Archives for posts with tag: Glenn Greenwald

Glenn Greenwald at The Intercept calls out the New York Times journalists exposing ‘fake news’ by pointing out they’re plagiarizing Russian media on what actually happened with the torched ‘humanitarian aid’ at the Venezuela-Colombia border. Huh? Yeah, it’s a head-scratch worthy of a political chimp, because Greenwald DOES NOT explore the most important question: who benefits from the NYT story in media that (Greenwald acknowledges) might as well be outright owned by the (deep) state. The real story here? White House occupying Kissinger-philosophy-neocon-Christian-Zionist-Pentagon centered ‘national security’ clique 0 – 1 wannabe White House occupying Brzezinski-philosophy-neoliberal-globalist-CIA centered ‘national security’ clique (noting there is some overlay between cliques from their respective bases of power.)

https://theintercept.com/2019/03/10/nyts-expose-on-the-lies-about-burning-humanitarian-trucks-in-venezuela-shows-how-us-govt-and-media-spread-fake-news/

On Greenwald’s bank-roller:

https://www.mintpressnews.com/ebay-founder-pierre-omidyar-is-funding-a-global-media-information-war/255199/

Russian media prints what you won’t see in your everyday liberal democracies’ newspaper; British intelligence had proposed a plan to massacre Catholic schoolchildren in Northern Ireland but this was a reach too far, even for the Ulster Protestant extremists:

https://sputniknews.com/europe/201902201072589746-ulster-catholic-school-shooting/

These stories typically come out when it is far past time to bring the perpetrators to justice (dead or fear dying with guilty conscience) but this next one points to the British-USA skullduggery going on in the here and now:

https://sputniknews.com/us/201903081073065999-steele-ohr-fbi-doj/

Per the preceding story, I don’t expect for one minute Trump is clean (and it does not bode well a blackmail susceptible reality TV freak is POTUS) but he’s a petty criminal character by comparison to what’s covered up at the United States Department of Justice.

Going to this next, in the absence of accountability for billionaires playing with technological fire and tampering with reality in ways risking us all, I’d support a constitutional amendment allowing a bill of attainder authorizing the forever jailing of Elon Musk:

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-02-16/elon-musk-backed-software-can-churn-fake-news-stories-and-too-dangerous-release

Speaking of Musk and mucking about where humans shouldn’t, the bonus satire:

https://ronaldthomaswest.com/2018/09/26/loos-in-space/

Meanwhile, “357 million reasons you should work for peace” at…

http://www.academia.edu/37328903/White_Christian_Terrorism_-_Three_Hundred_and_Fifty-Seven_Million_Reasons_You_Should_Work_for_Peace_Sept2_2018.docx

And finally, my new essay on ‘the politics of hope’ at:

https://ronaldthomaswest.com/2019/03/09/leadership-in-time-of-crisis/

&

https://www.fort-russ.com/2019/03/leadership-in-a-time-of-crisis/

Y’all have a lovely Ides of March…

*

A former Special Forces Sergeant of Operations and Intelligence, Ronald Thomas West is a retired investigator (living in exile) whose work focus had been anti-corruption. Ronald is published in International Law as a layman (The Mueller-Wilson Report, co-authored with Dr Mark D Cole) and has been adjunct professor of American Constitutional Law at Johannes Gutenberg University, Mainz, Germany (for English credit, summer semester 2008.) Ronald’s formal educational background (no degree) is social psychology. His therapeutic device is satire.

