russia-insider--2020-07-10--Belgrade Erupts in Protest After New COVID-19 Lockdown Announced, Parliament Stormed

Mounted police used teargas and truncheons to disperse a crowd of several thousand protesters gathered outside the Serbian parliament in Belgrade , opposed to the government ’ s announcement of a new coronavirus lockdown .
President Aleksandar Vucic announced on Tuesday that a new curfew would go into effect on Friday and last over the weekend , after 300 new Covid-19 cases and 13 deaths – the most since the pandemic began , local media reported .
This prompted an estimated ten thousand people to gather outside the parliament building and demand Vucic ’ s resignation , starting around 10 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reportedly broke into the building , riot police were deployed and used force to disperse the crowd , including tear gas .
At one point , police on horseback charged the demonstrators .
Opposition politicians tried to direct the protests into a revolution against the government , urging all of Serbia to “ go to Belgrade , now or never !
” and telling people to “ seize their freedom.
” Former foreign minister Vuk Jeremic appeared among the demonstrators at one point , before he was told to “ go away ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The protest may have started over Covid-19 restrictions , but its participants appeared to be motivated in part by frustration with Serbia ’ s politics , often denouncing Vucic as a “ NATO lackey ” and his government as a “ colony.
” Journalist Boris Malagurski , who has been critical of the government , posted a photo of the protest with the caption “ Serbia has risen.
” Many of the protesters were young .
One young man told reporters he was there because his father died of the virus due @ @ @ @ @ @ @ man , with blood flowing down his face , said he was a father of two fighting for a better future for his children – possibly a comment on “ For our children , ” the ruling Progressive party ’ s slogan in last month ’ s parliamentary election .
Vucic ’ s party won a commanding majority , with a turnout just below 50 percent .
The president himself has not commented on the unrest , while Prime Minister Ana Brnabic said that police would “ restore order.
” Serbia imposed one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in mid-March , turning to Russia and China for help after the EU blocked Belgrade from buying medical supplies .
Easter was canceled , and the elections scheduled for late April were postponed to June .
The state of emergency and the lockdown were lifted on May 6 , but masks , social distancing and other mitigation rules have remained in effect .
Tuesday ’ s demonstrations were the largest such protest in almost a decade .
Serbs have been reluctant to organize mass protests since the October 2000 ‘ color revolution , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a regime-change operation backed by the US .
Only a few hundred people remained in the park outside the parliament as of 1 am , before the final cavalry charge forced them several blocks back .

Mounted police used teargas and truncheons to disperse a crowd of several thousand protesters gathered outside the Serbian parliament in Belgrade, opposed to the government’s announcement of a new coronavirus lockdown.
President Aleksandar Vucic announced on Tuesday that a new curfew would go into effect on Friday and last over the weekend, after 300 new Covid-19 cases and 13 deaths – the most since the pandemic began, local media reported.
This prompted an estimated ten thousand people to gather outside the parliament building and demand Vucic’s resignation, starting around 10 pm local time.
??#Belgrade: The crowd outside of the #Serbia|n parliament right now protesting #COVID19 mandates. Earlier hundreds had stormed inside the building before they were driven back by police. pic.twitter.com/8IbxNrT1l3 — The WannabeWonk (@PotempkinBrain) July 7, 2020
After some demonstrators reportedly broke into the building, riot police were deployed and used force to disperse the crowd, including tear gas. At one point, police on horseback charged the demonstrators.
Režim baca suzavac na narod. pic.twitter.com/eh1u3PFE3G — Boris Malagurski (@malagurski) July 7, 2020
Opposition politicians tried to direct the protests into a revolution against the government, urging all of Serbia to “go to Belgrade, now or never!” and telling people to “seize their freedom.”
Former foreign minister Vuk Jeremic appeared among the demonstrators at one point, before he was told to “go away” and received a slap upside the head.
#BREAKING Serbia
Former-opposition leaders quarreled and received a blow to the head ‼pic.twitter.com/ItmepTx7I2 — srb news (@srbnews0) July 7, 2020
The protest may have started over Covid-19 restrictions, but its participants appeared to be motivated in part by frustration with Serbia’s politics, often denouncing Vucic as a “NATO lackey” and his government as a “colony.”
Journalist Boris Malagurski, who has been critical of the government, posted a photo of the protest with the caption “Serbia has risen.”
Many of the protesters were young. One young man told reporters he was there because his father died of the virus due to lack of ventilators. An older man, with blood flowing down his face, said he was a father of two fighting for a better future for his children – possibly a comment on “For our children,” the ruling Progressive party’s slogan in last month’s parliamentary election.
Зато што и ми имамо нашу децу... и желимо да живе у бољој ДРЖАВИ од оне у којој смо ми живели.
ДРЖАВИ, не колонији.#Балтернатива ?? pic.twitter.com/2B2WBisR0X — Балтернатива (@_Balternativa_) July 7, 2020
Vucic’s party won a commanding majority, with a turnout just below 50 percent. The president himself has not commented on the unrest, while Prime Minister Ana Brnabic said that police would “restore order.”
Serbia imposed one of the strictest lockdowns in Europe starting in mid-March, turning to Russia and China for help after the EU blocked Belgrade from buying medical supplies. Easter was canceled, and the elections scheduled for late April were postponed to June. The state of emergency and the lockdown were lifted on May 6, but masks, social distancing and other mitigation rules have remained in effect.
Tuesday’s demonstrations were the largest such protest in almost a decade. Serbs have been reluctant to organize mass protests since the October 2000 ‘color revolution,’ which turned out to have been a regime-change operation backed by the US.
Only a few hundred people remained in the park outside the parliament as of 1 am, before the final cavalry charge forced them several blocks back.
Source: RT


russia-insider--2020-07-13--The Rise of Another CIA Yes-Man - Mike Morell

Exclusive : The gross manipulation of CIA analysis under George W. Bush pushed a new generation of “ yes men ” into the agency ’ s top ranks .
Now one of those aspiring bureaucrats will be Gen. David Petraeus ’ s right-hand man , writes ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern .
( Also , at end of article , see special comments from several CIA insiders . )
As Gen. David Petraeus prepares to take the helm at CIA in September , he can expect unswerving loyalty from his likely deputy , Michael Morell , who has been acting director @ @ @ @ @ @ @ become Secretary of Defense .
Like many senior CIA officials in recent years , Morell ’ s record is checkered , at best .
He held key jobs in intelligence analysis over the past decade as the CIA often served as a handmaiden to the war propagandists .
As for Michael Morell , as with many other successful CIA careerists , his strongest suit seemed to be pleasing his boss and not antagonizing the White House .
If past is precedent , his loyalty will be to Petraeus , not necessarily to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about loyalty to the facts seems “ obsolete ” or “ quaint ” or if it seems unfair to expect CIA analysts to put their careers on the line when politicians and ideologues are misleading the nation to war but those were the principles that analysts of my generation tried to uphold .
The recent tendency at CIA to give politicians what they want to hear rather than the hard truth is not healthy for the Republic that we were all sworn to serve .
And , if Petraeus ’ s own past @ @ @ @ @ @ @ general will not always be synonymous with loyalty to the truth .
However , you will get no indication of this troubling reality from the flattering , but thin , feature about Michael Morell , “ Mr .
Insider Will Guide Petraeus at the CIA , ” by Siobhan Gorman in the Wall Street Journal on Aug. 26 .
Gorman is normally a solid reporter ; but either she did not perform due diligence and let herself be snookered , or her editors stepped in to ensure her story was consonant with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ create for Morell .
Before her “ rare ” interview with Morell , Gorman should have taken a close look at former CIA Director George Tenet ’ s memoir , At the Center of the Storm , to learn what Tenet says about Morell ’ s record during the last decade ’ s dark days of misleading and dishonest intelligence .
In Tenet ’ s personal account of the CIA ’ s failures around 9/11 and the Iraq War , Morell Tenet ’ s former executive assistant is generally treated kindly , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two key fiascoes : he “ coordinated the CIA review ” of Secretary of State Colin Powell ’ s infamous Feb. 5 , 2003 address to the United Nations and he served as the regular CIA briefer to President George W. Bush .
So , Morell was there as Bush blew off early CIA warnings about the possibility of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden being “ determined to strike in the US ” and while Bush and his neoconservative inner circle were concocting intelligence to justify invading Iraq .
