State has hinted at increasing military support for India , hardly a peace-making move .
By contrast , Russia , who enjoys constructive relations both with China and with India has offered to mediate .
The crisis on the Indian sub-continent looks primed to continue .
F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer , he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics , exclusively for the online magazine “ New Eastern Outlook .
”

US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo in a recent video conference suggested that the US might move some of its troops from Germany to the region around India, citing growing US security concerns in the Asian region. Given the dramatic rise in tensions between India and China over disputed borders in the region of Nepal and Bhutan where several soldiers from both sides reportedly died in hand-to-hand combat, the question is whether Washington is deliberately trying to fan fires of war between the two Asian giant powers. As unlikely as that might be at present, it indicates how unstable our world is becoming amid the ‘coronavirus economic depression’, and the perceived power vacuum of a US in retreat.
Speaking to a virtual Brussels German Marshall Fund Forum on June 25,Secretary of State Pompeo was asked about recent statements that the US military planned withdrawing a contingent of its forces from Germany. He replied that the Chinese threat to India and Southeast Asian nations was one of the reasons America was reducing its troop presence in Europe and deploying them to other places. He cited unspecified recent Chinese actions as “threats to India, threats to Vietnam, threats to Malaysia, Indonesia and the South China Sea challenge,” adding, “We are going to make sure the US military is postured appropriately to meet the challenges.”
The Radcliffe Line
The borders between China and India and Pakistan are one of the most complex and arguably most sensitive regions for potential conflict ever since in 1947 British Viceroy Lord Mountbatten partitioned the British Indian Empire into a dominantly Muslim Pakistan and a dominantly Hindu but secular India.
That partition was opposed by Gandhi and other political leaders in India, who argued instead for a unified federal India with majority Muslim states or Hindu states retaining significant autonomy within a unified India. Mountbatten instead unveiled the secretly-drawn borders of a new Pakistan and India in a manner that fed a devastating slaughter between Hindu and Muslim as 14 million people were suddenly displaced based along the so-named Radcliffe Line that arbitrarily split the Punjab and Bengal provinces of British India between the new Pakistan and India. At the same time, as Mountbatten went back to England, he deliberately left the status of Jammu and Kashmir unresolved. That insured a permanent tension and potential war trigger between the two former parts of British India. Radcliffe, who had never before been in India, was made a Knight Grand Cross of the Order of the British Empire in 1948 for his service.
Now we turn today to the unresolved region which has been a constant point of friction since the British partition, namely Kashmir.
Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh
In 1972 both countries, India and Pakistan, agreed on a provisional line of control in Kashmir which ceded Jammu and Kashmir and Ladakh to Indian administration, and the Northern Areas to Pakistan. Since the 1962 Sino-India War, China has claimed the northeastern part of Ladakh. Here is where we have the intersection of China, China’s major Belt, Road Initiative partner Pakistan, and India, which has remained steadfastly outside the BRI project. All three are nuclear powers as well.
Until 2019, Ladakh was a region of the state of Jammu and Kashmir. Then in August 2019, the Parliament of India passed an act by which Ladakh became a union territory of India on 31 October 2019. That did not meet with applause in Beijing. Because Ladakh is part of the strategic Kashmir region the Indian Army maintains a strong presence there.
China charged India with illegally building defense facilities across the border into Chinese territory in the Galwan Valley region of Ladakh. The PLA responded by building its presence in the region. Beijing claimed that India was also planning an airbase in Ladakh, something regarded as a strategic threat, as India has a military agreement with the USA which could allow US access to that airbase in a war situation. At that point reportedly, China began moves to block Indian plans in Ladakh.
Despite the fact Modi and China’s Xi Jinping agreed to talks to de-escalate matters, on June 13 the situation in Ladakh exploded into deadly clashes between Indian and Chinese PLA soldiers with numerous dead on both sides in hand-to-hand combat. That was the context in which Pompeo declared, “The PLA (People’s Liberation Army) has escalated border tensions with India, the world’s most populous democracy. It’s militarizing the South China Sea and illegally claiming more territory there, threatening vital sea lanes.” At the same time as tensions between Beijing and Washington escalate, three US aircraft carrier strike groups have been deployed in the Indo-Pacific zone, and there are plans to deploy American missiles in Asia, including India, as Washington looks to establish more bases in the Indo-Pacific region.