Contact: penucquemspeaks@googlemail.com

 

^ Chris Hedges

 

1 - 1

^ Caitlin Johnstone

 

^ Glenn Greenwald

 

2 - 1

^ Vanessa Beeley

 

3 - 1

^ Raul Ilargi Meijer

 

MikiSpy

 ^ Julian Assange a.k.a. Micky Mossad

…well, you all probably get the idea ;p

Just a reminder to certain alternative media stars that Julian Assange was a critical gear in the intelligence agency (primarily CIA & MOSSAD) information operations responsible for the so-called ‘Arab Spring’ … leading to not only revolution and counter-revolution in Egypt but also the overthrow of Gaddafi and the Syrian ‘civil war.’ How do Chris Hedges, Caitlin Johnstone, Glenn Greenwald, Vanessa Beeley and Raul Ilargi Meijer, with their defense of Assange, drive the ‘Assange is a good guy’ square peg into the round hole of the intelligence agency geopolitical engineering called the Arab Spring?

A case of ‘you can’t have your cake and eat it too.’

On Assange

*

Green Cheese - 1

When the Moon is Made of Green Cheese

Alternatively, this essay could be titled ‘The Intercept Takes a Deep, Deep Dive’ and is a continuation of the series on Russophobe Pierre Omidyar’s and his associate Glenn Greenwald’s flagship publication inserting either incredibly incompetent or, alternatively, false flag journalism into the public discourse. Parts one & two linked HERE [1] and HERE [2]

Now, before we delve into The Intercept’s most recent misapprehension of reality, it should be pointed out it doesn’t matter whether the endeavor is result of incompetence or a deliberate misinformation, the result is the same; constructing a false perception for those many liberals and progressives who trust The Intercept, a trust based largely on the reputation of Glenn Greenwald. Greenwald should aggressively address this misinformation because known facts correcting the record, however those facts may be uncomfortable, are there. And I have informed Greenwald by providing those very facts via email (he hasn’t responded.) What are those facts? It is beyond ‘the preponderance of the evidence’ the Russians did not ‘hack’ the DNC mails, it’s beyond a reasonable doubt. It was an insider leak and that leaker was almost certainly Seth Rich, with the leaker’s identity only waiting the speaking out of former United Kingdom Ambassador Craig Murray, who has met with the DNC insider who leaked the mails:

murray_wikileaks-1

Screenshot from Craig Murray’s website ^ of a screenshot quoting Murray at The Guardian: “I know who leaked them, and they certainly are not Russian and it’s an insider. It’s a leak, not a hack; the two are different things”

I’ve also emailed Murray on more than one occasion, including this occasion, when I’d stated to him:

“Your silence on the DNC leaker’s identity only reinforces and grows the utter contempt you’re deserving of; considering the damage the western propaganda machine is causing to international relations with the ongoing information operation”

When the moon is made of green cheese is when The Intercept publishes ‘the Russians did it’ propaganda lie in flat contradiction of known facts:

Binney’s claim that the email theft was committed by an insider at the DNC also helps fuel one of the more bizarre conspiracy theories that has gained traction on the right: that the murder of a young DNC staffer last year was somehow connected to the data theft. Binney said he mentioned the case of Seth Rich to Pompeo during their meeting.

“The meeting raises questions about Pompeo’s willingness to act as an honest broker between the intelligence community and the White House, and his apparent refusal to push back against efforts by the president to bend the intelligence process to suit his political purposes. Instead of acting as a filter between Trump and the intelligence community, Pompeo’s decision to meet with Binney raises the possibility that right-wing theories aired on Fox News and in other conservative media can now move not just from conservative pundits to Trump, but also from Trump to Pompeo and into the bloodstream of the intelligence community”

Binney, who independently came to a conclusion, with forensic analysis, matching the statement of Craig Murray, is somehow construed to be poisoning an intelligence agency with a long history of poisoning the media. In other words, when an intelligence professional, William Binney, at odds with ‘the Russians did it’ disinformation pervading American media, and Binney, no matter we all know Donald Trump is a mobster associated douche-bag, points out the facts are on Trump’s side in the DNC mails story, The Intercept claims the moon is made of green cheese and that makes us, all of us following the actual facts that is, right wing conspiracy theorists. Small wonder the CIA invented and promoted ‘conspiracy theory’ as a disinformation method; considering how this sordid business of lies sifts out:

The article is co-authored, and we begin with James Risen who, if you need reminding, was showered with his journalism awards following having blown an espionage story so badly, his employer, the New York Times, had to settle with the injured party. Well, that makes perfect sense in a ‘Christian’ society that rewards its’ losers. Following crucifixion, Risen was rewarded with journalism heaven (forgive the pun on his name, but you should by now know this author.) But then, there is a further odor to Risen; past whistle-blowers have, on occasion, pointed to the NYT (pronounced ‘nit’) bending over to ‘service’ the CIA in its National Security stories. So, it follows, one wonders how James Risen could have a career at NYT and write books on the CIA without smelling like a disinformation asset. The short answer is, he can’t. Especially now that Risen has ignored the most credible witness, Ambassador Murray, in effort to discredit intelligence professional William Binney, and keep ‘the Russians hacked the DNC’ media hysteria alive. What a f**k.

“the Times ’ lead articles are not only contentious, if not fabricated, but are virtually devoid of actual news, consisting instead of claims made by US government and other official sources, who are usually unnamed. Bearing headlines such as “More Enemies Of the Kremlin End Up Dead,” “Russian Spies Said to Hack Systems Used in Clinton’s Run,” “Spy Agency Consensus Grows That Russia Hacked DNC,” and “Seeing in Email Breach a Trump-Putin Alliance,” these articles make sweeping and unsubstantiated assertions in order to present a slanted narrative aimed at justifying the reactionary foreign policy machinations cooked up by the US intelligence agencies and the State Department”

I do believe that is exactly what we see now, in the concerned article at The Intercept. Does anyone reading remember “Project Mockingbird”?

Now, recalling this site is about satire, we move on to the other author: Gay celebrity gossip columnist, er, I meant “investigative journalist, author, consultant, and television producer specializing in privacy, civil liberties, and surveillance issues”, Duncan Campbell, who had to have told Glenn Greenwald something like ‘let me slip you a bone(r), and we’ll take down the carrot-top President Moron (bless his little orange head) with a sexed-up story’ … Greenwald: YES! …

boner |ˈbōnər|
noun
N. Amer. informal a stupid mistake.
ORIGIN early 20th cent. (originally US): from bone + -er1.

So, ok, this is a president anyone in their right mind could despise, but ‘stupid mistake’ was lost in translation, because, being British and using the Oxford, Campbell didn’t realize ‘boner’ means something altogether different in American dialect these days. Or maybe it’s Campbell is old enough to be entering senility, the real origin of his stupid mistake. In any case, no matter how this Scots twit partnered with Risen and pitched what is Obama era Central Intelligence media poison with a post-Obama ‘Never Trump’ life of its own, to Greenwald’s Intercept, we have to look at another scenario, a scenario different to The Intercept Omidyar’s Russophobia, and Risen’s incompetence in a career associated with the NYT (pronounced ‘nit’), a known CIA disinformation outlet.

First, recall why America elected Trump, it’s not only what folk on the right could see, Bernies’ progressives and much of the ‘formerly sane’ center were put off by as well:

Hillary oinks - 1

Then, look at what the consequence had been, it’s not only folk on the left looking at this, it is much of the ‘formerly sane’ center can clearly see who the finger on the nuclear trigger belongs to:

It could be as simple as there is little sane insight these days, or that is to say no lie to oneself is too great, when it comes to The Intercept’s embrace of Central Intelligence Agency ‘lifers’ (a bureaucracy no director can control) post-Obama agenda to depose Trump; no matter ethics, morality, democratic principles, none of these, primarily because of the logic behind the American vote:

Some toilet paper is scented. Most toilet paper is flushed. It follows, some flushed toilet paper will smell good:

gag 1 |gag|
noun
a joke, especially one forming part of a comedy act.

or

gag 2 |gag|
verb
choke or retch: he gagged at the septic tank’s aroma.