Tenet credits Morell with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ report on the terrorist threat , which became the President ’ s Daily Brief that was handed to Bush on Aug. 6 , 2001 , at his ranch in Crawford , Texas .
Bush brushed aside the warning with a reported comment to the CIA briefer , “ all right , you ’ ve covered your ass , ” and went off fishing .
Though Tenet said Morell got along well with Bush , it appears the President didn ’ t pay much heed to any CIA information coming from Morell , at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bush wanted to hear nor did Morell seem to risk offending the President by pushing these contrary points .
After the Aug. 6 PDB was delivered , Tenet wrote that he needed to follow it up , and did so with a trip to Crawford 11 days later , when Tenet remembers Bush driving him around in a pickup truck as Tenet made “ small talk about the flora and fauna.
” Morell also was the CIA briefer with Bush in Florida on the morning of 9/11 when news arrived about the attacks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Towers .
Later , Bush told Morell “ that if we [ the CIA ] learned anything definitive about the attack , he wanted to be the first to know , ” Tenet wrote , adding : “ Wiry , youthful looking , and extremely bright , Mike speaks in staccato-like bursts that get to the bottom line very quickly .
He and George Bush had hit it off almost immediately .
In a crisis like this , Mike was the perfect guy for us to have by the commander-in-chief ’ s side.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ not willing to risk his rapport with Bush by challenging the President ’ s desire to pivot from retaliatory strikes against Afghanistan to a full-scale invasion of Iraq based on false and misleading intelligence .
Tenet also described Morell ’ s role in organizing the review of the “ intelligence ” that went into Powell ’ s speech , which let slip the dogs of war by presenting a thoroughly deceptive account of the Iraqi threat , what Powell later called a “ blot ” on his record .
Though the CIA embraced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Tenet recounted one exchange in which Morell stood up to John Hannah , an aide to Vice President Dick Cheney , regarding Iraq ’ s alleged efforts to obtain yellowcake uranium from Niger .
“ Hannah asked Mike Morell , who was coordinating the review of the speech for CIA , why the Niger uranium story wasn ’ t in the latest draft , ” Tenet wrote .
“ ‘ Because we don ’ t believe it , ’ Mike told him .
‘ I thought you did , ’ Hannah said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lost in explaining our doubts , Hannah understood why we believed it was inappropriate for Colin to use the Niger material in his speech.
” Despite that one pushback , the CIA analysts mostly bent to pressures coming from the White House for an alarmist treatment of allegations about the “ weapons of mass destruction , ” which turned out not to be in Iraq .
Of the CIA ’ s finished intelligence product , it was reportedly the PDB delivered by Morell that most exaggerated the danger .
It is sad to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ erroneous , ” but rather fraudulent intelligence .
Announcing on June 5 , 2008 , the bipartisan conclusions from a five-year study by the Senate Intelligence Committee , Sen. Jay Rockefeller described the intelligence conjured up to “ justify ” war on Iraq as “ uncorroborated , contradicted , or even non-existent.
” Rockefeller ’ s comments call to mind what Tenet told his British counterpart , Sir Richard Dearlove , on July 20 , 2002 , after former Prime Minister Tony Blair sent Dearlove to the CIA to get the latest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ justify ” the attack on Iraq .
According to the official British minutes of a cabinet-level planning session chaired by Blair on July 23 , 2002 , at 10 Downing Street , Tenet made clear to Dearlove that “ the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy ” to bring “ regime change ” to Iraq .
Could it be that Tenet would let the British in on this dirty little secret and keep George W. Bush ’ s personal briefer , Michael Morell , in the dark ?
Seems @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not fully informed about the high-level scheme for war , would he have been with his prized relationship with the President the most appropriate senior official to “ coordinate the CIA review ” of Powell ’ s speech ?
In the Wall Street Journal feature , reporter Gorman was assured of something else about Morell ’ s role in preparing the intelligence on Iraq .
According to Gorman , “ His [ Morell ’ s ] team didn ’ t handle the analysis that erroneously concluded the Iraqi government had weapons of mass @ @ @ @ @ @ @ your definition of “ team.
” But what about alleged ties between Iraq and al-Qaeda , the second bogus issue used to “ justify ” attacking Iraq ?
There Morell seemed to be on better ground , telling Gorman that his “ team ” had concluded that there had been earlier contacts between Iraqi intelligence and al-Qaeda , but there were no links to al-Qaeda operations at the time .
Still , Morell didn ’ t seem to have pressed this point very hard while coordinating the CIA ’ s review of Powell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had , one has to wonder why Powell was fed , and swallowed , the line about a “ sinister nexus between Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network ?
” ABC ’ s Brian Ross shot down that canard just hours after Powell spoke .
Citing a BBC report from London , Ross noted that British intelligence had concluded there was no evidence to support the theory that al-Qaeda and Iraq were working together .
Virtually all intelligence analysts with no axes to grind , after sifting through thousands of reports , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conclusion .
Did Secretary Powell have to learn about the Iraq/al-Qaeda disconnect from the BBC ?
Later , Powell was livid at having been led down the garden path by the likes of Tenet , Tenet ’ s pandering deputy John McLaughlin , and Morell , a Tenet protÃ©gÃ© .
Tenet and McLaughlin were also co-liars-in-chief regarding those mobile biological weapons factories , a yarn spun by the infamous source called “ Curveball.
” In his memoir , Tenet doesn ’ t describe Morell ’ s role in promoting , or at least @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Curveball ” as a reliable intelligence source for a key portion of Powell ’ s speech .
And , if you think it ’ s unfair to expect CIA bureaucrats to risk their careers by challenging the political desires of the White House , it ’ s worth noting the one major exception to the CIA ’ s sorry record during George W. Bush ’ s presidency and how honest CIA analysts helped prevent another unnecessary war .
After former chief of State Department intelligence Tom Fingar was put in charge of National @ @ @ @ @ @ @ thoroughly professional NIE in late 2007 concluded unanimously and “ with high confidence ” that Iran had stopped working on a nuclear weapon in mid-2003 .
President Bush ’ s own memoir leaves no doubt that this Estimate played a huge role in spiking White House plans for war on Iran .
It ’ s a pity that the Estimate on Iran should be an exception to the rule .
Much to Be Humble About Yet , in the Wall Street Journal feature , Michael Morell lectures Gorman on the basics and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ end up having bits of information that have a multitude of possible explanations , ” said Morell .
“ You ’ ve got to be really humble about the business we ’ re in.
” Well , yes indeed .
The WSJ also ran a sidebar with a list of the following CIA failures and Morell ’ s facile potions for cures : –2001 , Sept. 11 attacks : A failure of both intelligence collection and analysis .
Lesson : A need to better penetrate U.S. adversaries .
–2003 , Iraq weapons of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had WMDs .
Lesson : Analysts must describe confidence levels in conclusions , consider alternate explanations .
–2009 , Bombing of CIA base in Khost , Afghanistan : Doubts about the asset-turned-suicide-bomber didn ’ t get to the right people .
Lesson : Share information with the people who most need it .
Is this Morell fellow on the ball , or what ?
Let ’ s address these one by one : –9/11 need not have happened if Tenet and his protÃ©gÃ©s simply shared the information needed by the FBI and others @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s “ Did Tenet Hide Key 9/11 Info ?
” Or , Tenet and Morell might have risked their cozy relationship with Bush by challenging his casual dismissal of the existing multiple warnings .
–The WMD not in Iraq ?
How about promoting and rewarding honest analysts ; no “ fixing ” allowed .
Face down White House pressure .
We used to do it all the time .
We used to have career protection for doing it .
–On the tragedy at Khost ?
Well , how about some basic training @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
And speaking of rudimentary security precautions : Morell bragged to Gorman that he had recently flown to Kabul to brief Petraeus , carrying a blue briefing book emblazoned with the CIA seal and detailing the CIA ’ s every critical program , organization and operation .
“ It was the most highly classified guide that I ’ ve ever seen in my life ” was Petraeus ’ s wow-response .
The appropriate reaction , in my professional view , would have been to fire Morell on the spot for recklessness .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , blow up motorcades and shoot people in Afghanistan , you know .
Is it really such a great idea to carry a briefing book with the CIA ’ s most sensitive secrets into that environment ?
