russia-insider--2020-09-18--Three Cultures God Destroyed Because of Homosexual Sex

This article from our archives was first published on RI in February 2019 Sodom & Gomorrah are famous .
Almost everyone has heard of them .
And almost everyone knows the reason why God sent fire and brimstone to wipe them off the face of the earth .
Why were the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah destroyed ?
They had sinned in many ways , for many years .
But what sin finally brought fire down from heaven upon them ?
For what particular sin is Sodom known ?
`` Now before they lay down , the men of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ both old and young , all the people from every quarter , surrounded the house .
And they called to Lot and said to him , 'Where are the men who came to you tonight ?
Bring them out to us that we may know them carnally . '
.
.
.
When the morning dawned , the angels urged Lot to hurry , saying , “ Arise , take your wife and your two daughters who are here , lest you be consumed in the punishment of the city.
” ( Genesis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
They had sinned in many ways , for many years .
But what particular sins finally brought judgment down upon them ?
Why did God finally send Israel with instructions to wipe out all of the inhabitants of Canaan ?
`` You shall not lie with a male as with a woman .
It is an abomination .
Nor shall you mate with any animal , to defile yourself with it .
Nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it .
It is perversion .
‘ Do not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; for by all these the nations are defiled , which I am casting out before you .
For the land is defiled ; therefore I visit the punishment of its iniquity upon it , and the land vomits out its inhabitants . ''
( Leviticus 18:22-25 ) Many people know that God sent Israel to destroy the Canaanites , and to take over their land .
Few people realize that homosexual sex was one of the reasons why this judgment took place .
Why was the tribe of Benjamin almost completely wiped @ @ @ @ @ @ @ region of Gibeah ?
What sorts of sins were they known for ?
Notice that the wording is almost identical to that found in Genesis 19 , in regard to Sodom and Gomorrah .
They want to force a visitor to participate in homosexual sex .
These particular wicked men are denied their desire for homo sex , so they proceed to satisfy themselves with the gang-rape ( likely including sodomy ) of the man 's concubine instead .
In response to these sexual sins , God permitted Israel to nearly wipe out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : The End of the Road When St. Paul discusses the activity of sodomites , he does not say it is `` just another sin '' .
Rather , he presents it as an example of extreme abomination , coming at the end of a long path of progressive debauchery .
Many sins are not against nature , but are simply good things done in the wrong way or at the wrong time .
But homosexual sex is such a perversion that it is a sin against nature itself .
There is no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ holy .
It is debased and unfruitful by definition .
When it comes to heinous sins , sodomy is near the end of the road , just before final judgment .
`` For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men , who suppress the truth in unrighteousness .
.
.
Professing to be wise , they became fools .
.
.
Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness , in the lusts of their hearts , to dishonor their bodies among themselves , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lie , and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator , who is blessed forever .
Amen .
For this reason God gave them up to vile passions .
For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature .
Likewise also the men , leaving the natural use of the woman , burned in their lust for one another , men with men committing what is shameful , and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due .
( Romans 1:18-27 ) It is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sodomy within a heterosexual marriage , as being just as wicked as sodomy between two men .
Either way , it is fundamentally contraceptive and unfruitful .
Regardless of who is committing sodomy , it is a vile , wicked act which is against nature , and which can never bear the fruit of children .
In many biblical cases , God was patient with people even in the midst of many sins .
But when they finally descended into the debauchery of sodomy , God 's patience wore thin .
Judgment was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have been handed down to us from God 's prophets .
And they suggest that sodomy is not just your average run-of-the-mill sin .
In many cases , sodomites brought down destruction on entire cities , and even upon entire nations .
We need to keep these lessons in mind when we consider what America has legalized and celebrated on a national level , mandating homosexual `` marriage '' rights in the Supreme Court , and lighting up the White House itself with a profane homosexual-pride rainbow .
In the three years since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has continued to advance , corrupting our culture and our government at every turn .
Sodomites have taken the very sign of peace which God gave Noah , and they have twisted it into a symbol for sodomy .
Is this a level of blasphemy which God will choose to overlook ?
Would you like to see more articles like this ?
Our fundraising goal has not yet been met , and we would be very grateful for your help .
It takes a full time staff to keep this website going , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ families .
A recurring donation of even $ 15 or $ 25 per month would be a huge blessing .

This article from our archives was first published on RI in February 2019
#1 — Sodom
Sodom & Gomorrah are famous. Almost everyone has heard of them. And almost everyone knows the reason why God sent fire and brimstone to wipe them off the face of the earth.
"The Fall of Babylon" from D.W. Griffith's 1919 film
Why were the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah destroyed? They had sinned in many ways, for many years. But what sin finally brought fire down from heaven upon them? For what particular sin is Sodom known?
"Now before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both old and young, all the people from every quarter, surrounded the house. And they called to Lot and said to him, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may know them carnally.' . . . When the morning dawned, the angels urged Lot to hurry, saying, “Arise, take your wife and your two daughters who are here, lest you be consumed in the punishment of the city.” (Genesis 19:4-15)
Ancient mosaic depicting the destruction of Sodom & Gomorrah
#2 — Canaan
Why were the Canaanites destroyed? They had sinned in many ways, for many years. But what particular sins finally brought judgment down upon them? Why did God finally send Israel with instructions to wipe out all of the inhabitants of Canaan?
"You shall not lie with a male as with a woman. It is an abomination. Nor shall you mate with any animal, to defile yourself with it. Nor shall any woman stand before an animal to mate with it. It is perversion. ‘Do not defile yourselves with any of these things; for by all these the nations are defiled, which I am casting out before you. For the land is defiled; therefore I visit the punishment of its iniquity upon it, and the land vomits out its inhabitants." (Leviticus 18:22-25)
Many people know that God sent Israel to destroy the Canaanites, and to take over their land. Few people realize that homosexual sex was one of the reasons why this judgment took place.
#3 — Gibeah (in Israel)
Why was the tribe of Benjamin almost completely wiped out, particularly in regard to the region of Gibeah? What sorts of sins were they known for?
"As they were enjoying themselves, suddenly certain men of the city, perverted men, surrounded the house and beat on the door. They spoke to the master of the house, the old man, saying, 'Bring out the man who came to your house, that we may know him carnally!' (Judges 19:22)
Notice that the wording is almost identical to that found in Genesis 19, in regard to Sodom and Gomorrah. They want to force a visitor to participate in homosexual sex. These particular wicked men are denied their desire for homo sex, so they proceed to satisfy themselves with the gang-rape (likely including sodomy) of the man's concubine instead. In response to these sexual sins, God permitted Israel to nearly wipe out the entire tribe of Benjamin.
Sodomy: The End of the Road
When St. Paul discusses the activity of sodomites, he does not say it is "just another sin". Rather, he presents it as an example of extreme abomination, coming at the end of a long path of progressive debauchery. Many sins are not against nature, but are simply good things done in the wrong way or at the wrong time. But homosexual sex is such a perversion that it is a sin against nature itself. There is no context in which it can ever be holy. It is debased and unfruitful by definition. When it comes to heinous sins, sodomy is near the end of the road, just before final judgment.
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness . . . Professing to be wise, they became fools . . . Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due. (Romans 1:18-27)
It is worth noting that Orthodox Saints have condemned sodomy within a heterosexual marriage, as being just as wicked as sodomy between two men. Either way, it is fundamentally contraceptive and unfruitful. Regardless of who is committing sodomy, it is a vile, wicked act which is against nature, and which can never bear the fruit of children.
In many biblical cases, God was patient with people even in the midst of many sins. But when they finally descended into the debauchery of sodomy, God's patience wore thin. Judgment was knocking at the door.
These Scriptures have been handed down to us from God's prophets. And they suggest that sodomy is not just your average run-of-the-mill sin. In many cases, sodomites brought down destruction on entire cities, and even upon entire nations.
"The Fall of Babylon" from D.W. Griffith's 1919 film
We need to keep these lessons in mind when we consider what America has legalized and celebrated on a national level, mandating homosexual "marriage" rights in the Supreme Court, and lighting up the White House itself with a profane homosexual-pride rainbow. In the three years since this took place, the homosexual movement has continued to advance, corrupting our culture and our government at every turn.
Sodomites have taken the very sign of peace which God gave Noah, and they have twisted it into a symbol for sodomy.
Is this a level of blasphemy which God will choose to overlook?
Would you like to see more articles like this? Our fundraising goal has not yet been met, and we would be very grateful for your help.
It takes a full time staff to keep this website going, and our workers need to feed their families. A recurring donation of even $15 or $25 per month would be a huge blessing.