Indian journalists say that India’s Darbuk–Shyok–DBO Road infrastructure project in Ladakh is seen by the Chinese as a tool by India to offset the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor of the BRI. They claim that China attempted to capture the Galwan Valley as a pre-emptive measure to stall this DBO Road infrastructure project in Ladakh. According to this report, “China wants to stall the construction of the winding 255-km Darbuk-Shyok-Daulat Beg Oldie road that would give the Indian army easy access to the last military post south of the dominating Karakoram Pass. The Indian side is, however, determined to complete construction of the entire stretch by this summer including the 60-metre bridge across the Galwan rivulet or nallah near the point of its confluence with Shyok river. “ The legacy of the British partition of 1947 today is stark.
India’s ‘Chicken Neck’
As the clashes in Ladakh between China and India were still fresh, reports emerged that Chinese construction of key facilities inside the India-claimed disputed territory of Arunchal Pradesh, in the far northeast of India bordering China, was underway. According to a BJP member of Indian Parliament, Tapir Gao from Arunchal East, Chinese workers from the PLA were building concrete bridges, hydro-electric projects, helipads some 12 kilometers inside the Indian side of the demarcated McMahon Line of Arunachal Pradesh in an area once occupied by the Indian Army.
In recent years India has also accused China of making illegal encroachments on its perimeter in Bhutan and Nepal, further straining relations. Nepal, historically a predominantly Hindu buffer country between Imperial China and British India, underwent a ten-year bloody civil war led by the Communist Party-Maoist of Nepal. In 2007 the Nepal monarchy officially ended and a secular republic was established in 2008.
In recent years China has initiated a number of economic projects in Nepal. During a 2018 visit to Beijing, Nepal Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli, from the Communist Party-Maoist, signed a Memorandum of Understanding for construction of a railway linking Shigatse in Tibet with Kathmandu. Oli also signed on to Beijing’s Belt Road Initiative. That marked a major departure for Nepal which previously was considered by China as India’s sphere of influence, separated from China by the high mountain barrier. The same year China also agreed to allow Nepal use of four Chinese ports to end the country’s trade dependence on India. Under Prime Minister KP Sharma Oli, relations with India have deteriorated as Oli’s ties to Beijing have strengthened.
Bhutan is another strategic buffer state between India and China. In 2017 India and the Royal Bhutanese Army accused China of constructing a road in the disputed territory towards Doklam plateau. India intervened then, supporting Bhutan’s stand and asking China to halt its construction work. As one Indian analyst describes it, “The valley holds strategic significance for India, China as well as Bhutan. India sees it as a dagger pointed towards its so-called ‘chicken’s neck’ sector in the Northeast and rapid Chinese road construction in Tibet could make things difficult for India.”
As seen from New Delhi, the combined actions of China around its perimeter bordering Tibet in China ominously reminds them of the 1950 declaration by Mao that considers Tibet to be China’s right hand palm, with five fingers on its periphery: Ladakh, Nepal, Sikkim, Bhutan, and Arunachal Pradesh, and that it is China’s responsibility to “liberate” these regions. This, known as the Tibet Five Fingers Policy, one never appearing in print apparently, is causing considerable tension in Indian strategic circles.
Seen from Beijing, as relations with Washington become more overtly hostile in recent years and as India and the US appear to be drawing closer together, Chinese actions along India’s perimeter from Kashmir to Arunachal Pradesh seem to be prudent steps to secure Chinese borders as well as China’s strategic BRI corridor in Pakistan from any future Indian threat. Into this nuclear minefield now, the US Secretary of State has hinted at increasing military support for India, hardly a peace-making move. By contrast, Russia, who enjoys constructive relations both with China and with India has offered to mediate. The crisis on the Indian sub-continent looks primed to continue.
F. William Engdahl is strategic risk consultant and lecturer, he holds a degree in politics from Princeton University and is a best-selling author on oil and geopolitics, exclusively for the online magazine “New Eastern Outlook.”


russia-insider--2020-07-06--The 'Russian Afghan Bounties' Nonsense Suggests There's Yet Another Deep State Leaker in Trump's Whi

The 'Russian Afghan Bounties' Nonsense Suggests There's Yet Another Deep State Leaker in Trump's White House

Corporate media are binging on leaked Kool Aid not unlike the WMD concoction they offered 18 years ago to “ justify ” the U.S.-UK war of aggression on Iraq .
Now Michael McFaul , ambassador to Russia under President Obama , has been enlisted by The Washington Post ’ s editorial page honcho , Fred Hiatt , to draw on his expertise ( read , incurable Russophobia ) to help stick President Donald Trump back into “ Putin ’ s pocket.