Moreover , bragging about this cavalier approach to protecting sensitive documents sends shivers down the backs of foreign intelligence officers , adding to their reluctance to share delicate information with us .
There is ironic serendipity in the fact that the WSJ feature on Morell appeared on Aug. 26 , exactly nine years after the fraudulent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ before the Veterans of Foreign Wars in Nashville .
And just four days before the nation ’ s bookstores host In My Time , Cheney ’ s apologia pro vita sua .
( The advance promotion includes his personal warning that the book will have “ heads exploding ” all over Washington . )
There are huge lessons in what happened and what did not happen immediately after Cheney ’ s Aug. 26 , 2002 , thinly disguised call for an attack on Iraq , and how those who recognized the lies could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stop the juggernaut toward war .
The Fawning Corporate Media and the cowering careerists at CIA were among the main culprits .
But there were others who , if they have a conscience and are honest with themselves , may still be finding it difficult to look in the mirror nine years later .
In his August 2002 speech , Cheney launched the virulent propaganda campaign for an aggressive war against Iraq , telling the audience in Nashville : “ Simply stated , there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons @ @ @ @ @ @ @ doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends , against our allies , and against us.
” This was no innocent mistake by the Vice President ; it was a bald-faced lie , a falsehood that opened the gates to a hellish conflict that has ripped apart Iraq , bringing untold death and destruction .
Nine years later it is well worth recalling this lie on behalf of the 4,500 U.S. troops killed in Iraq , the many more wounded , the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed , and the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Let it be widely understood that on Aug. 26 , 2002 , Dick Cheney set the meretricious terms of reference for war .
Sitting on the same stage that evening was former CENTCOM commander Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni , who was being honored at the VFW convention .
Zinni later said he was shocked to hear Cheney ’ s depiction of intelligence ( Iraq has WMD and is amassing them to use against us ) that did not square with what he knew .
Although Zinni had retired two years before , his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ stay up to date on key intelligence findings .
“ There was no solid proof that Saddam had WMD .
… I heard a case being made to go to war , ” Zinni told Meet the Press three and a half years later .
Zinni is normally a straight shooter with a good bit of courage .
And so , the question lingers : why did he not go public when he first heard Cheney ’ s lie ?
What seems operative here , I fear , is an all-too-familiar conundrum at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not to rock the boat , not to risk their standing within the Washington Establishment .
Almost always , the results are bad .
I would bet a tidy sum that Zinni regrets having let his reaction be shaped , as it apparently was , by a misguided kind of professional courtesy and/or slavish adherence to classification restrictions .
After all , he was one of the very few credible senior officials who might have prevented a war of aggression , which the Nuremberg Tribunals after World War II branded the “ supreme @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only one taken aback by Cheney ’ s words .
Then-CIA Director George Tenet said Cheney ’ s speech took him completely by surprise .
In his memoir , Tenet wrote , “ I had the impression that the president wasn ’ t any more aware than we were of what his number-two was going to say to the VFW until he said it.
” But like Br ’ er Fox , Tenet didn ’ t say nothing .
Tenet claims he didn ’ t even check it all out with either Cheney @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Yet , could Cheney ’ s twisting of the data not have been anticipated ?
Indeed , weren ’ t Tenet and his CIA in on the determination to make a case for war ?
In a way , that conclusion is a no-brainer .
As mentioned above , just five weeks before Cheney ’ s speech , Tenet himself had explained to his British counterpart that the President had decided to make war on Iraq for regime change and “ the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the public .
Several weeks later , when Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Bob Graham insisted on a National Intelligence Estimate before any vote in Congress , Tenet told his folks to prepare one that dovetailed with Cheney ’ s unsupported rhetoric .
Sadly , my former colleagues did .
And where was Michael Morell in this process ?
Clearly , he did nothing to destroy his career or put himself too much on the outs at the White House .
When Bush ’ s senior advisers came back to town after Labor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were devoted to selling the war , a major “ new product ” that , as then-White House chief of staff Andy Card explained , one shouldn ’ t introduce in the month of August .
Card , too , apparently had no idea that Cheney would jump the gun as “ fixer-in-chief.
” At that point , the Tenets , McLaughlins and Morells of this world fell right into line .
After assuring themselves that Tenet was a reliable salesman , Cheney and then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld allowed him to play a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ aluminum tubes for uranium enrichment and mobile trailers for manufacturing biological warfare agents .
The hyped and bogus intelligence succeeded in scaring Congress into voting for war on Oct. 10 and 11 , 2002 .
In my view , it strains credulity to think that Michael Morell was unaware of the fraudulent nature of this campaign .
Yet , like all too many others , he mostly kept quiet , and he got promoted .
That ’ s how it works in Washington these days .
This kind of malleability regarding twisting facts @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Petraeus , too .
Today , there is little chance Petraeus can be unaware of Morell ’ s pedigree .
Given Petraeus ’ s own experience in climbing the career ladder , the general may even harbor an admiration for Morell ’ s extraordinary willingness to please .
The two will make a fine pair for Official Washington , though not for those “ quaint ” folks who put a high premium on integrity .
As for Dick Cheney who was once given the well-deserved sobriquet “ Vice President for Torture ” in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wish he would disappear so he would stop bringing out the worst in everyone .
I found my own feelings mirrored in a plaintive comment from a good friend who prays a lot .
She said , “ I keep praying for Dick Cheney , especially when he goes into the hospital .
But he always comes out again.
” Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word , a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington .
He was a PDB briefer of Vice President George H.W .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Defense during President Ronald Reagan ’ s first term , and earlier in his career chaired National Intelligence Estimates .
He serves on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity ( VIPS ) .
Note : I sent a draft of the above article to former colleagues , intelligence officers who served in CIA more recently than I and left after clocking many years at very senior levels .
The comments I received from them turned out to be so germane and incisive that I include them below for those wanting @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on .
The first is from a recently retired Senior Intelligence Service officer .
You make a good case that Morell isn ’ t going to be the objective , unpoliticized deputy that Petraeus is going to need .
He may be what Petraeus wants , but not what he needs to do a good job .
You make the case that , like McLaughlin , he ’ s going to give the veneer of an analyst ’ s integrity to decision making without any of the burdens ( integrity , nonpoliticization , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the analyst imprimatur meaningful .
Like McLaughlin , he seems eager to play handmaiden to a predetermined agenda .
In fact , the case you make , correctly , is that Morell is the quintessential intelligence community bureaucrat who has survived and prospered by subscribing to a particular worldview and steering clear of the alternatives declared off-limits by the U.S. right wing .
–Your use of the word “ loyalty ” : Morell will be loyal to his boss i.e.
, he will not upset him the way McLaughlin was loyal to Tenet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the deputy ’ s job is to protect his boss from himself and from his own biases .
McLaughlin ’ s “ loyalty ” to Tenet wound up screwing Tenet , and Morell ’ s “ loyalty ” to Petraeus is going to do the same .
A man like Petraeus shows up with HUGE blind spots , and Morell rather than help him see into those blind spots almost certainly will reinforce them .
Your use of the word “ loyalty ” conveys that it ’ s a virus that will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what it is .
The “ winds blowing from the White House ” requires a little elaboration .
Just as Panetta was captured , so has this White House been via the person of CIA veteran John Brennan on site .
Brennan , of course , is the fellow who could not get confirmed as director because of his well known past history , so he ’ s running things from the White House .
The number of Obama flip-flops on intelligence issues has been stunning .
The “ winds , ” you @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CIA ’ s own Tenet protÃ©gÃ© Brennan .
I personally would say Morell , like McLaughlin , knows and accepts that the operations people and their rightwing allies in the Admin , at the Pentagon , and in the Congress ( and there are many ! )
set the direction the wind blows ; Morell will always urge his boss to tack accordingly .
In fact , the parallels with McLaughlin are strong , an analysis directorate fellow of modest capabilities , desperate for acceptance by the operations people and the rightwing downtown @ @ @ @ @ @ @ flow .
The Gorman piece in the WSJ was disgraceful cooptation in action .
The fact that she could list his many failures as “ lessons learned ” was amazing .
It ’ s as if the rightwing were signaling to Petreaus not to judge Morell by his repeated failures and repeated inaction ; judge him by our right-wing love for him .
On the many failures , I don ’ t have first-hand knowledge of Morell ’ s role in the historic intelligence cook-job of WMD and the fateful State of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I know is that Alan Foley was the designated representative in that coordination .