russia-insider--2020-09-18--Remembering NATO's Ruthless Bombing Campaign in Serbia

16 Years have passed since NATO ’ s illegal bombing of Serbia , the first of many so-called “ humanitarian interventions ” around the globe This article from our archives was first published on RI in March 2015 Today , March 24th marks the 16th anniversary since NATO began its 78-day bombing campaign of Serbia .
The alliance bypassed the UN under a “ humanitarian ” pretext , launching aggression that claimed thousands of civilian .
Years on , Serbia still bears deep scars of the NATO bombings which , as the alliance put it , were aimed at “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Codenamed 'Operation Allied Force , ' it was the largest attack ever undertaken by the alliance .
It was also the first time that NATO used military force without the approval of the UN Security Council and against a sovereign nation that did not pose a real threat to any member of the alliance .
An incident involving the “ mass killing ” of Albanians in central Kosovo ’ s village of Racak – a terrorist organization , Kosovo Liberation Army ( KLA ) stronghold – became a major excuse and justification for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ operation .
Serbs were blamed for the deaths of dozens of Albanian “ civilians ” on January 15 , 1999 .
However , it was alleged that the accusations could have been false and the bodies actually belonged to KLA insurgents whose clothes had been changed .
In October 2008 , Helena Ranta , the Finnish pathologist who had conducted the forensic examination on the Račak casualties , stated that she had been pressured to modify the contents of her report , both by the Finnish Ministry of Foreign Affairs , and by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe ( OSCE ) Kosovo Verification Mission , in order to make more explicit the role of Yugoslav troops in the incident .
NATO demonstrated in 1999 that it can do whatever it wants under the guise of “ humanitarian intervention , ” “ war on terror , ” or “ preventive war ” – something that everyone has witnessed in subsequent years in different parts of the globe .
Nineteen NATO member states participated to some degree in the military campaign against the Federal Republic of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which lasted for 11 weeks until June 10 , 1999 .
They used over 1,031 aircraft and 30 attack ships and submarines .
In the course of the campaign , NATO launched 2,300 missiles at 990 targets and dropped 14,000 bombs , including depleted uranium bombs and cluster munitions ( unexploded cluster bombs continued to pose a threat to people long after the campaign was over . )
Over 2,000 civilians were killed , including 88 children , and thousands more were injured .
Over 200,000 ethnic Serbs were forced to leave their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the capital Belgrade was “ mistakenly ” bombed killing three Chinese nationals .
As permanent members of UNSC , China and Russia did not support the war .
In what the alliance described as “ collateral damage , ” its airstrikes destroyed more than 300 schools , libraries , and over 20 hospitals .
NATO targeted bridges , hospitals , markets and trains full of civilians .
At least 40,000 homes were either completely eliminated or damaged and about 90 historic and architectural monuments were ruined .
That is not to mention @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s ecology and , therefore , people ’ s health , as well as the billion-dollar economic damage .

16 Years have passed since NATO’s illegal bombing of Serbia, the first of many so-called “humanitarian interventions” around the globe
This article from our archives was first published on RI in March 2015
Based on a report from RT
Today, March 24th marks the 16th anniversary since NATO began its 78-day bombing campaign of Serbia. The alliance bypassed the UN under a “humanitarian” pretext, launching aggression that claimed thousands of civilian. Years on, Serbia still bears deep scars of the NATO bombings which, as the alliance put it, were aimed at “preventing instability spreading” in Kosovo.
Victims of NATO
Codenamed 'Operation Allied Force,' it was the largest attack ever undertaken by the alliance. It was also the first time that NATO used military force without the approval of the UN Security Council and against a sovereign nation that did not pose a real threat to any member of the alliance.
An incident involving the “mass killing” of Albanians in central Kosovo’s village of Racak – a terrorist organization, Kosovo Liberation Army (KLA) stronghold – became a major excuse and justification for NATO’s decision to start its operation. Serbs were blamed for the deaths of dozens of Albanian “civilians” on January 15, 1999. However, it was alleged that the accusations could have been false and the bodies actually belonged to KLA insurgents whose clothes had been changed. In October 2008, Helena Ranta, the Finnish pathologist who had conducted the forensic examination on the Račak casualties, stated that she had been pressured to modify the contents of her report, both by the Finnish Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and by William Walker, the head of the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) Kosovo Verification Mission, in order to make more explicit the role of Yugoslav troops in the incident.
NATO demonstrated in 1999 that it can do whatever it wants under the guise of “humanitarian intervention,” “war on terror,” or “preventive war” – something that everyone has witnessed in subsequent years in different parts of the globe.
Nineteen NATO member states participated to some degree in the military campaign against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro), which lasted for 11 weeks until June 10, 1999. They used over 1,031 aircraft and 30 attack ships and submarines.
In the course of the campaign, NATO launched 2,300 missiles at 990 targets and dropped 14,000 bombs, including depleted uranium bombs and cluster munitions (unexploded cluster bombs continued to pose a threat to people long after the campaign was over.) Over 2,000 civilians were killed, including 88 children, and thousands more were injured. Over 200,000 ethnic Serbs were forced to leave their homeland in Kosovo.
The Chinese embassy in the capital Belgrade was “mistakenly” bombed killing three Chinese nationals. As permanent members of UNSC, China and Russia did not support the war.
In what the alliance described as “collateral damage,” its airstrikes destroyed more than 300 schools, libraries, and over 20 hospitals. NATO targeted bridges, hospitals, markets and trains full of civilians. At least 40,000 homes were either completely eliminated or damaged and about 90 historic and architectural monuments were ruined. That is not to mention the long-term harm caused to the region’s ecology and, therefore, people’s health, as well as the billion-dollar economic damage.


russia-insider--2020-09-19--So What's All the Fuss About a 'Russian Banya'?

Initial exposure to the `` Russian Banya '' concept may leave one making unfortunate associations , but upon closer examination will be found to be altogether innocent if not wholesome This article from our archives was first published on RI in March 2016 As we can see the Russian Banya is loved by every culture far and wide , the question is why is there such an attraction ?
In Russian folklore there is a story that the banya was inhabited by a spirit known as Bannik Bannik was said to have the ability to predict the future .
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they would stand with one ’ s back exposed in the half-open door of the Banya .
He would gently stroke one ’ s back if all boded well , but if trouble was in your future , he would strike your back with his claws .
In the reality of it all the Russian Banya is a quintessential experience that everyone should enjoy .
It been around since medieval times , and was a staple for culture , health , and a place where even business affairs were held .
It ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the trade route from China to Europe must have taken advantage of the Banya considering the time they spent going from the far east to all points west , one can envision that even Alexander might have sat in one during his trek to India .
It ’ s easy to see why it was a central part of the Slavic culture and not just a place for bathing and cleanliness .
Newcomers coming through Russia would be amazed by wooden Banyas where naked people warmed themselves to extremes , lashed themselves with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ birch tree ) .
Afterwards they plunged into cold rivers and ponds to feel the revival of the soul .
When Russian Princes arrived in Constantinople they made special arrangements for the use of local steaming rooms – and they were very particular about it .
Emperor Peter the Great was a fan of the Russian banya .
When he founded St. Petersburg in 1703 he allowed everyone to building banyas without having to pay taxes on them .
When he traveled to Paris in 1718 he ordered a banya be built for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ River in the center of the city .
Even now this ritual can be shocking to foreigners .
At the first sight of a Banya some fear that they may be pushed into some mysterious sexual act .
Far from it – a real banya has nothing to do with sex .
It ’ s about staying fit and making your life longer .
In modern times , however , people use banyas and saunas to hold real business talks – nobody feels the oppressive atmosphere of the office .
There is a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the Russian banya .
He was horrified to see Russian men in the Banya beating each other with veniks .
He hastily closed the door and asked with his eyes turned to the ceiling : “ Do I really want this ?
” “ Yes ” – answered the hospitable Russians .
They took him into the steaming room and worked his body with veniks for about three minutes .
After that they made him jump into a pool of cold water .
The American was pleasantly amazed : “ You know @ @ @ @ @ @ @ better than sex , ” he said .
As you have understood by now veniks are used to pump up the heat to give your body a good massage .
It is considered very healthy , and despite the fears of many foreigners it has nothing to do with sex .
However , some argue that the benefits and pleasure one gets from being beaten by a venik is just as good , if not better .