” ( This has become increasingly urgent as the canard of “ Russiagate ” — including the linchpin claim @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gasping for air . )
In an oped on Thursday McFaul presented a long list of Vladimir Putin ’ s alleged crimes , offering a more ostensibly sophisticated version of amateur Russian specialist , Rep. Jason Crow ’ s ( D-CO ) claim that : “ Vladimir Putin wakes up every morning and goes to bed every night trying to figure out how to destroy American democracy.
” McFaul had — well , let ’ s call it an undistinguished career in Moscow .
He arrived with a huge chip on his shoulder @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his hosts , save for the rabidly anti-Putin folks he openly and proudly cultivated .
In a sense , McFaul became the epitome of what Henry Wooton described as the role of ambassador — “ an honest man sent to lie abroad for the good of his country.
” What should not be so readily accepted is an ambassador who comes back home and just can ’ t stop misleading .
Not to doubt McFaul ’ s ulterior motives ; one must assume him to be an “ honest man ” — however @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seems to be a disciple of the James Clapper-Curtis LeMay-Joe McCarthy School of Russian Analysis .
Clapper , a graduate summa cum laude , certainly had the Russians pegged !
Clapper was allowed to stay as Barack Obama ’ s director of national intelligence for three and a half years after perjuring himself in formal Senate testimony ( on NSA ’ s illegal eavesdropping ) .
On May 28 , 2017 Clapper told NBC ’ s Chuck Todd about “ the historical practices of the Russians , who typically , are almost genetically @ @ @ @ @ @ @ favor , whatever , which is a typical Russian technique.
” As a finale , in full knowledge of Clapper ’ s proclivities regarding Russia , Obama appointed him to prepare the evidence-impoverished , misnomered “ Intelligence Community Assessment ” claiming that Putin did all he could , including hacking the DNC , to help Trump get elected — the most embarrassing such “ intelligence assessment ” I have seen in half a century .
I have asked myself if Obama also had earned some kind of degree from the Clapper/LeMay/McCarthy School , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to challenge the pitiably self-serving “ analysis ” of the National Security State .
Then I re-read “ Obama Misses the Afghan Exit-Ramp ” of June 24 , 2010 and was reminded of how deferential Obama was to the generals and the intelligence gurus , and how unconscionable the generals were — like their predecessors in Vietnam — in lying about always seeing light at the end of the proverbial tunnel .
Thankfully , now ten years later , this is all documented in Craig Whitlock ’ s , “ The Afghanistan Papers @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Corporate media , who played an essential role in that “ war with the truth ” , have not given Whitlock ’ s damning story the attention it should command ( surprise , surprise ! )
.
In any case , it strains credulity to think that Obama was unaware he was being lied to on Afghanistan .
Does no one see the irony today in the Democrats ’ bashing Trump on Afghanistan , with the full support of the Establishment media ?
The inevitable defeat there is one of the few demonstrable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ but you would not know that from the media .
Are the uncorroborated reports of Russian bounties to kill U.S. troops aimed at making it appear that Trump , unable to stand up to Putin , let the Russians drive the rest of U.S. troops out of Afghanistan ?
Does the current flap bespeak some kind of “ Mutiny on the Bounties , ” so to speak , by a leaker aping Eric Chiaramella ?
Recall that the Democrats lionized the CIA official seconded to Trump ’ s national security council as a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump after Chiaramella leaked information on Trump ’ s telephone call with the president of Ukraine .
Far from being held to account , Chiaramella is probably expecting an influential job if his patron , Joe Biden , is elected president .
Has there been another mutiny in Trump ’ s White House ?
And what does one make of the spectacle of Crow teaming up with Rep. Liz Cheney ( R , WY ) to restrict Trump ’ s planned pull-out of troops from Afghanistan , which The Los Angeles Times reports @ @ @ @ @ @ @ election ?
And who published McFaul ’ s oped ?
Fred Hiatt , Washington Post editorial page editor for the past 20 years , who has a long record of listening to the whispers of anonymous intelligence sources and submerging/drowning the subjunctive mood with flat fact .
This was the case with the ( non-existent ) weapons of mass destruction in Iraq before the U.S.-UK attack .
Readers of the Post were sure there were tons of WMD in Iraq .
That Hiatt has invited McFaul on stage should come as no surprise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ acknowledged that the Post should have been more circumspect in its confident claims about the WMD .
“ If you look at the editorials we write running up [ to the war ] , we state as flat fact that he [ Saddam Hussein ] has weapons of mass destruction , ” Hiatt said in an interview with the Columbia Journalism Review .
“ If that ’ s not true , it would have been better not to say it.
” [ CJR , March/April 2004 ] At this word of wisdom , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Parry , offered this comment : “ Yes , that is a common principle of journalism , that if something isn ’ t real , we ’ re not supposed to confidently declare that it is.