But your sourcing of Tenet on that is compelling , and I think your sanity-check on Morell ’ s performance is fair .
–Words like “ wow-response ” are also fair , and effective .
The “ wow ” factor is used to shock and awe people to squeeze them into the tiny space in which conformity is expected and challenges rejected .
For me , particularly with a weak Administration with no policy bearings like this one , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for operations ’ sake sans policy , sans review .
I ’ m reading Joby Warrick ’ s book , and his worship of targeters is somewhat jarring when there ’ s no discussion of the number of innocent people killed and no discussion of why this is an “ intelligence ” vice military mission .
We know why , but his readers don ’ t making such worship rather cynical .
You ’ re probably right that it “ strains credulity ” that Morell didn ’ t know how fraudulent the whole @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was .
I just don ’ t know , however , whether he was able intellectually to see what was going on .
He was so close to power and so close to their mindset and so eager to stay in their good graces that he may have believed all the horse manure .
Wrapped up as he was , he may not have fully appreciated the thing was especially because key elements of the intelligence community funneling info to him were also true-believers , as were those in charge of community analysis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Morell an alternative view ?
The most senior people were all true-believers .
It was very much frowned upon to ask real questions .
So how could a man of Morell ’ s background and capabilities ask them ?
If you preferred not to say outright that Morell was guilty of fraud , you could be somewhat more charitable and put it this way : He was surrounded by true-believers and didn ’ t have the fortitude or candlepower , or even perceived space , to question the bogus intelligence he was involved @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for the future .
The second comment ( on the remarks above ) is from Larry C Johnson , former CIA intelligence officer .
Your observations provide important context .
The lies that paved the road to war in Iraq are being revived this week as part of the 10-year anniversary of 9/11 .
We have not learned a damned thing .
Meanwhile , Iraq remains a deadly place for the various Iraq factions and our actions have completely disrupted the balance of power in the Middle East .
Of course , neither @ @ @ @ @ @ @ pundits want to focus on that .
And a brief but important point made by first commenter in reaction : And cranking up for Iran ?
Comment from Mary McCarthy , former Senior Intelligence Service officer and White House official .
You asked if I knew Morell and what he is like .
I do ; you nailed it .
The only moment of discomfort is when you use Tenet as a compass point for the actual truth .
Because , of course , Tenet often has his own version of the facts @

Exclusive: The gross manipulation of CIA analysis under George W. Bush pushed a new generation of “yes men” into the agency’s top ranks. Now one of those aspiring bureaucrats will be Gen. David Petraeus’s right-hand man, writes ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern. (Also, at end of article, see special comments from several CIA insiders.)
As Gen. David Petraeus prepares to take the helm at CIA in September, he can expect unswerving loyalty from his likely deputy, Michael Morell, who has been acting director since July when Leon Panetta left to become Secretary of Defense.
Like many senior CIA officials in recent years, Morell’s record is checkered, at best. He held key jobs in intelligence analysis over the past decade as the CIA often served as a handmaiden to the war propagandists.
Deputy brown-nose
As for Michael Morell, as with many other successful CIA careerists, his strongest suit seemed to be pleasing his boss and not antagonizing the White House. If past is precedent, his loyalty will be to Petraeus, not necessarily to the truth.
Forgive me if my thinking about loyalty to the facts seems “obsolete” or “quaint” or if it seems unfair to expect CIA analysts to put their careers on the line when politicians and ideologues are misleading the nation to war but those were the principles that analysts of my generation tried to uphold.
The recent tendency at CIA to give politicians what they want to hear rather than the hard truth is not healthy for the Republic that we were all sworn to serve.
And, if Petraeus’s own past is precedent, loyalty to the four-star general will not always be synonymous with loyalty to the truth.
Burnishing an Image
However, you will get no indication of this troubling reality from the flattering, but thin, feature about Michael Morell, “Mr. Insider Will Guide Petraeus at the CIA,” by Siobhan Gorman in the Wall Street Journal on Aug. 26.
Gorman is normally a solid reporter; but either she did not perform due diligence and let herself be snookered, or her editors stepped in to ensure her story was consonant with the image Petraeus and the Establishment wish to create for Morell.
Before her “rare” interview with Morell, Gorman should have taken a close look at former CIA Director George Tenet’s memoir, At the Center of the Storm, to learn what Tenet says about Morell’s record during the last decade’s dark days of misleading and dishonest intelligence.
In Tenet’s personal account of the CIA’s failures around 9/11 and the Iraq War, Morell Tenet’s former executive assistant is generally treated kindly, but Tenet puts Morell at the center of two key fiascoes: he “coordinated the CIA review” of Secretary of State Colin Powell’s infamous Feb. 5, 2003 address to the United Nations and he served as the regular CIA briefer to President George W. Bush.
Putting Access Before Honesty
So, Morell was there as Bush blew off early CIA warnings about the possibility of al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden being “determined to strike in the US” and while Bush and his neoconservative inner circle were concocting intelligence to justify invading Iraq.
Tenet credits Morell with suggesting to analysts that they prepare a report on the terrorist threat, which became the President’s Daily Brief that was handed to Bush on Aug. 6, 2001, at his ranch in Crawford, Texas. Bush brushed aside the warning with a reported comment to the CIA briefer, “all right, you’ve covered your ass,” and went off fishing.
Though Tenet said Morell got along well with Bush, it appears the President didn’t pay much heed to any CIA information coming from Morell, at least not anything that went against what Bush wanted to hear nor did Morell seem to risk offending the President by pushing these contrary points.
After the Aug. 6 PDB was delivered, Tenet wrote that he needed to follow it up, and did so with a trip to Crawford 11 days later, when Tenet remembers Bush driving him around in a pickup truck as Tenet made “small talk about the flora and fauna.”
Morell also was the CIA briefer with Bush in Florida on the morning of 9/11 when news arrived about the attacks on New York City’s Twin Towers. Later, Bush told Morell “that if we [the CIA] learned anything definitive about the attack, he wanted to be the first to know,” Tenet wrote, adding:
“Wiry, youthful looking, and extremely bright, Mike speaks in staccato-like bursts that get to the bottom line very quickly. He and George Bush had hit it off almost immediately. In a crisis like this, Mike was the perfect guy for us to have by the commander-in-chief’s side.”
However, it appears Morell was not willing to risk his rapport with Bush by challenging the President’s desire to pivot from retaliatory strikes against Afghanistan to a full-scale invasion of Iraq based on false and misleading intelligence.
Tenet also described Morell’s role in organizing the review of the “intelligence” that went into Powell’s speech, which let slip the dogs of war by presenting a thoroughly deceptive account of the Iraqi threat, what Powell later called a “blot” on his record.
Though the CIA embraced many of Powell’s misleading assertions, Tenet recounted one exchange in which Morell stood up to John Hannah, an aide to Vice President Dick Cheney, regarding Iraq’s alleged efforts to obtain yellowcake uranium from Niger.
“Hannah asked Mike Morell, who was coordinating the review of the speech for CIA, why the Niger uranium story wasn’t in the latest draft,” Tenet wrote. “‘Because we don’t believe it,’ Mike told him. ‘I thought you did,’ Hannah said. After much wrangling and precious time lost in explaining our doubts, Hannah understood why we believed it was inappropriate for Colin to use the Niger material in his speech.”
Despite that one pushback, the CIA analysts mostly bent to pressures coming from the White House for an alarmist treatment of allegations about the “weapons of mass destruction,” which turned out not to be in Iraq.
Of the CIA’s finished intelligence product, it was reportedly the PDB delivered by Morell that most exaggerated the danger.
Not Mistaken, Dishonest
It is sad to have to recall that this was not “erroneous,” but rather fraudulent intelligence. Announcing on June 5, 2008, the bipartisan conclusions from a five-year study by the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Jay Rockefeller described the intelligence conjured up to “justify” war on Iraq as “uncorroborated, contradicted, or even non-existent.”
Rockefeller’s comments call to mind what Tenet told his British counterpart, Sir Richard Dearlove, on July 20, 2002, after former Prime Minister Tony Blair sent Dearlove to the CIA to get the latest scoop on how the U.S. planned to “justify” the attack on Iraq.
According to the official British minutes of a cabinet-level planning session chaired by Blair on July 23, 2002, at 10 Downing Street, Tenet made clear to Dearlove that “the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy” to bring “regime change” to Iraq.