Initial exposure to the "Russian Banya" concept may leave one making unfortunate associations, but upon closer examination will be found to be altogether innocent if not wholesome
This article from our archives was first published on RI in March 2016
Originally appeared at Life in Russia
As we can see the Russian Banya is loved by every culture far and wide, the question is why is there such an attraction? In Russian folklore there is a story that the banya was inhabited by a spirit known as Bannik
Good for you
Bannik was said to have the ability to predict the future. If one wanted to be consulted by him they would stand with one’s back exposed in the half-open door of the Banya. He would gently stroke one’s back if all boded well, but if trouble was in your future, he would strike your back with his claws.
In the reality of it all the Russian Banya is a quintessential experience that everyone should enjoy. It been around since medieval times, and was a staple for culture, health, and a place where even business affairs were held. It’s easy to imagine those who traveled the trade route from China to Europe must have taken advantage of the Banya considering the time they spent going from the far east to all points west, one can envision that even Alexander might have sat in one during his trek to India. It’s easy to see why it was a central part of the Slavic culture and not just a place for bathing and cleanliness.
Newcomers coming through Russia would be amazed by wooden Banyas where naked people warmed themselves to extremes, lashed themselves with – veniks. (branches from a birch tree). Afterwards they plunged into cold rivers and ponds to feel the revival of the soul. When Russian Princes arrived in Constantinople they made special arrangements for the use of local steaming rooms – and they were very particular about it.
Emperor Peter the Great was a fan of the Russian banya. When he founded St. Petersburg in 1703 he allowed everyone to building banyas without having to pay taxes on them. When he traveled to Paris in 1718 he ordered a banya be built for him on the banks of the Seine River in the center of the city.
Even now this ritual can be shocking to foreigners. At the first sight of a Banya some fear that they may be pushed into some mysterious sexual act. Far from it – a real banya has nothing to do with sex. It’s about staying fit and making your life longer. In modern times, however, people use banyas and saunas to hold real business talks – nobody feels the oppressive atmosphere of the office.
Better than sex
There is a story about an American who once came to the Russian banya . He was horrified to see Russian men in the Banya beating each other with veniks. He hastily closed the door and asked with his eyes turned to the ceiling: “Do I really want this?” “Yes” – answered the hospitable Russians.
They took him into the steaming room and worked his body with veniks for about three minutes. After that they made him jump into a pool of cold water. The American was pleasantly amazed: “You know, in some ways it is even better than sex,”he said.
As you have understood by now veniks are used to pump up the heat to give your body a good massage. It is considered very healthy, and despite the fears of many foreigners it has nothing to do with sex. However, some argue that the benefits and pleasure one gets from being beaten by a venik is just as good, if not better.