Either definition is apropos to the candidates of either party, in what amounts to a duopoly case of ‘you can have your joke and we’ll force feed it to you too.’ Subsequently, in American politics, the expression ‘gag me’ should primarily be a case of:

double entendre |ˌdo͞obl ˌänˈtändrə|
noun (pl. double entendrespronunc.same)
a word or phrase open to two interpretations, one of which is usually risqué or indecent.
ORIGIN late 17th cent.: from obsolete French (now double entente), ‘double understanding.’

End

Ok, so now I’ve come up with a new terminology, that is “Alternative Mainstream Media.” I’m certain someone else has come up with similar terminology, it would only make sense in a world where we have ‘truth jockey’ spin. Maybe ‘truth jockeys’ is the better invention to describe ‘alternative mainstream media.’

There is an American concept of law, that is ‘lie by omission’ defined at uslegal.com:

A lie of omission is an intentional failure to tell the truth in a situation requiring disclosure. An example could be a seller’s failure to note a known defect on a real estate disclosure form

Now, is it not (question) the business of those who claim to be ‘alternative news’ to be publishing those most damning facts concealed by mainstream media from a public that has rapidly become as dumb as a box of rocks due to the incessant stream of lies fed to them? And in the process of feeding the aforementioned constant stream of lies, how much of this can be construed to be partnered to lies of omission?

By comparison, how would ‘honest’ media personalities judge what is ‘newsworthy’ and what is so compellingly dangerous to publish as to make a value judgement of ‘we’re not going to cover this’ for the sake of, example given, public order? When in possession of ‘state secrets’, what is a determination of what should be published and what should not, other than a value judgement? What qualifies any given journalist or publication to make a value judgement? At what point does a value judgement cross the line into the territory of ‘lie by omission?’ Who determines that? And how is that determined? By a closed group of people making a collective value judgement? What purpose, other than serving as an ‘alternative’ classification review board, do journalists serve, when making a value judgement over what materials can be released and which cannot?

Now, on top of all of this, where do politics come into play? Over on the right, Sibel Edmonds despises Graham Fuller (she makes a compelling case) for his design of an Islamic insurgency in western China, I appreciate Graham Fuller’s stance on USA policy failures in Afghanistan, as well I consider Eric Margolis to be a consummate idiot in matters of Asia and despise his overweening narcissism relating to his own ‘chicken hawkish’ tale of how he escaped service in Vietnam even as he promotes the urban legend of how the ARVN saved Saigon during 68 Tet (a compelling propaganda lie.)  Others on the right consider Margolis some legendary truth-teller.

Over on the left, Julian Assange (retched be his name, yes, I deliberately omitted the ‘w’ when spelling retch) dismisses 9/11 with “I’m constantly annoyed by false conspiracy theories” while Daniel Ellsberg (once CIA, always CIA) staunchly defends Assange while in the same moment calling aspects of 9/11 a coverup .. for instance in the case of Sibel Edmonds revealing the fact Bin Laden was a CIA asset up to the time of 9/11. But that’s the only safe route for Ellsberg (once CIA, always CIA) to take, when actually setting out to reinforce another lie, the lie Bin Ladin was responsible for 9/11 .. probably not the direction Sibel Edmonds intended the discourse to take and precisely why Ellsberg ‘had her back’ (irony) when he took up her revelation and ran with it. Meanwhile, Glenn Greenwald worships Daniel Ellberg (once CIA, always CIA) whilst one of his side-kicks, Laura Poitras, is in love with the Assange (a greater empire stooge there never was) story and if I read the cards correctly, is about to be suckered into working (unbeknownst to Poitras) as an intelligence ‘asset’ with delivering that moron film credibility he never deserved, meanwhile her ‘firstlook.org’ colleague, Jeremy Scahill, somehow was suckered into an ‘it’s all about me’ film called ‘Dirty Wars’ which simply served to bury all of the good work he’d accomplished with penning an excellent book of the same name. What a brilliant idiot.