Could it be that Tenet would let the British in on this dirty little secret and keep George W. Bush’s personal briefer, Michael Morell, in the dark? Seems unlikely.
But even if Morell were not fully informed about the high-level scheme for war, would he have been with his prized relationship with the President the most appropriate senior official to “coordinate the CIA review” of Powell’s speech?
The ‘Sinister Nexus’
In the Wall Street Journal feature, reporter Gorman was assured of something else about Morell’s role in preparing the intelligence on Iraq. According to Gorman, “His [Morell’s] team didn’t handle the analysis that erroneously concluded the Iraqi government had weapons of mass destruction.” I guess that depends on your definition of “team.”
But what about alleged ties between Iraq and al-Qaeda, the second bogus issue used to “justify” attacking Iraq? There Morell seemed to be on better ground, telling Gorman that his “team” had concluded that there had been earlier contacts between Iraqi intelligence and al-Qaeda, but there were no links to al-Qaeda operations at the time.
Still, Morell didn’t seem to have pressed this point very hard while coordinating the CIA’s review of Powell’s UN speech. If Morell had, one has to wonder why Powell was fed, and swallowed, the line about a “sinister nexus between Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network?”
ABC’s Brian Ross shot down that canard just hours after Powell spoke. Citing a BBC report from London, Ross noted that British intelligence had concluded there was no evidence to support the theory that al-Qaeda and Iraq were working together.
Virtually all intelligence analysts with no axes to grind, after sifting through thousands of reports, had long since come to that same conclusion.
Did Secretary Powell have to learn about the Iraq/al-Qaeda disconnect from the BBC? Later, Powell was livid at having been led down the garden path by the likes of Tenet, Tenet’s pandering deputy John McLaughlin, and Morell, a Tenet protÃ©gÃ©.
Tenet and McLaughlin were also co-liars-in-chief regarding those mobile biological weapons factories, a yarn spun by the infamous source called “Curveball.” In his memoir, Tenet doesn’t describe Morell’s role in promoting, or at least acquiescing in depicting, the charlatan “Curveball” as a reliable intelligence source for a key portion of Powell’s speech.
And, if you think it’s unfair to expect CIA bureaucrats to risk their careers by challenging the political desires of the White House, it’s worth noting the one major exception to the CIA’s sorry record during George W. Bush’s presidency and how honest CIA analysts helped prevent another unnecessary war.
After former chief of State Department intelligence Tom Fingar was put in charge of National Intelligence Estimates (NIEs), a thoroughly professional NIE in late 2007 concluded unanimously and “with high confidence” that Iran had stopped working on a nuclear weapon in mid-2003.
President Bush’s own memoir leaves no doubt that this Estimate played a huge role in spiking White House plans for war on Iran. It’s a pity that the Estimate on Iran should be an exception to the rule.
Much to Be Humble About
Yet, in the Wall Street Journal feature, Michael Morell lectures Gorman on the basics and the limits of intelligence analysis.
“We end up having bits of information that have a multitude of possible explanations,” said Morell. “You’ve got to be really humble about the business we’re in.”
Well, yes indeed. The WSJ also ran a sidebar with a list of the following CIA failures and Morell’s facile potions for cures:
–2001, Sept. 11 attacks: A failure of both intelligence collection and analysis. Lesson: A need to better penetrate U.S. adversaries.
–2003, Iraq weapons of mass destruction: Analysts erroneously concluded Iraq had WMDs. Lesson: Analysts must describe confidence levels in conclusions, consider alternate explanations.
–2009, Bombing of CIA base in Khost, Afghanistan: Doubts about the asset-turned-suicide-bomber didn’t get to the right people. Lesson: Share information with the people who most need it.
Is this Morell fellow on the ball, or what?
Let’s address these one by one:
–9/11 need not have happened if Tenet and his protÃ©gÃ©s simply shared the information needed by the FBI and others. See, for instance, Consortiumnews.com’s “Did Tenet Hide Key 9/11 Info?” Or, Tenet and Morell might have risked their cozy relationship with Bush by challenging his casual dismissal of the existing multiple warnings.
–The WMD not in Iraq? How about promoting and rewarding honest analysts; no “fixing” allowed. Face down White House pressure. We used to do it all the time. We used to have career protection for doing it.
–On the tragedy at Khost? Well, how about some basic training in tradecraft, including rudimentary security precautions.
And speaking of rudimentary security precautions: Morell bragged to Gorman that he had recently flown to Kabul to brief Petraeus, carrying a blue briefing book emblazoned with the CIA seal and detailing the CIA’s every critical program, organization and operation.
“It was the most highly classified guide that I’ve ever seen in my life” was Petraeus’s wow-response.
The appropriate reaction, in my professional view, would have been to fire Morell on the spot for recklessness. He should know better. They down aircraft, blow up motorcades and shoot people in Afghanistan, you know. Is it really such a great idea to carry a briefing book with the CIA’s most sensitive secrets into that environment?
Moreover, bragging about this cavalier approach to protecting sensitive documents sends shivers down the backs of foreign intelligence officers, adding to their reluctance to share delicate information with us.
Loosening Leashes on Dogs of War
There is ironic serendipity in the fact that the WSJ feature on Morell appeared on Aug. 26, exactly nine years after the fraudulent speech given by Vice President Dick Cheney before the Veterans of Foreign Wars in Nashville.
And just four days before the nation’s bookstores host In My Time, Cheney’s apologia pro vita sua. (The advance promotion includes his personal warning that the book will have “heads exploding” all over Washington.)
There are huge lessons in what happened and what did not happen immediately after Cheney’s Aug. 26, 2002, thinly disguised call for an attack on Iraq, and how those who recognized the lies could not summon enough courage to try to stop the juggernaut toward war.
The Fawning Corporate Media and the cowering careerists at CIA were among the main culprits. But there were others who, if they have a conscience and are honest with themselves, may still be finding it difficult to look in the mirror nine years later.
In his August 2002 speech, Cheney launched the virulent propaganda campaign for an aggressive war against Iraq, telling the audience in Nashville:
“Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us.”
This was no innocent mistake by the Vice President; it was a bald-faced lie, a falsehood that opened the gates to a hellish conflict that has ripped apart Iraq, bringing untold death and destruction.
Nine years later it is well worth recalling this lie on behalf of the 4,500 U.S. troops killed in Iraq, the many more wounded, the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis killed, and the five million displaced from their homes.
Let it be widely understood that on Aug. 26, 2002, Dick Cheney set the meretricious terms of reference for war.
Hear No Evil, Speak No Truth
Sitting on the same stage that evening was former CENTCOM commander Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni, who was being honored at the VFW convention. Zinni later said he was shocked to hear Cheney’s depiction of intelligence (Iraq has WMD and is amassing them to use against us) that did not square with what he knew.
Although Zinni had retired two years before, his role as consultant had enabled him to stay up to date on key intelligence findings.
“There was no solid proof that Saddam had WMD. … I heard a case being made to go to war,” Zinni told Meet the Press three and a half years later.
Zinni is normally a straight shooter with a good bit of courage. And so, the question lingers: why did he not go public when he first heard Cheney’s lie?
What seems operative here, I fear, is an all-too-familiar conundrum at senior levels where people have been conditioned not to rock the boat, not to risk their standing within the Washington Establishment.
Almost always, the results are bad. I would bet a tidy sum that Zinni regrets having let his reaction be shaped, as it apparently was, by a misguided kind of professional courtesy and/or slavish adherence to classification restrictions.
After all, he was one of the very few credible senior officials who might have prevented a war of aggression, which the Nuremberg Tribunals after World War II branded the “supreme international crime.”
Zinni was not the only one taken aback by Cheney’s words. Then-CIA Director George Tenet said Cheney’s speech took him completely by surprise.
In his memoir, Tenet wrote, “I had the impression that the president wasn’t any more aware than we were of what his number-two was going to say to the VFW until he said it.” But like Br’er Fox, Tenet didn’t say nothing.
Tenet claims he didn’t even check it all out with either Cheney or Bush after Cheney’s speech. Yet, could Cheney’s twisting of the data not have been anticipated? Indeed, weren’t Tenet and his CIA in on the determination to make a case for war?