russia-insider--2020-09-19--The Lasting Pain from Vietnam Silence

The Lasting Pain from Vietnam Silence

This article from our archives was first published on RI in May 2015 Many reflections on America ’ s final days in Vietnam miss the point , pondering whether the war could have been won or lamenting the fate of U.S. collaborators left behind .
The bigger questions are why did the U.S. go to war and why wasn ’ t the bloodletting stopped sooner , as ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern reflects .
Ecclesiastes says there is a time to be silent and a time to speak .
The fortieth anniversary of the ugly end of the U.S. adventure in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and especially of the squandered opportunities that existed earlier in the war to blow the whistle and stop the killing .
While my friend Daniel Ellsberg ’ s leak of the Pentagon Papers in 1971 eventually helped to end the war , Ellsberg is the first to admit that he waited too long to reveal the unconscionable deceit that brought death and injury to millions .
I regret that , at first out of naiveté and then cowardice , I waited even longer – until my own truth-telling no longer really mattered for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is that there may be a chance this reminiscence might matter now – if only as a painful example of what I could and should have done , had I the courage back then .
Opportunities to blow the whistle in time now confront a new generation of intelligence analysts – whether they work on Iraq , Syria , Afghanistan , ISIS or Iran .
Incidentally , on Iran , there was a very positive example last decade : courageous analysts led by intrepid ( and bureaucratically skilled ) former Assistant Secretary of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ honesty can still prevail within the system , even when truth is highly unwelcome .
The unanimous intelligence community conclusion of a National Intelligence Estimate ( NIE ) of 2007 – that Iran had stopped working on a nuclear weapon four years earlier – played a huge role in thwarting plans by President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney to attack Iran in 2008 , their last year in office .
Bush says so in his memoir ; and , on that one point , we can believe him .
After @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , this is the only time in my experience that the key judgment of an NIE helped prevent a catastrophic , unwinnable war .
Sadly , judging from the amateurism now prevailing in Washington ’ s opaque policymaking circles , it seems clear that the White House pays little heed to those intelligence officers still trying to speak truth to power .
For them I have a suggestion : Don ’ t just wring your hands , with an “ I did everything I could to get the truth out.
” Chances are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Ponder the stakes – the lives ended too early ; the bodies and minds damaged forever ; the hatred engendered against the United States ; and the long-term harm to U.S. national interests – and think about blowing the whistle publicly to prevent unnecessary carnage and alienation .
I certainly wish I had done so about what I learned of the unconscionable betrayal by senior military and intelligence officers regarding Vietnam .
More recently , I know that several of you intelligence analysts with a conscience wish you had blown the whistle @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on Iraq .
Spreading some truth around is precisely what you need to do now on Syria , Iraq , Ukraine and the “ war on terror , ” for example .
I thought that by describing my own experience – negative as it is – and the remorse I continue to live with , I might assist those of you now pondering whether to step up to the plate and blow the whistle now , before it is again too late .
So below is an article that I might call “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to spare you the remorse of having to write , a decade or two from now , your own “ Ukraine and Me ” or “ Syria and Me ” or “ Iraq and Me ” or “ Libya and Me ” or “ The War on Terror and Me.
” My article , from 2010 , was entitled “ How Truth Can Save Lives ” and it began : If independent-minded Web sites , like WikiLeaks or , say , Consortiumnews.com , existed 43 years ago , I might have risen to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of some 25,000 U.S. soldiers , and a million Vietnamese , by exposing the lies contained in just one SECRET/EYES ONLY cable from Saigon .
I need to speak out now because I have been sickened watching the Herculean effort by Official Washington and our Fawning Corporate Media ( FCM ) to divert attention from the violence and deceit in Afghanistan , reflected in thousands of U.S. Army documents , by shooting the messenger ( s ) — WikiLeaks and Pvt .
Bradley Manning .
After all the indiscriminate death and destruction from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hypocrisy is all too transparent when WikiLeaks and suspected leaker Manning are accused of risking lives by exposing too much truth .
Besides , I still have a guilty conscience for what I chose NOT to do in exposing facts about the Vietnam War that might have saved lives .
The sad-but-true story recounted below is offered in the hope that those in similar circumstances today might show more courage than I was able to muster in 1967 , and take full advantage of the incredible advancements in technology since then .
Many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ at CIA came to Washington in the early Sixties inspired by President John Kennedy ’ s Inaugural speech in which he asked us to ask ourselves what we might do for our country .
( Sounds corny nowadays , I suppose ; I guess I ’ ll just have to ask you to take it on faith .
It may not have been Camelot exactly , but the spirit and ambience were fresh — and good . )
Among those who found Kennedy ’ s summons compelling was Sam Adams , a young @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
After the Navy , Sam tried Harvard Law School , but found it boring .
Instead , he decided to go to Washington , join the CIA as an officer trainee , and do something more adventurous .
He got more than his share of adventure .
Sam was one of the brightest and most dedicated among us .
Quite early in his career , he acquired a very lively and important account — that of assessing Vietnamese Communist strength early in the war .
He took to the task with uncommon @ @ @ @ @ @ @ analyst .
Relying largely on captured documents , buttressed by reporting from all manner of other sources , Adams concluded in 1967 that there were twice as many Communists ( about 600,000 ) under arms in South Vietnam as the U.S. military there would admit .
Visiting Saigon during 1967 , Adams learned from Army analysts that their commanding general , William Westmoreland , had placed an artificial cap on the official Army count rather than risk questions regarding “ progress ” in the war ( sound familiar ? )
.
It was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ intelligence analysts saluting generals following politically dictated orders , and Sam Adams aghast at the dishonesty — consequential dishonesty .
From time to time I would have lunch with Sam and learn of the formidable opposition he encountered in trying to get out the truth .
Commiserating with Sam over lunch one day in late August 1967 , I asked what could possibly be Gen. Westmoreland ’ s incentive to make the enemy strength appear to be half what it actually was .
Sam gave me the answer he had from the horse @ @ @ @ @ @ @ told me that in a cable dated Aug. 20 , 1967 , Westmoreland ’ s deputy , Gen. Creighton Abrams , set forth the rationale for the deception .
Abrams wrote that the new , higher numbers ( reflecting Sam ’ s count , which was supported by all intelligence agencies except Army intelligence , which reflected the “ command position ” ) “ were in sharp contrast to the current overall strength figure of about 299,000 given to the press.
” Abrams emphasized , “ We have been projecting an image of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that if the higher figures became public , “ all available caveats and explanations will not prevent the press from drawing an erroneous and gloomy conclusion.
” No further proof was needed that the most senior U.S. Army commanders were lying , so that they could continue to feign “ progress ” in the war .
Equally unfortunate , the crassness and callousness of Abrams ’ s cable notwithstanding , it had become increasingly clear that rather than stand up for Sam , his superiors would probably acquiesce in the Army ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s what they did .
CIA Director Richard Helms , who saw his primary duty quite narrowly as “ protecting ” the agency , set the tone .
He told subordinates that he could not discharge that duty if he let the agency get involved in a heated argument with the U.S. Army on such a key issue in wartime .
This cut across the grain of what we had been led to believe was the prime duty of CIA analysts — to speak truth to power without fear or favor .
And @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of us that this ethos amounted to much more than just slogans .
We had , so far , been able to “ tell it like it is.
” After lunch with Sam , for the first time ever , I had no appetite for dessert .
Sam and I had not come to Washington to “ protect the agency.
” And , having served in Vietnam , Sam knew first hand that thousands upon thousands were being killed in a feckless war .
What to Do ?
I have an all-too-distinct memory @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as each of us ruminated on what might be done .
I recall thinking to myself ; someone should take the Abrams cable down to theNew York Times ( at the time an independent-minded newspaper ) .
Clearly , the only reason for the cable ’ s SECRET/EYES ONLY classification was to hide deliberate deception of our most senior generals regarding “ progress ” in the war and deprive the American people of the chance to know the truth .
Going to the press was , of course , antithetical to the culture @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trained .
Besides , you would likely be caught at your next polygraph examination .
Better not to stick your neck out .
I pondered all this in the days after that lunch with Adams .
And I succeeded in coming up with a slew of reasons why I ought to keep silent : a mortgage ; a plum overseas assignment for which I was in the final stages of language training ; and , not least , the analytic work — important , exciting work on which Sam and I thrived .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ grow in gravitas , and live on to slay other dragons .
Right ?
One can , I suppose , always find excuses for not sticking one ’ s neck out .
The neck , after all , is a convenient connection between head and torso , albeit the “ neck ” that was the focus of my concern was a figurative one , suggesting possible loss of career , money and status – not the literal “ necks ” of both Americans and Vietnamese that were on the line daily in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for which you would risk your career “ neck ” – like , say , saving the lives of soldiers and civilians in a war zone – your “ neck ” has become your idol , and your career is not worthy of that .
I now regret giving such worship to my own neck .
Not only did I fail the neck test .
I had not thought things through very rigorously from a moral point of view .
As a condition of employment , I had signed a promise not to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ endanger sources , methods or national security .
Promises are important , and one should not lightly violate them .
Plus , there are legitimate reasons for protecting some secrets .
But were any of those legitimate concerns the real reasons why Abrams ’ s cable was stamped SECRET/EYES ONLY ?
I think not .
It is not good to operate in a moral vacuum , oblivious to the reality that there exists a hierarchy of values and that circumstances often determine the morality of a course of action .
How does a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a classified stamp on it square with one ’ s moral responsibility to stop a war based on lies ?
Does stopping a misbegotten war not supersede a secrecy promise ?
Ethicists use the words “ supervening value ” for this ; the concept makes sense to me .
And is there yet another value ?
As an Army officer , I had taken a solemn oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies , foreign and domestic .
How did the lying by the Army command @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Were/are generals exempt ?
Should we not call them out when we learn of deliberate deception that subverts the democratic process ?
Can the American people make good decisions if they are lied to ?
Would I have helped stop unnecessary killing by giving the New York Times the not-really-secret , SECRET/EYES ONLY cable from Gen. Abrams ?
We ’ ll never know , will we ?
And I live with that .
I could not take the easy way out , saying Let Sam Do It .