” That Hiatt is still in that job speaks volumes .
It is sad to have to remind folks 18 years later that the “ intelligence ” on WMD in Iraq was not “ mistaken ; ” it was fraudulent from the get-go .
The culprits were finally exposed but never held to account .
Announcing on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conclusions from a five-year study by the Senate Intelligence Committee , Sen. Jay Rockefeller ( D-WV ) said the attack on Iraq was launched “ under false pretenses.
” He described the intelligence conjured up to “ justify ” war on Iraq as “ uncorroborated , contradicted , or even non-existent.
” Here ’ s an assignment due on Monday .
Read McFaul ’ s oped carefully .
It appears under the title : “ Trump would do anything for Putin .
No wonder he ’ s ignoring the Russian bounties : Russia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s pattern of accommodation.
” And to give you a further taste , here is the first paragraph : Full assignment for Monday : Read carefully through each paragraph of McFaul ’ s text and select which of his claims you would put into one or more of the three categories adduced by Sen. Rockefeller 12 years ago about WMD on Iraq .
With particular attention to the evidence behind McFaul ’ s claims , determine which of the claims is ( a ) “ uncorroborated ” ; which ( b ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ c ) “ non-existent ; ” or ( d ) all of the above .
For extra credit , find one that is supported by plausible evidence .
Yogi Berra might be surprised to hear us keep quoting him with “ Deja vu , all over again.
” Sorry , Yogi , that ’ s what it is ; you coined it .
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word , a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington .
During his 27-year career as a CIA analyst @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s Daily Brief for Presidents Nixon , Ford , and Reagan .
He is co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity ( VIPS ) .

Corporate media are binging on leaked Kool Aid not unlike the WMD concoction they offered 18 years ago to “justify” the U.S.-UK war of aggression on Iraq.
Now Michael McFaul, ambassador to Russia under President Obama, has been enlisted by The Washington Post’s editorial page honcho, Fred Hiatt, to draw on his expertise (read, incurable Russophobia) to help stick President Donald Trump back into “Putin’s pocket.” (This has become increasingly urgent as the canard of “Russiagate” — including the linchpin claim that Russia hacked the DNC — lies gasping for air.)
In an oped on Thursday McFaul presented a long list of Vladimir Putin’s alleged crimes, offering a more ostensibly sophisticated version of amateur Russian specialist, Rep. Jason Crow’s (D-CO) claim that: “Vladimir Putin wakes up every morning and goes to bed every night trying to figure out how to destroy American democracy.”
U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry with McFaul meeting Vladimir Putin and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in Moscow, Russia, on May 7, 2013. (State Department)
McFaul had — well, let’s call it an undistinguished career in Moscow. He arrived with a huge chip on his shoulder and proceeded to alienate just about all his hosts, save for the rabidly anti-Putin folks he openly and proudly cultivated. In a sense, McFaul became the epitome of what Henry Wooton described as the role of ambassador — “an honest man sent to lie abroad for the good of his country.” What should not be so readily accepted is an ambassador who comes back home and just can’t stop misleading.
Not to doubt McFaul’s ulterior motives; one must assume him to be an “honest man” — however misguided, in my opinion. He seems to be a disciple of the James Clapper-Curtis LeMay-Joe McCarthy School of Russian Analysis.
Clapper, a graduate summa cum laude, certainly had the Russians pegged! Clapper was allowed to stay as Barack Obama’s director of national intelligence for three and a half years after perjuring himself in formal Senate testimony (on NSA’s illegal eavesdropping). On May 28, 2017 Clapper told NBC’s Chuck Todd about “the historical practices of the Russians, who typically, are almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique.”
As a finale, in full knowledge of Clapper’s proclivities regarding Russia, Obama appointed him to prepare the evidence-impoverished, misnomered “Intelligence Community Assessment” claiming that Putin did all he could, including hacking the DNC, to help Trump get elected — the most embarrassing such “intelligence assessment” I have seen in half a century .
Obama and the National Security State
I have asked myself if Obama also had earned some kind of degree from the Clapper/LeMay/McCarthy School, or whether he simply lacked the courage to challenge the pitiably self-serving “analysis” of the National Security State. Then I re-read “Obama Misses the Afghan Exit-Ramp” of June 24, 2010 and was reminded of how deferential Obama was to the generals and the intelligence gurus, and how unconscionable the generals were — like their predecessors in Vietnam — in lying about always seeing light at the end of the proverbial tunnel.