In a way, that conclusion is a no-brainer. As mentioned above, just five weeks before Cheney’s speech, Tenet himself had explained to his British counterpart that the President had decided to make war on Iraq for regime change and “the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.”
Cheney simply was unveiling the war rationale to the public. Several weeks later, when Senate Intelligence Committee Chair Bob Graham insisted on a National Intelligence Estimate before any vote in Congress, Tenet told his folks to prepare one that dovetailed with Cheney’s unsupported rhetoric.
Sadly, my former colleagues did. And where was Michael Morell in this process? Clearly, he did nothing to destroy his career or put himself too much on the outs at the White House.
The Sales Job
When Bush’s senior advisers came back to town after Labor Day 2002, the next five weeks were devoted to selling the war, a major “new product” that, as then-White House chief of staff Andy Card explained, one shouldn’t introduce in the month of August.
Card, too, apparently had no idea that Cheney would jump the gun as “fixer-in-chief.” At that point, the Tenets, McLaughlins and Morells of this world fell right into line.
After assuring themselves that Tenet was a reliable salesman, Cheney and then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld allowed him to play a supporting role in advertising bogus claims about aluminum tubes for uranium enrichment and mobile trailers for manufacturing biological warfare agents.
The hyped and bogus intelligence succeeded in scaring Congress into voting for war on Oct. 10 and 11, 2002.
In my view, it strains credulity to think that Michael Morell was unaware of the fraudulent nature of this campaign. Yet, like all too many others, he mostly kept quiet, and he got promoted. That’s how it works in Washington these days.
This kind of malleability regarding twisting facts to support war has worked well for Petraeus, too.
Today, there is little chance Petraeus can be unaware of Morell’s pedigree. Given Petraeus’s own experience in climbing the career ladder, the general may even harbor an admiration for Morell’s extraordinary willingness to please.
The two will make a fine pair for Official Washington, though not for those “quaint” folks who put a high premium on integrity.
As for Dick Cheney who was once given the well-deserved sobriquet “Vice President for Torture” in a Washington Post editorial, I just wish he would disappear so he would stop bringing out the worst in everyone.
I found my own feelings mirrored in a plaintive comment from a good friend who prays a lot. She said, “I keep praying for Dick Cheney, especially when he goes into the hospital. But he always comes out again.”
Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. He was a PDB briefer of Vice President George H.W. Bush and the Secretaries of State and Defense during President Ronald Reagan’s first term, and earlier in his career chaired National Intelligence Estimates. He serves on the Steering Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).
Note: I sent a draft of the above article to former colleagues, intelligence officers who served in CIA more recently than I and left after clocking many years at very senior levels. The comments I received from them turned out to be so germane and incisive that I include them below for those wanting a better feel for what really goes on.
The first is from a recently retired Senior Intelligence Service officer.
Ray:
You make a good case that Morell isn’t going to be the objective, unpoliticized deputy that Petraeus is going to need. He may be what Petraeus wants, but not what he needs to do a good job.
You make the case that, like McLaughlin, he’s going to give the veneer of an analyst’s integrity to decision making without any of the burdens (integrity, nonpoliticization, tradecraft, etc.) that make the analyst imprimatur meaningful. Like McLaughlin, he seems eager to play handmaiden to a predetermined agenda.
In fact, the case you make, correctly, is that Morell is the quintessential intelligence community bureaucrat who has survived and prospered by subscribing to a particular worldview and steering clear of the alternatives declared off-limits by the U.S. right wing.
A couple of more specific comments:
–Your use of the word “loyalty”: Morell will be loyal to his boss i.e., he will not upset him the way McLaughlin was loyal to Tenet. That ignores, of course, that the deputy’s job is to protect his boss from himself and from his own biases.
McLaughlin’s “loyalty” to Tenet wound up screwing Tenet, and Morell’s “loyalty” to Petraeus is going to do the same. A man like Petraeus shows up with HUGE blind spots, and Morell rather than help him see into those blind spots almost certainly will reinforce them.
Your use of the word “loyalty” conveys that it’s a virus that will harm Petraeus. And that’s what it is.
The “winds blowing from the White House” requires a little elaboration. Just as Panetta was captured, so has this White House been via the person of CIA veteran John Brennan on site. Brennan, of course, is the fellow who could not get confirmed as director because of his well known past history, so he’s running things from the White House.
The number of Obama flip-flops on intelligence issues has been stunning. The “winds,” you might say, have been blowing from CIA’s own Tenet protÃ©gÃ© Brennan.
I personally would say Morell, like McLaughlin, knows and accepts that the operations people and their rightwing allies in the Admin, at the Pentagon, and in the Congress (and there are many!) set the direction the wind blows; Morell will always urge his boss to tack accordingly.
In fact, the parallels with McLaughlin are strong, an analysis directorate fellow of modest capabilities, desperate for acceptance by the operations people and the rightwing downtown, jettisoning tradecraft and going with the flow.
The Gorman piece in the WSJ was disgraceful cooptation in action. The fact that she could list his many failures as “lessons learned” was amazing. It’s as if the rightwing were signaling to Petreaus not to judge Morell by his repeated failures and repeated inaction; judge him by our right-wing love for him.
On the many failures, I don’t have first-hand knowledge of Morell’s role in the historic intelligence cook-job of WMD and the fateful State of the Union lies about yellow cake; all I know is that Alan Foley was the designated representative in that coordination.
But your sourcing of Tenet on that is compelling, and I think your sanity-check on Morell’s performance is fair.
–Words like “wow-response” are also fair, and effective. The “wow” factor is used to shock and awe people to squeeze them into the tiny space in which conformity is expected and challenges rejected.
For me, particularly with a weak Administration with no policy bearings like this one, the problem is that operations are done for operations’ sake sans policy, sans review.
I’m reading Joby Warrick’s book, and his worship of targeters is somewhat jarring when there’s no discussion of the number of innocent people killed and no discussion of why this is an “intelligence” vice military mission. We know why, but his readers don’t making such worship rather cynical.
You’re probably right that it “strains credulity” that Morell didn’t know how fraudulent the whole National Intelligence Estimate on WMD in Iraq was. I just don’t know, however, whether he was able intellectually to see what was going on.
He was so close to power and so close to their mindset and so eager to stay in their good graces that he may have believed all the horse manure.
Wrapped up as he was, he may not have fully appreciated the thing was especially because key elements of the intelligence community funneling info to him were also true-believers, as were those in charge of community analysis.
Who could ever have been giving Morell an alternative view? The most senior people were all true-believers. It was very much frowned upon to ask real questions.
So how could a man of Morell’s background and capabilities ask them? If you preferred not to say outright that Morell was guilty of fraud, you could be somewhat more charitable and put it this way: He was surrounded by true-believers and didn’t have the fortitude or candlepower, or even perceived space, to question the bogus intelligence he was involved in validating.
Not a good harbinger for the future.
The second comment (on the remarks above) is from Larry C Johnson, former CIA intelligence officer.
Your observations provide important context. The lies that paved the road to war in Iraq are being revived this week as part of the 10-year anniversary of 9/11.
We have not learned a damned thing. Meanwhile, Iraq remains a deadly place for the various Iraq factions and our actions have completely disrupted the balance of power in the Middle East. Of course, neither the media nor the majority of the pundits want to focus on that.
And a brief but important point made by first commenter in reaction:
And cranking up for Iran?
Comment from Mary McCarthy, former Senior Intelligence Service officer and White House official.
You asked if I knew Morell and what he is like. I do; you nailed it.
The only moment of discomfort is when you use Tenet as a compass point for the actual truth. Because, of course, Tenet often has his own version of the facts.


russia-insider--2020-07-13--This Is How Propaganda's Supposed to Work: 60% in US Believe Fake Russia Bounty Story

It 's the same Russiagate playbook that 's sadly been the norm for years : breathless headlines are issued , the `` walls are closing in '' , then officials and media begin slowly walking back key aspects , and said walk-backs are buried in back sections of the Times , the substance of the story is memory-holed , while the vague imprint of the headline remains on the American consciousness .
A who 's who of top intelligence and military officials have now denied the the Russian bounties to kill American troops in Afghanistan story which originated in The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ outlets behind the initial reporting themselves have been slowly forced to qualify the story into oblivion .
And yet a new Reuters/Ipsos polls finds that 60 % of Americans view that allegation as “ believable.