Because I knew he wouldn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ through the established grievance channels and got the royal run-around , even after the Communist countrywide offensive at Tet in January-February 1968 proved beyond any doubt that his count of Communist forces was correct .
When the Tet offensive began , as a way of keeping his sanity , Adams drafted a caustic cable to Saigon saying , “ It is something of an anomaly to be taking so much punishment from Communist soldiers whose existence is not officially acknowledged.
” But he did not think the situation at all funny .
Sam @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it happened that – unbeknown to Sam – Dan Ellsberg gave Sam ’ s figures on enemy strength to the New York Times , which published them on March 19 , 1968 .
Dan had learned that President Lyndon Johnson was about to bow to Pentagon pressure to widen the war into Cambodia , Laos and up to the Chinese border – perhaps even beyond .
Later , it became clear that his timely leak – together with another unauthorized disclosure to the Times that the Pentagon had requested 206,000 more troops – @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 25 , Johnson complained to a small gathering , “ The leaks to the New York Times hurt us .
… We have no support for the war .
… I would have given Westy the 206,000 men.
” Ellsberg also copied the Pentagon Papers – the 7,000-page top-secret history of U.S. decision-making on Vietnam from 1945 to 1967 – and , in 1971 , he gave copies to the New York Times , Washington Post and other news organizations .
In the years since , Ellsberg has had difficulty shaking off the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pentagon Papers sooner , the war might have ended years earlier with untold lives saved .
Ellsberg has put it this way : “ Like so many others , I put personal loyalty to the president above all else – above loyalty to the Constitution and above obligation to the law , to truth , to Americans , and to humankind .
I was wrong.
” And so was I wrong in not asking Sam for a copy of that cable from Gen. Abrams .
Sam , too , eventually had strong regrets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ matter within CIA , until he learned that Dan Ellsberg was on trial in 1973 for releasing the Pentagon Papers and was being accused of endangering national security by revealing figures on enemy strength .
Which figures ?
The same old faked numbers from 1967 !
“ Imagine , ” said Adams , “ hanging a man for leaking faked numbers , ” as he hustled off to testify on Dan ’ s behalf .
( The case against Ellsberg was ultimately thrown out of court because of prosecutorial abuses committed by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drew down , Adams was tormented by the thought that , had he not let himself be diddled by the system , the entire left half of the Vietnam Memorial wall would not be there .
There would have been no new names to chisel into such a wall .
Sam Adams died prematurely at age 55 with nagging remorse that he had not done enough .
In a letter appearing in the ( then independent-minded ) New York Times on Oct. 18 , 1975 , John T. Moore , a CIA analyst @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from 1965 to 1970 , confirmed Adams ’ s story after Sam told it in detail in the May 1975 issue of Harper ’ s magazine .
Moore wrote : “ My only regret is that I did not have Sam ’ s courage .
… The record is clear .
It speaks of misfeasance , nonfeasance and malfeasance , of outright dishonesty and professional cowardice .
“ It reflects an intelligence community captured by an aging bureaucracy , which too often placed institutional self-interest or personal advancement before the national interest .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ the history of American intelligence.
” Tanks But No Thanks , Abrams What about Gen. Creighton Abrams ?
Not every general gets the Army ’ s main battle tank named after him .
The honor , though , came not from his service in Vietnam , but rather from his courage in the early day of his military career , leading his tanks through German lines to relieve Bastogne during World War II ’ s Battle of the Bulge .
Gen. George Patton praised Abrams as the only tank commander he considered his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sadly , 23 years later Abrams became a poster child for old soldiers who , as Gen. Douglas McArthur suggested , should “ just fade away , ” rather than hang on too long after their great military accomplishments .
In May 1967 , Abrams was picked to be Westmoreland ’ s deputy in Vietnam and succeeded him a year later .
But Abrams could not succeed in the war , no matter how effectively “ an image of success ” his subordinates projected for the media .
The “ erroneous and gloomy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had tried so hard to head off proved all too accurate .
Ironically , when reality hit home , it fell to Abrams to cut back U.S. forces in Vietnam from a peak of 543,000 in early 1969 to 49,000 in June 1972 — almost five years after Abrams ’ s progress-defending cable from Saigon .
By 1972 , some 58,000 U.S. troops , not to mention two to three million Vietnamese , had been killed .
Both Westmoreland and Abrams had reasonably good reputations when they started out , but not so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be invidious , but Gen. David Petraeus is another Army commander who has wowed Congress with his ribbons , medals and merit badges .
A pity he was not born early enough to have served in Vietnam where he might have learned some real-life hard lessons about the limitations of counterinsurgency theories .
Moreover , it appears that no one took the trouble to tell him that in the early Sixties we young infantry officers already had plenty of counterinsurgency manuals to study at Fort Bragg and Fort Benning .
There are many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or writing manuals — as many of my Army colleagues learned too late in the jungles and mountains of South Vietnam .
Unless one is to believe , contrary to all indications , that Petraeus is not all that bright , one has to assume he knows that the Afghanistan expedition is a folly beyond repair .
So far , though , he has chosen the approach taken by Gen. Abrams in his August 1967 cable from Saigon .
That is precisely why the ground-truth of the documents released by WikiLeaks is so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just the WikiLeaks documents that have caused consternation inside the U.S. government .
Investigators reportedly are rigorously pursuing the source that provided the New York Times with the texts of two cables ( of 6 and 9 November 2009 ) from Ambassador Eikenberry in Kabul .
[ See Consortiumnews.com ’ s “ Obama Ignores Key Afghan Warning.
” ] To its credit , even today ’ s far-less independent New York Times published a major story based on the information in those cables , while President Barack Obama was still trying to figure @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Later the Times posted the entire texts of the cables , which were classified Top Secret and NODIS ( meaning “ no dissemination ” to anyone but the most senior officials to whom the documents were addressed ) .
The cables conveyed Eikenberry ’ s experienced , cogent views on the foolishness of the policy in place and , implicitly , of any eventual decision to double down on the Afghan War .
( That , of course , is pretty much what the President ended up doing . )
Eikenberry provided chapter @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he put it , “ I can not support [ the Defense Department ’ s ] recommendation for an immediate Presidential decision to deploy another 40,000 here.
” Such frank disclosures are anathema to self-serving bureaucrats and ideologues who would much prefer depriving the American people of information that might lead them to question the government ’ s benighted policy toward Afghanistan , for example .
As the New York Times/Eikenberry cables show , even today ’ s FCM ( fawning corporate media ) may sometimes display the old spunk of American journalism @ @ @ @ @ @ @ truth , even if the facts might cause the people to draw “ an erroneous and gloomy conclusion , ” to borrow Gen. Abrams ’ s words of 43 years ago .
Remember “ Baghdad Bob , ” the irrepressible and unreliable Iraqi Information Minister at the time of the U.S.-led invasion ?
He came to mind as I watched Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell ’ s chaotic , quixotic press briefing on Aug. 5 regarding the WikiLeaks exposures .
The briefing was revealing in several respects .
Clear from his prepared statement was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Here ’ s Morrell : “ WikiLeaks ’ s webpage constitutes a brazen solicitation to U.S. government officials , including our military , to break the law .
WikiLeaks ’ s public assertion that submitting confidential material to WikiLeaks is safe , easy and protected by law is materially false and misleading .
The Department of Defense therefore also demands that WikiLeaks discontinue any solicitation of this type.
” Rest assured that the Defense Department will do all it can to make it unsafe for any government official to provide WikiLeaks with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with a clever group of hi-tech experts who have built in precautions to allow information to be submitted anonymously .
That the Pentagon will prevail anytime soon is far from certain .
Also , in a ludicrous attempt to close the barn door after tens of thousands of classified documents had already escaped , Morrell insisted that WikiLeaks give back all the documents and electronic media in its possession .
Even the normally docile Pentagon press corps could not suppress a collective laugh , irritating the Pentagon spokesman no end .
The impression @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tied down by terabytes of Lilliputians .
Morrell ’ s self-righteous appeal to the leaders of WikiLeaks to “ do the right thing ” was accompanied by an explicit threat that , otherwise , “ We shall have to compel them to do the right thing.
” His attempt to assert Pentagon power in this regard fell flat , given the realities .
Morrell also chose the occasion to remind the Pentagon press corps to behave themselves or face rejection when applying to be embedded in units of U.S. armed forces .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reminded them that permission for embedding “ is by no means a right .
It is a privilege.
” The generals giveth and the generals taketh away .
It was a moment of arrogance — and press subservience — that would have sickened Thomas Jefferson or James Madison , not to mention the courageous war correspondents who did their duty in Vietnam .
Morrell and the generals can control the “ embeds ” ; they can not control the ether .
Not yet , anyway .
And that was all too apparent beneath @ @ @ @ @ @ @ waving by the Pentagon ’ s fancy silk necktie to the world .
Actually , the opportunities afforded by WikiLeaks and other Internet Web sites can serve to diminish what few advantages there are to being in bed with the Army .
What Would I Have Done ?
Would I have had the courage to whisk Gen. Abrams ’ s cable into the ether in 1967 , if WikiLeaks or other Web sites had been available to provide a major opportunity to expose the deceit of the top Army command in Saigon ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Internet this way is not “ safe , easy , and protected by law.
” We shall see .
Meanwhile , this way of exposing information that people in a democracy should know will continue to be sorely tempting — and a lot easier than taking the risk of being photographed lunching with someone from the New York Times .
From what I have learned over these past 43 years , supervening moral values can , and should , trump lesser promises .
Today , I would be determined to “ do the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ access to an Abrams-like cable from Petraeus in Kabul .
And I believe that Sam Adams , if he were alive today , would enthusiastically agree that this would be the morally correct decision .
My article from 2010 ended with a footnote about the Sam Adams Associates for Integrity in Intelligence ( SAAII ) , an organization created by Sam Adams ’ s former CIA colleagues and other former intelligence analysts to hold up his example as a model for those in intelligence who would aspire to the courage to speak truth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ were seven recipients of an annual award bestowed on those who exemplified Sam Adam ’ s courage , persistence and devotion to truth .
Now , there have been 14 recipients : Coleen Rowley ( 2002 ) , Katharine Gun ( 2003 ) , Sibel Edmonds ( 2004 ) , Craig Murray ( 2005 ) , Sam Provance ( 2006 ) , Frank Grevil ( 2007 ) , Larry Wilkerson ( 2009 ) , Julian Assange ( 2010 ) , Thomas Drake ( 2011 ) , Jesselyn Radack ( 2011 ) , Thomas @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( 2013 ) , Chelsea Manning ( 2014 ) , William Binney ( 2015 ) .