Thankfully, now ten years later, this is all documented in Craig Whitlock’s, “The Afghanistan Papers: At War With the Truth.” Corporate media, who played an essential role in that “war with the truth”, have not given Whitlock’s damning story the attention it should command (surprise, surprise!). In any case, it strains credulity to think that Obama was unaware he was being lied to on Afghanistan.
Some Questions
Clark Gable (l.) with Charles Laughton (r.) in Mutiny on the Bounty, 1935.
Does no one see the irony today in the Democrats’ bashing Trump on Afghanistan, with the full support of the Establishment media? The inevitable defeat there is one of the few demonstrable disasters not attributable directly to Trump, but you would not know that from the media. Are the uncorroborated reports of Russian bounties to kill U.S. troops aimed at making it appear that Trump, unable to stand up to Putin, let the Russians drive the rest of U.S. troops out of Afghanistan?
Does the current flap bespeak some kind of “Mutiny on the Bounties,” so to speak, by a leaker aping Eric Chiaramella? Recall that the Democrats lionized the CIA official seconded to Trump’s national security council as a “whistleblower” and proceeded to impeach Trump after Chiaramella leaked information on Trump’s telephone call with the president of Ukraine. Far from being held to account, Chiaramella is probably expecting an influential job if his patron, Joe Biden, is elected president. Has there been another mutiny in Trump’s White House?
And what does one make of the spectacle of Crow teaming up with Rep. Liz Cheney (R, WY) to restrict Trump’s planned pull-out of troops from Afghanistan, which The Los Angeles Times reports has now been blocked until after the election?
Hiatt & McFaul: Caveat Editor
And who published McFaul’s oped? Fred Hiatt, Washington Post editorial page editor for the past 20 years, who has a long record of listening to the whispers of anonymous intelligence sources and submerging/drowning the subjunctive mood with flat fact. This was the case with the (non-existent) weapons of mass destruction in Iraq before the U.S.-UK attack. Readers of the Post were sure there were tons of WMD in Iraq. That Hiatt has invited McFaul on stage should come as no surprise.
To be fair, Hiatt belatedly acknowledged that the Post should have been more circumspect in its confident claims about the WMD. “If you look at the editorials we write running up [to the war], we state as flat fact that he [Saddam Hussein] has weapons of mass destruction,” Hiatt said in an interview with the Columbia Journalism Review. “If that’s not true, it would have been better not to say it.” [CJR, March/April 2004]
At this word of wisdom, Consortium News founder, the late Robert Parry, offered this comment: “Yes, that is a common principle of journalism, that if something isn’t real, we’re not supposed to confidently declare that it is.” That Hiatt is still in that job speaks volumes.
‘Uncorroborated, Contradicted, or Even Non-Existent’
It is sad to have to remind folks 18 years later that the “intelligence” on WMD in Iraq was not “mistaken;” it was fraudulent from the get-go. The culprits were finally exposed but never held to account.
Announcing on June 5, 2008, the bipartisan conclusions from a five-year study by the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Jay Rockefeller ( D-WV) said the attack on Iraq was launched “under false pretenses.” He described the intelligence conjured up to “justify” war on Iraq as “uncorroborated, contradicted, or even non-existent.”
Homework
Here’s an assignment due on Monday. Read McFaul’s oped carefully. It appears under the title: “Trump would do anything for Putin. No wonder he’s ignoring the Russian bounties: Russia’s pattern of hostility matches Trump’s pattern of accommodation.”
And to give you a further taste, here is the first paragraph:
“Russian President Vladimir Putin appears to have paid Taliban rebels in Afghanistan to kill U.S. soldiers. Having resulted in at least one American death, and maybe more, these Russian bounties reportedly produced the desired outcome. While deeply disturbing, this effort by Putin is not surprising: It follows a clear pattern of ignoring international norms, rules and laws — and daring the United States to do anything about it.”
Full assignment for Monday: Read carefully through each paragraph of McFaul’s text and select which of his claims you would put into one or more of the three categories adduced by Sen. Rockefeller 12 years ago about WMD on Iraq. With particular attention to the evidence behind McFaul’s claims, determine which of the claims is (a) “uncorroborated”; which (b) “contradicted”; and which (c) “non-existent;” or (d) all of the above. For extra credit, find one that is supported by plausible evidence.
Yogi Berra in 1956. (Wikipedia)
Yogi Berra might be surprised to hear us keep quoting him with “Deja vu, all over again.” Sorry, Yogi, that’s what it is; you coined it.
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. During his 27-year career as a CIA analyst, he prepared and briefed The President’s Daily Brief for Presidents Nixon, Ford, and Reagan. He is co-founder of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).