” As an example of how some of the very outlets which pushed the story hard have since walked back many of the central claims , consider the following line from The Washington Post last week , which was certainly awkward for them and the Times : '' Sketchy '' and yet the avalanche of headlines are still @ @ @ @ @ @ @ denied its accuracy many times over to boot .
Yes , this is how propaganda is supposed to work .
When the 'Russia boogeyman ' is invoked , especially related to Trump , the threshhold for evidence is low to non-existent .
Overall , 60 % of Americans said they found reports of Russian bounties on American soldiers to be “ very ” or “ somewhat ” believable , while 21 % said they were not credible and the rest were unsure .
Thirty-nine percent said they thought Trump “ did know ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ U.S. military before reports surfaced in the news media last month , while 26 % said the president “ did nsot know.
” As AntiWar.com points out , such fake stories and the American public 's gullibility has real-world and potentially very dangerous consequences : `` The poll shows that they view Russian President Vladimir Putin as a 'threat , ' and support a new round of US sanctions against Russia .
Alarmingly , 9 % even supported attacking Russia outright . ''
`` This is undercut by the strong evidence that this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ never was .
The danger is , the US could escalate hostilities and the majority of the public is fine with it , '' AntiWar aptly concludes .

It's the same Russiagate playbook that's sadly been the norm for years: breathless headlines are issued, the "walls are closing in", then officials and media begin slowly walking back key aspects, and said walk-backs are buried in back sections of the Times, the substance of the story is memory-holed, while the vague imprint of the headline remains on the American consciousness.
A who's who of top intelligence and military officials have now denied the the Russian bounties to kill American troops in Afghanistan story which originated in The New York Times weeks ago. The outlets behind the initial reporting themselves have been slowly forced to qualify the story into oblivion.
And yet a new Reuters/Ipsos polls finds that 60% of Americans view that allegation as “believable.”
Appears in print on June 27, 2020, Section A, Page 1
Reuters describes of the poll:
A majority of Americans believe that Russia paid the Taliban to kill U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan last year amid negotiations to end the war, and more than half want to respond with new economic sanctions against Moscow, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Wednesday.
As an example of how some of the very outlets which pushed the story hard have since walked back many of the central claims, consider the following line from The Washington Post last week, which was certainly awkward for them and the Times:
The Washington Post reported on Tuesday that White House officials were first informed in early 2019 of intelligence reports that Russia was offering the bounties to kill U.S. and coalition military personnel, but the information was deemed sketchy and in need of additional confirmation, according to people familiar with the matter.
"Sketchy" and yet the avalanche of headlines are still out there. The Pentagon has flatly denied its accuracy many times over to boot.
Yes, this is how propaganda is supposed to work. When the 'Russia boogeyman' is invoked, especially related to Trump, the threshhold for evidence is low to non-existent.
Hey, remember that whole Russian Bounty thing about Putin paying for the scalps of US soldiers? This Friday night news dump from NYT suggests it's -- shockingly -- the latest Russiagate BOMBSHELL to fizzle out. One hint is where NYT placed it: page A19. https://t.co/LWX3Bq6MH0 pic.twitter.com/Yo8BqT2Fgr — Aaron Maté (@aaronjmate) July 6, 2020
Reuters continues:
Overall, 60% of Americans said they found reports of Russian bounties on American soldiers to be “very” or “somewhat” believable, while 21% said they were not credible and the rest were unsure. Thirty-nine percent said they thought Trump “did know” about Russia’s targeting of the U.S. military before reports surfaced in the news media last month, while 26% said the president “did nsot know.”
As AntiWar.com points out, such fake stories and the American public's gullibility has real-world and potentially very dangerous consequences: "The poll shows that they view Russian President Vladimir Putin as a 'threat,' and support a new round of US sanctions against Russia. Alarmingly, 9% even supported attacking Russia outright."
"This is undercut by the strong evidence that this plot isn’t true, and never was. The danger is, the US could escalate hostilities and the majority of the public is fine with it," AntiWar aptly concludes.


russia-insider--2020-07-13--As Long as Mass Media Propaganda Exists, Democracy Is a Sham - 'Russian Bounties' Hoax Proves It

A new Reuters/Ipsos poll has reportedly found that a majority of Americans believe the completely discredited narrative that the Russian government paid Taliban-linked fighters to kill the occupying forces of the US and its allies in Afghanistan .
“ A majority of Americans believe that Russia paid the Taliban to kill U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan last year amid negotiations to end the war , and more than half want to respond with new economic sanctions against Moscow , according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Wednesday , ” Reuters reports .
“ Overall , 60 % of Americans said they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ soldiers to be ‘ very ’ or ‘ somewhat ’ believable , while 21 % said they were not credible and the rest were unsure , ” says Reuters .
Those 21 percent are objectively correct : the story is not credible , and it ’ s not even close .
Gareth Porter shows in The Grayzone how the “ Bountygate ” narrative is so utterly baseless that even US intelligence agencies have dismissed it , Joe Lauria of Consortium News explains how it doesn ’ t make any sense on its face @ @ @ @ @ @ @ breaks down the appalling journalistic malpractice that went into circulating this incredibly thinly sourced story to the mainstream public .
The story advances no solid facts or verified information .
What it does advance is pre-existing imperialist agendas like remaining in Afghanistan , killing the last of the remaining nuclear deals with Moscow , and manufacturing public support for new Russia sanctions .
And yet a majority of people believed it , and still believe it .
The narrative that Russia paid Taliban fighters to kill occupying forces is now regarded as an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ despite being backed by literally zero facts .
If people were as objective and adept at critical thinking as we tend to believe we are , the mass media ’ s unconscionable facilitation of a brazen cold war psyop would by itself have killed off all public trust in the institution of mass news reporting .
But people are not as objective and adept at critical thinking as we tend to believe we are .
People have many cognitive biases which distort our ability to objectively process information and understand events , including @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is true just because they ’ ve heard it said multiple times .
This makes us easily susceptible to mass media propaganda , where our encounters with daily news headlines can shape our perception of what ’ s going on in the world regardless of whether or not those headlines are backed by actual facts .
This latest poll is a perfect example of how the plutocrat-owned media manipulate public opinion in the interest of establishment agendas using brazen propaganda campaigns , but it is just the most recent example .
Over and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ perception of what ’ s going on distorted by lies inserted into their minds by the corporate news media , like when half a year after the invasion of Iraq seven in ten Americans believed Saddam Hussein was responsible for the 9/11 attacks .
All it took to trick them into believing this and supporting the invasion was repeatedly mentioning 9/11 and Saddam in the same breath , despite there never being any evidence whatsoever for any such thing .
This kind of manipulation is not rare , it is ubiquitous and ongoing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are putting ideas in people ’ s minds which favor the establishment upon which said plutocrats have built their kingdoms , normalizing the insane status quo and manufacturing support for agendas which bolster it .
This is not some delusional conspiracy theory , it ’ s a well-documented fact to which many mainstream journalists have testified .
As long as this remains the case in our society , democracy can not exist in any meaningful way .
As long as a loose alliance of plutocrats and government operatives are able to consistently manipulate @ @ @ @ @ @ @ think and vote , then you can not rightly say that the people are in charge of the fate of their nation .
If the majority is consistently in alignment with the plutocrats whose outsized media influence enables them to dominate the public narrative , then voting necessarily reflects the will of those plutocrats , not the people .
Even if you changed everything else that is wrong with the current system , nothing would change if the plutocratic class retained its ability to manipulate the way people think and vote .
You @ @ @ @ @ @ @ integrity , end gerrymandering , even get money out of politics , but as long as the plutocratic class is still using its wealth to manipulate public thought in support of its interests , people would keep voting the way they ’ re manipulated to vote .
Manipulation is a key ingredient in any long-term abusive relationship , because people don ’ t tend to stay in abusive situations unless they are manipulated into doing so .
This is true whether you ’ re talking about romantic partnerships , governments , or globe-spanning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ use the power of our numbers to end this abusive relationship where we are at the whim of crushing austerity , exploitative neoliberalism , endless war and rapacious ecocide , because we ’ re being manipulated into staying .
And , just like with any other abusive relationship , there comes a time to leave before it ’ s too late .
That time is now .
We can begin by expanding awareness of what ’ s really going on , both inwardly in ourselves and outwardly by sharing truthful information with others @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a chance at making ourselves impossible to propagandize effectively and using our strength in numbers to force real change .