This article from our archives was first published on RI in May 2015
This article originally appeared at Consortium News
Many reflections on America’s final days in Vietnam miss the point, pondering whether the war could have been won or lamenting the fate of U.S. collaborators left behind. The bigger questions are why did the U.S. go to war and why wasn’t the bloodletting stopped sooner, as ex-CIA analyst Ray McGovern reflects.
Ecclesiastes says there is a time to be silent and a time to speak. The fortieth anniversary of the ugly end of the U.S. adventure in Vietnam is a time to speak – and especially of the squandered opportunities that existed earlier in the war to blow the whistle and stop the killing.
While my friend Daniel Ellsberg’s leak of the Pentagon Papers in 1971 eventually helped to end the war, Ellsberg is the first to admit that he waited too long to reveal the unconscionable deceit that brought death and injury to millions.
I regret that, at first out of naiveté and then cowardice, I waited even longer – until my own truth-telling no longer really mattered for the bloodshed in Vietnam. My hope is that there may be a chance this reminiscence might matter now – if only as a painful example of what I could and should have done, had I the courage back then. Opportunities to blow the whistle in time now confront a new generation of intelligence analysts – whether they work on Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, ISIS or Iran.
Incidentally, on Iran, there was a very positive example last decade: courageous analysts led by intrepid (and bureaucratically skilled) former Assistant Secretary of State for Intelligence Thomas Fingar showed that honesty can still prevail within the system, even when truth is highly unwelcome.
The unanimous intelligence community conclusion of a National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) of 2007 – that Iran had stopped working on a nuclear weapon four years earlier – played a huge role in thwarting plans by President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney to attack Iran in 2008, their last year in office. Bush says so in his memoir; and, on that one point, we can believe him.
After a half-century of watching such things closely, this is the only time in my experience that the key judgment of an NIE helped prevent a catastrophic, unwinnable war. Sadly, judging from the amateurism now prevailing in Washington’s opaque policymaking circles, it seems clear that the White House pays little heed to those intelligence officers still trying to speak truth to power.
For them I have a suggestion: Don’t just wring your hands, with an “I did everything I could to get the truth out.” Chances are you have not done all you can. Ponder the stakes – the lives ended too early; the bodies and minds damaged forever; the hatred engendered against the United States; and the long-term harm to U.S. national interests – and think about blowing the whistle publicly to prevent unnecessary carnage and alienation.
I certainly wish I had done so about what I learned of the unconscionable betrayal by senior military and intelligence officers regarding Vietnam. More recently, I know that several of you intelligence analysts with a conscience wish you had blown the whistle on the fraud “justifying” war on Iraq. Spreading some truth around is precisely what you need to do now on Syria, Iraq, Ukraine and the “war on terror,” for example.
I thought that by describing my own experience – negative as it is – and the remorse I continue to live with, I might assist those of you now pondering whether to step up to the plate and blow the whistle now, before it is again too late. So below is an article that I might call “Vietnam and Me.”
My hope is to spare you the remorse of having to write, a decade or two from now, your own “Ukraine and Me” or “Syria and Me” or “Iraq and Me” or “Libya and Me” or “The War on Terror and Me.” My article, from 2010, was entitled “How Truth Can Save Lives” and it began:
If independent-minded Web sites, like WikiLeaks or, say, Consortiumnews.com, existed 43 years ago, I might have risen to the occasion and helped save the lives of some 25,000 U.S. soldiers, and a million Vietnamese, by exposing the lies contained in just one SECRET/EYES ONLY cable from Saigon.
I need to speak out now because I have been sickened watching the Herculean effort by Official Washington and our Fawning Corporate Media (FCM) to divert attention from the violence and deceit in Afghanistan, reflected in thousands of U.S. Army documents, by shooting the messenger(s) — WikiLeaks and Pvt. Bradley Manning.
After all the indiscriminate death and destruction from nearly nine years of war, the hypocrisy is all too transparent when WikiLeaks and suspected leaker Manning are accused of risking lives by exposing too much truth. Besides, I still have a guilty conscience for what I chose NOT to do in exposing facts about the Vietnam War that might have saved lives.
The sad-but-true story recounted below is offered in the hope that those in similar circumstances today might show more courage than I was able to muster in 1967, and take full advantage of the incredible advancements in technology since then.
Many of my Junior Officer Trainee Program colleagues at CIA came to Washington in the early Sixties inspired by President John Kennedy’s Inaugural speech in which he asked us to ask ourselves what we might do for our country. (Sounds corny nowadays, I suppose; I guess I’ll just have to ask you to take it on faith. It may not have been Camelot exactly, but the spirit and ambience were fresh — and good.)
Among those who found Kennedy’s summons compelling was Sam Adams, a young former naval officer out of Harvard College. After the Navy, Sam tried Harvard Law School, but found it boring. Instead, he decided to go to Washington, join the CIA as an officer trainee, and do something more adventurous. He got more than his share of adventure.
Sam was one of the brightest and most dedicated among us. Quite early in his career, he acquired a very lively and important account — that of assessing Vietnamese Communist strength early in the war. He took to the task with uncommon resourcefulness and quickly proved himself the consummate analyst.
Relying largely on captured documents, buttressed by reporting from all manner of other sources, Adams concluded in 1967 that there were twice as many Communists (about 600,000) under arms in South Vietnam as the U.S. military there would admit.
Dissembling in Saigon
Visiting Saigon during 1967, Adams learned from Army analysts that their commanding general, William Westmoreland, had placed an artificial cap on the official Army count rather than risk questions regarding “progress” in the war (sound familiar?).
It was a clash of cultures; with Army intelligence analysts saluting generals following politically dictated orders, and Sam Adams aghast at the dishonesty — consequential dishonesty. From time to time I would have lunch with Sam and learn of the formidable opposition he encountered in trying to get out the truth.
Commiserating with Sam over lunch one day in late August 1967, I asked what could possibly be Gen. Westmoreland’s incentive to make the enemy strength appear to be half what it actually was. Sam gave me the answer he had from the horse’s mouth in Saigon.
Adams told me that in a cable dated Aug. 20, 1967, Westmoreland’s deputy, Gen. Creighton Abrams, set forth the rationale for the deception. Abrams wrote that the new, higher numbers (reflecting Sam’s count, which was supported by all intelligence agencies except Army intelligence, which reflected the “command position”) “were in sharp contrast to the current overall strength figure of about 299,000 given to the press.”
Abrams emphasized, “We have been projecting an image of success over recent months” and cautioned that if the higher figures became public, “all available caveats and explanations will not prevent the press from drawing an erroneous and gloomy conclusion.”
No further proof was needed that the most senior U.S. Army commanders were lying, so that they could continue to feign “progress” in the war. Equally unfortunate, the crassness and callousness of Abrams’s cable notwithstanding, it had become increasingly clear that rather than stand up for Sam, his superiors would probably acquiesce in the Army’s bogus figures. Sadly, that’s what they did.
CIA Director Richard Helms, who saw his primary duty quite narrowly as “protecting” the agency, set the tone. He told subordinates that he could not discharge that duty if he let the agency get involved in a heated argument with the U.S. Army on such a key issue in wartime.
This cut across the grain of what we had been led to believe was the prime duty of CIA analysts — to speak truth to power without fear or favor. And our experience thus far had shown both of us that this ethos amounted to much more than just slogans. We had, so far, been able to “tell it like it is.”
After lunch with Sam, for the first time ever, I had no appetite for dessert. Sam and I had not come to Washington to “protect the agency.” And, having served in Vietnam, Sam knew first hand that thousands upon thousands were being killed in a feckless war.
What to Do?
I have an all-too-distinct memory of a long silence over coffee, as each of us ruminated on what might be done. I recall thinking to myself; someone should take the Abrams cable down to theNew York Times (at the time an independent-minded newspaper).
Clearly, the only reason for the cable’s SECRET/EYES ONLY classification was to hide deliberate deception of our most senior generals regarding “progress” in the war and deprive the American people of the chance to know the truth.
Going to the press was, of course, antithetical to the culture of secrecy in which we had been trained. Besides, you would likely be caught at your next polygraph examination. Better not to stick your neck out.
I pondered all this in the days after that lunch with Adams. And I succeeded in coming up with a slew of reasons why I ought to keep silent: a mortgage; a plum overseas assignment for which I was in the final stages of language training; and, not least, the analytic work — important, exciting work on which Sam and I thrived.
Better to keep quiet for now, grow in gravitas, and live on to slay other dragons. Right?
One can, I suppose, always find excuses for not sticking one’s neck out. The neck, after all, is a convenient connection between head and torso, albeit the “neck” that was the focus of my concern was a figurative one, suggesting possible loss of career, money and status – not the literal “necks” of both Americans and Vietnamese that were on the line daily in the war.
But if there is nothing for which you would risk your career “neck” – like, say, saving the lives of soldiers and civilians in a war zone – your “neck” has become your idol, and your career is not worthy of that. I now regret giving such worship to my own neck. Not only did I fail the neck test. I had not thought things through very rigorously from a moral point of view.
Promises to Keep?
As a condition of employment, I had signed a promise not to divulge classified information so as not to endanger sources, methods or national security. Promises are important, and one should not lightly violate them. Plus, there are legitimate reasons for protecting some secrets. But were any of those legitimate concerns the real reasons why Abrams’s cable was stamped SECRET/EYES ONLY? I think not.
It is not good to operate in a moral vacuum, oblivious to the reality that there exists a hierarchy of values and that circumstances often determine the morality of a course of action. How does a written promise to keep secret everything with a classified stamp on it square with one’s moral responsibility to stop a war based on lies? Does stopping a misbegotten war not supersede a secrecy promise?
Ethicists use the words “supervening value” for this; the concept makes sense to me. And is there yet another value? As an Army officer, I had taken a solemn oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States from all enemies, foreign and domestic.
How did the lying by the Army command in Saigon fit in with that? Were/are generals exempt? Should we not call them out when we learn of deliberate deception that subverts the democratic process? Can the American people make good decisions if they are lied to?
Would I have helped stop unnecessary killing by giving the New York Times the not-really-secret, SECRET/EYES ONLY cable from Gen. Abrams? We’ll never know, will we? And I live with that. I could not take the easy way out, saying Let Sam Do It. Because I knew he wouldn’t.
Sam chose to go through the established grievance channels and got the royal run-around, even after the Communist countrywide offensive at Tet in January-February 1968 proved beyond any doubt that his count of Communist forces was correct.
When the Tet offensive began, as a way of keeping his sanity, Adams drafted a caustic cable to Saigon saying, “It is something of an anomaly to be taking so much punishment from Communist soldiers whose existence is not officially acknowledged.” But he did not think the situation at all funny.
Dan Ellsberg Steps in
Sam kept playing by the rules, but it happened that – unbeknown to Sam – Dan Ellsberg gave Sam’s figures on enemy strength to the New York Times, which published them on March 19, 1968. Dan had learned that President Lyndon Johnson was about to bow to Pentagon pressure to widen the war into Cambodia, Laos and up to the Chinese border – perhaps even beyond.
Later, it became clear that his timely leak – together with another unauthorized disclosure to the Times that the Pentagon had requested 206,000 more troops – prevented a wider war. On March 25, Johnson complained to a small gathering, “The leaks to the New York Times hurt us. … We have no support for the war. … I would have given Westy the 206,000 men.”
Ellsberg also copied the Pentagon Papers – the 7,000-page top-secret history of U.S. decision-making on Vietnam from 1945 to 1967 – and, in 1971, he gave copies to the New York Times,Washington Post and other news organizations.
In the years since, Ellsberg has had difficulty shaking off the thought that, had he released the Pentagon Papers sooner, the war might have ended years earlier with untold lives saved. Ellsberg has put it this way: “Like so many others, I put personal loyalty to the president above all else – above loyalty to the Constitution and above obligation to the law, to truth, to Americans, and to humankind. I was wrong.”
And so was I wrong in not asking Sam for a copy of that cable from Gen. Abrams. Sam, too, eventually had strong regrets. Sam had continued to pursue the matter within CIA, until he learned that Dan Ellsberg was on trial in 1973 for releasing the Pentagon Papers and was being accused of endangering national security by revealing figures on enemy strength.
Which figures? The same old faked numbers from 1967! “Imagine,” said Adams, “hanging a man for leaking faked numbers,” as he hustled off to testify on Dan’s behalf. (The case against Ellsberg was ultimately thrown out of court because of prosecutorial abuses committed by the Nixon administration.)
After the war drew down, Adams was tormented by the thought that, had he not let himself be diddled by the system, the entire left half of the Vietnam Memorial wall would not be there. There would have been no new names to chisel into such a wall.
Sam Adams died prematurely at age 55 with nagging remorse that he had not done enough.
In a letter appearing in the (then independent-minded) New York Times on Oct. 18, 1975, John T. Moore, a CIA analyst who worked in Saigon and the Pentagon from 1965 to 1970, confirmed Adams’s story after Sam told it in detail in the May 1975 issue of Harper’s magazine.
Moore wrote: “My only regret is that I did not have Sam’s courage. … The record is clear. It speaks of misfeasance, nonfeasance and malfeasance, of outright dishonesty and professional cowardice.
“It reflects an intelligence community captured by an aging bureaucracy, which too often placed institutional self-interest or personal advancement before the national interest. It is a page of shame in the history of American intelligence.”
Tanks But No Thanks, Abrams
What about Gen. Creighton Abrams? Not every general gets the Army’s main battle tank named after him. The honor, though, came not from his service in Vietnam, but rather from his courage in the early day of his military career, leading his tanks through German lines to relieve Bastogne during World War II’s Battle of the Bulge. Gen. George Patton praised Abrams as the only tank commander he considered his equal.
As things turned out, sadly, 23 years later Abrams became a poster child for old soldiers who, as Gen. Douglas McArthur suggested, should “just fade away,” rather than hang on too long after their great military accomplishments.
In May 1967, Abrams was picked to be Westmoreland’s deputy in Vietnam and succeeded him a year later. But Abrams could not succeed in the war, no matter how effectively “an image of success” his subordinates projected for the media. The “erroneous and gloomy conclusions of the press” that Abrams had tried so hard to head off proved all too accurate.
Ironically, when reality hit home, it fell to Abrams to cut back U.S. forces in Vietnam from a peak of 543,000 in early 1969 to 49,000 in June 1972 — almost five years after Abrams’s progress-defending cable from Saigon. By 1972, some 58,000 U.S. troops, not to mention two to three million Vietnamese, had been killed.
Both Westmoreland and Abrams had reasonably good reputations when they started out, but not so much when they finished.
And Petraeus?
Comparisons can be invidious, but Gen. David Petraeus is another Army commander who has wowed Congress with his ribbons, medals and merit badges. A pity he was not born early enough to have served in Vietnam where he might have learned some real-life hard lessons about the limitations of counterinsurgency theories.
Moreover, it appears that no one took the trouble to tell him that in the early Sixties we young infantry officers already had plenty of counterinsurgency manuals to study at Fort Bragg and Fort Benning. There are many things one cannot learn from reading or writing manuals — as many of my Army colleagues learned too late in the jungles and mountains of South Vietnam.
Unless one is to believe, contrary to all indications, that Petraeus is not all that bright, one has to assume he knows that the Afghanistan expedition is a folly beyond repair. So far, though, he has chosen the approach taken by Gen. Abrams in his August 1967 cable from Saigon. That is precisely why the ground-truth of the documents released by WikiLeaks is so important.
Whistleblowers Galore
And it’s not just the WikiLeaks documents that have caused consternation inside the U.S. government. Investigators reportedly are rigorously pursuing the source that provided the New York Times with the texts of two cables (of 6 and 9 November 2009) from Ambassador Eikenberry in Kabul. [See Consortiumnews.com’s “Obama Ignores Key Afghan Warning.”]
To its credit, even today’s far-less independent New York Times published a major story based on the information in those cables, while President Barack Obama was still trying to figure out what to do about Afghanistan. Later the Times posted the entire texts of the cables, which were classified Top Secret and NODIS (meaning “no dissemination” to anyone but the most senior officials to whom the documents were addressed).
The cables conveyed Eikenberry’s experienced, cogent views on the foolishness of the policy in place and, implicitly, of any eventual decision to double down on the Afghan War. (That, of course, is pretty much what the President ended up doing.) Eikenberry provided chapter and verse to explain why, as he put it, “I cannot support [the Defense Department’s] recommendation for an immediate Presidential decision to deploy another 40,000 here.”
Such frank disclosures are anathema to self-serving bureaucrats and ideologues who would much prefer depriving the American people of information that might lead them to question the government’s benighted policy toward Afghanistan, for example.
As the New York Times/Eikenberry cables show, even today’s FCM (fawning corporate media) may sometimes display the old spunk of American journalism and refuse to hide or fudge the truth, even if the facts might cause the people to draw “an erroneous and gloomy conclusion,” to borrow Gen. Abrams’s words of 43 years ago.
Polished Pentagon Spokesman
Remember “Baghdad Bob,” the irrepressible and unreliable Iraqi Information Minister at the time of the U.S.-led invasion? He came to mind as I watched Pentagon spokesman Geoff Morrell’s chaotic, quixotic press briefing on Aug. 5 regarding the WikiLeaks exposures. The briefing was revealing in several respects. Clear from his prepared statement was what is bothering the Pentagon the most. Here’s Morrell:
“WikiLeaks’s webpage constitutes a brazen solicitation to U.S. government officials, including our military, to break the law. WikiLeaks’s public assertion that submitting confidential material to WikiLeaks is safe, easy and protected by law is materially false and misleading. The Department of Defense therefore also demands that WikiLeaks discontinue any solicitation of this type.”
Rest assured that the Defense Department will do all it can to make it unsafe for any government official to provide WikiLeaks with sensitive material. But it is contending with a clever group of hi-tech experts who have built in precautions to allow information to be submitted anonymously. That the Pentagon will prevail anytime soon is far from certain.
Also, in a ludicrous attempt to close the barn door after tens of thousands of classified documents had already escaped, Morrell insisted that WikiLeaks give back all the documents and electronic media in its possession. Even the normally docile Pentagon press corps could not suppress a collective laugh, irritating the Pentagon spokesman no end. The impression gained was one of a Pentagon Gulliver tied down by terabytes of Lilliputians.
Morrell’s self-righteous appeal to the leaders of WikiLeaks to “do the right thing” was accompanied by an explicit threat that, otherwise, “We shall have to compel them to do the right thing.” His attempt to assert Pentagon power in this regard fell flat, given the realities.
Morrell also chose the occasion to remind the Pentagon press corps to behave themselves or face rejection when applying to be embedded in units of U.S. armed forces. The correspondents were shown nodding docilely as Morrell reminded them that permission for embedding “is by no means a right. It is a privilege.” The generals giveth and the generals taketh away.
It was a moment of arrogance — and press subservience — that would have sickened Thomas Jefferson or James Madison, not to mention the courageous war correspondents who did their duty in Vietnam. Morrell and the generals can control the “embeds”; they cannot control the ether. Not yet, anyway.
And that was all too apparent beneath the strutting, preening, and finger waving by the Pentagon’s fancy silk necktie to the world. Actually, the opportunities afforded by WikiLeaks and other Internet Web sites can serve to diminish what few advantages there are to being in bed with the Army.
What Would I Have Done?
Would I have had the courage to whisk Gen. Abrams’s cable into the ether in 1967, if WikiLeaks or other Web sites had been available to provide a major opportunity to expose the deceit of the top Army command in Saigon? The Pentagon can argue that using the Internet this way is not “safe, easy, and protected by law.” We shall see.
Meanwhile, this way of exposing information that people in a democracy should know will continue to be sorely tempting — and a lot easier than taking the risk of being photographed lunching with someone from the New York Times.
From what I have learned over these past 43 years, supervening moral values can, and should, trump lesser promises. Today, I would be determined to “do the right thing,” if I had access to an Abrams-like cable from Petraeus in Kabul. And I believe that Sam Adams, if he were alive today, would enthusiastically agree that this would be the morally correct decision.
My article from 2010 ended with a footnote about the Sam Adams Associates for Integrity in Intelligence (SAAII), an organization created by Sam Adams’s former CIA colleagues and other former intelligence analysts to hold up his example as a model for those in intelligence who would aspire to the courage to speak truth to power.
At the time there were seven recipients of an annual award bestowed on those who exemplified Sam Adam’s courage, persistence and devotion to truth. Now, there have been 14 recipients: Coleen Rowley (2002), Katharine Gun (2003), Sibel Edmonds (2004), Craig Murray (2005), Sam Provance (2006), Frank Grevil (2007), Larry Wilkerson (2009), Julian Assange (2010), Thomas Drake (2011), Jesselyn Radack (2011), Thomas Fingar (2012), Edward Snowden (2013), Chelsea Manning (2014), William Binney (2015).