Thanks for reading !
The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website , which will get you an email notification for everything I publish .
My work is entirely reader-supported , so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around , liking me on Facebook , following my antics onTwitter , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , soundcloud , Apple podcasts or Spotify , following me on Steemit , throwing some money into my tip jar on Patreon or Paypal , purchasing some of my sweet merchandise , buying my books Rogue Nation : Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone and Woke : A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers .
For more info on who I am , where I stand , and what I ’ m trying to do with this platform , click here .
Everyone , racist platforms excluded , has my permission to republish , use @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( or anything else I ’ ve written ) in any way they like free of charge .

A new Reuters/Ipsos poll has reportedly found that a majority of Americans believe the completely discredited narrative that the Russian government paid Taliban-linked fighters to kill the occupying forces of the US and its allies in Afghanistan.
“A majority of Americans believe that Russia paid the Taliban to kill U.S. soldiers in Afghanistan last year amid negotiations to end the war, and more than half want to respond with new economic sanctions against Moscow, according to a Reuters/Ipsos poll released on Wednesday,” Reuters reports. “Overall, 60% of Americans said they found reports of Russian bounties on American soldiers to be ‘very’ or ‘somewhat’ believable, while 21% said they were not credible and the rest were unsure,” says Reuters.
Most Americans believe Russia targeted U.S. soldiers, want sanctions in response, Reuters/Ipsos poll shows https://t.co/NWvdxquRMK pic.twitter.com/t18vMlEovx — Reuters (@Reuters) July 8, 2020
Those 21 percent are objectively correct: the story is not credible, and it’s not even close. Gareth Porter shows in The Grayzone how the “Bountygate” narrative is so utterly baseless that even US intelligence agencies have dismissed it, Joe Lauria of Consortium News explains how it doesn’t make any sense on its face, and FAIR’s Alan MacLeod breaks down the appalling journalistic malpractice that went into circulating this incredibly thinly sourced story to the mainstream public.
It's just a canard
The story advances no solid facts or verified information. What it does advance is pre-existing imperialist agendas like remaining in Afghanistan, killing the last of the remaining nuclear deals with Moscow, and manufacturing public support for new Russia sanctions.
And yet a majority of people believed it, and still believe it.
The narrative that Russia paid Taliban fighters to kill occupying forces is now regarded as an established fact in many key circles, despite being backed by literally zero facts.
If people were as objective and adept at critical thinking as we tend to believe we are, the mass media’s unconscionable facilitation of a brazen cold war psyop would by itself have killed off all public trust in the institution of mass news reporting. But people are not as objective and adept at critical thinking as we tend to believe we are. People have many cognitive biases which distort our ability to objectively process information and understand events, including one which causes us to believe something is true just because they’ve heard it said multiple times. This makes us easily susceptible to mass media propaganda, where our encounters with daily news headlines can shape our perception of what’s going on in the world regardless of whether or not those headlines are backed by actual facts.
"Bounty-Gate" is the Pentagon's main chance to keep the U.S. war in #Afghanistan going for a while longer. Push-back against those in Congress exploiting this fraud is needed to deprive the Pentagon and its allies from succeeding in this scheme. https://t.co/OUPC6IpUgc — Gareth Porter (@GarethPorter) July 8, 2020
This latest poll is a perfect example of how the plutocrat-owned media manipulate public opinion in the interest of establishment agendas using brazen propaganda campaigns, but it is just the most recent example. Over and over and over again we see public perception of what’s going on distorted by lies inserted into their minds by the corporate news media, like when half a year after the invasion of Iraq seven in ten Americans believed Saddam Hussein was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. All it took to trick them into believing this and supporting the invasion was repeatedly mentioning 9/11 and Saddam in the same breath, despite there never being any evidence whatsoever for any such thing.
This kind of manipulation is not rare, it is ubiquitous and ongoing. Every single day the plutocratic media are putting ideas in people’s minds which favor the establishment upon which said plutocrats have built their kingdoms, normalizing the insane status quo and manufacturing support for agendas which bolster it. This is not some delusional conspiracy theory, it’s a well-documented fact to which many mainstream journalists have testified.
As long as this remains the case in our society, democracy cannot exist in any meaningful way. As long as a loose alliance of plutocrats and government operatives are able to consistently manipulate the way a critical mass of people think and vote, then you cannot rightly say that the people are in charge of the fate of their nation. If the majority is consistently in alignment with the plutocrats whose outsized media influence enables them to dominate the public narrative, then voting necessarily reflects the will of those plutocrats, not the people.
Even if you changed everything else that is wrong with the current system, nothing would change if the plutocratic class retained its ability to manipulate the way people think and vote. You can fix America’s garbage election integrity, end gerrymandering, even get money out of politics, but as long as the plutocratic class is still using its wealth to manipulate public thought in support of its interests, people would keep voting the way they’re manipulated to vote.
Manipulation is a key ingredient in any long-term abusive relationship, because people don’t tend to stay in abusive situations unless they are manipulated into doing so. This is true whether you’re talking about romantic partnerships, governments, or globe-spanning power structures. We don’t use the power of our numbers to end this abusive relationship where we are at the whim of crushing austerity, exploitative neoliberalism, endless war and rapacious ecocide, because we’re being manipulated into staying.
And, just like with any other abusive relationship, there comes a time to leave before it’s too late. That time is now. We can begin by expanding awareness of what’s really going on, both inwardly in ourselves and outwardly by sharing truthful information with others. In so doing, we stand a chance at making ourselves impossible to propagandize effectively and using our strength in numbers to force real change.
* * *
Thanks for reading! The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following my antics onTwitter, checking out my podcast on either Youtube, soundcloud, Apple podcasts or Spotify, following me on Steemit, throwing some money into my tip jar on Patreon or Paypal, purchasing some of my sweet merchandise, buying my books Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone and Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here. Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish, use or translate any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge.
Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2


russia-insider--2020-07-13--Russian High School Students Fly LGBT Flag, Teacher Calls Cops

The flag remained on the pole for just five minutes before school security took it down .
The school 's headteacher said the flag was an act of sabotage .
.
.
A school in Russia 's second-largest city has turned to the police after a rainbow flag was hung from a school flagpole during exam period .
The sodomite pride flag is highly disliked in modern-day Russia .
The leadership of St. Petersburg school number 511 contacted law enforcement on July 9 after two students raised the flag outside the building .
According to the online publication Paper , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the Russian tricolor and were caught on CCTV .
The flag remained on the pole for just five minutes before school security took it down .
Despite being flown for a short time , a photo of the flag still appeared online and has been shared by multiple accounts on Russia 's largest social network , VKontakte .
In an interview with local news website 78.ru , the school 's headteacher said that the flag was an `` act of sabotage , '' perhaps linked to ongoing exams .
According to Paper @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the students , and brought her in for an interview .
The rainbow flag is disliked in modern Russia , due to its recent association with sodomite groups .
As of 2013 , `` propaganda of non-traditional sexual relations among minors '' is a criminal offense , which comes with a hefty fine .
Many in Russia consider the rainbow flag to be pro-sodomite propaganda .

The flag remained on the pole for just five minutes before school security took it down. The school's headteacher said the flag was an act of sabotage . . .
A school in Russia's second-largest city has turned to the police after a rainbow flag was hung from a school flagpole during exam period. The sodomite pride flag is highly disliked in modern-day Russia.
The leadership of St. Petersburg school number 511 contacted law enforcement on July 9 after two students raised the flag outside the building.
© spb_today_unpublished / vk.com
According to the online publication Paper, two girls hung the multicolored symbol next to the Russian tricolor and were caught on CCTV.
The flag remained on the pole for just five minutes before school security took it down.
Despite being flown for a short time, a photo of the flag still appeared online and has been shared by multiple accounts on Russia's largest social network, VKontakte.
In an interview with local news website 78.ru, the school's headteacher said that the flag was an "act of sabotage," perhaps linked to ongoing exams.
According to Paper, the school administration identified one of the students, and brought her in for an interview.
The rainbow flag is disliked in modern Russia, due to its recent association with sodomite groups. As of 2013, "propaganda of non-traditional sexual relations among minors" is a criminal offense, which comes with a hefty fine. Many in Russia consider the rainbow flag to be pro-sodomite propaganda.