russia-insider--2020-09-19--Russia's 12 Most Ancient and Remarkable Churches

This article from our archives was first published on RI in May 2016 Hard to believe but the first stone church was built by the East Slavs more then 1000 years ago .
Church of the Tithes was presented in Kiev , the capital of Kievan Rus , the ancestor of modern Russia on May , 12 , 996 .
The majestic Byzantine-style cathedral had an unlucky fate : it did not survive the Mongol invasion of the XII century .
The church was reconstructed in the XIX century but then again destroyed by the Bolsheviks in 1935 .
Some @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Cathedral of St. Sophia in Veliki Novgorod ( 600km northwest of Moscow ) still looks gorgeous after almost a thousand years of stormy history .
Veliki Novgorod boasts some more gems of cross-domed architecture .
The Katholikon of the Antoniev Monastery , built around 1122 , is one of the oldest and most precious examples .
If you manage to get to Novgorod , one of your key destinations will be St Nicholas Cathedral — a truly medieval experience .
Nereditsa Church just a mile outside Novgorod was less lucky .
Its fantastic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ WWII .
If in Moscow , spare a couple of days for a trip to Vladimir region ( around 200km eastwards ) to see some medieval masterpieces , like Kideksha Church .
Built by the founder of Moscow Yuri Dolgoruki , it still preserves its authentic look .
And you simply can not miss the Church of the Intercession on the Nerl , if only to get a typical Russian postcard view .
Sit back , relax and enjoy !
The Cathedral of the Transfiguration of the Savior in Pereyaslavl Zalessky is another @ @ @ @ @ @ @ old , underrated and charming .
If you prefer more ambitious projects , head for Vladimir to see Dormition Cathedral with its 6 pillars , 5 domes , and paintings by the famous Andrei Rublev .
Five stars .
The Church of St Michael the Archangel towers above the ancient city of Smolensk ( 470 km west of Moscow ) .
Its genuine centuries-old look will stir the soul .

× Disabling adblock
Disabling adblock for a specific site just takes a couple of clicks.
Usually it is as simple as clicking on the adblock icon in your browser, and choosing the ‘disable on this page or domain’ option.
If that doesn’t work this wikihow article gives more detail: https://www.wikihow.com/Disable-AdBlock
Thank you for your support!