In the center of this ‘tip of the iceberg’ (skipping over the disinformation specialists tandem of Robert Parry and Ray McGovern) alternative media dysfunction, where some of the world’s most brilliant criminal sociopaths serving intelligence agencies are assigned to undermining the facts (Ellsberg is a past grandmaster), somehow we’re supposed to just sit back and believe what the ‘alternative mainstream media’ journals such as Media Lens and The Intercept tell us. Which brings me (more or less) to the point of this essay.

Media Lens, when writing a quite excellent and accurate story, The Sunday Times and The Death of Journalism, well worth a read, when punishing Rupert Murdoch’s rag The Sunday Times [London] for parroting British Intelligence Services in a blatantly false attack on Snowden, in the same moment opened themselves and all of ‘alternative mainstream media’ to charge of ‘lies by omission.’ And going one step further, Media Lens when defending Greenwald’s reporting, opened Greenwald’s organization First Look and its flagship publication The Intercept to the charge of hypocrisy. All without so much as telling any lie or misrepresenting any fact.

The charge of hypocrisy is as easy as a look at the absolutely true statements of Ryan Gallagher and Glenn Greenwald whom Media Lens quotes in relation to the Sunday Times smear of Snowden (the first quote in the following Media Lens excerpt is The Intercept’s Ryan Gallagher)

Media Lens - 1

‘the Sunday Times story raises more questions than it answers, and more importantly it contains some pretty dubious claims, contradictions, and inaccuracies. The most astonishing thing about it is the total lack of scepticism it shows for these grand government assertions, made behind a veil of anonymity. This sort of credulous regurgitation of government statements is antithetical to good journalism.’

But perhaps the most comprehensive demolition came from Glenn Greenwald, the journalist who met Edward Snowden in Hong Kong, and who was primarily responsible for bringing Snowden’s whistleblowing to public attention. Greenwald writes:

‘the entire report is a self-negating joke. It reads like a parody I might quickly whip up in order to illustrate the core sickness of western journalism.’

This ‘sickness’ is summed up by:

‘the formula that shapes their brains: anonymous self-serving government assertions = Truth.’

This is raw submission to power with the result that:

‘government officials know they can propagandize the public at any time because subservient journalists will give them anonymity to do so and will uncritically disseminate and accept their claims.’

As Greenwald observes, there is a long history of anonymous government accusations and smears being laundered through the media whenever damaging information is revealed by whistleblowers.

All well, good, accurate and important information .. with one small problem. The assertions are precisely what The Intercept had done as well; when The Intercept published the article “Ukrainian Forces Recover Downed Russian Drone”, an article in its entirety vetted with the language:

Intercept - 1

“according to Ukrainian forces”

“said the battalion’s deputy commander, whose nom de guerre is Artem”

“One of the battalion’s men”

“he said”

“But the source, who asked not to be identified because he was not authorized to speak on the record”

“The Ukrainian side, however, said”

[nom de guerre] “Artem said”

“according to [nom de guerre] Artem”

The Intercept reporting in this case has an even larger problem; the appearance of a BIG conflict of interest in the reporter, Askold Krushelnycky, a staunch ‘color revolution’ fan with a highly dubious record of not only writing for the Kiev Post but also the propaganda rag ‘Foreign Policy’ (see his list of contributions HERE) which was the information operation of the State Department aligned Carnegie Endowment until it had been sold to The Washington Post in 2008. And the Washington Post? I cover that (and more) in my previous reporting on the false flag journalist/Intercept reporter Krushelnycky in my article on an alleged ‘Russian Drone’ “The Intercept Takes a Dive

Now, to the article’s author; Askold Krushelnycky. Firstly, in his own words, he was clearly in the camp of the so-called ‘Orange Revolution’ (a CIA instigated ‘color revolution‘ or part of the ‘democracy’ investment Victoria Nuland had reported the USA spent $5 billion on) putting him squarely in political opposition to the Russian ethnic majority of the Donbass region of Ukraine. So much for impartiality.

Secondly, Krushelnycky is first generation British of Ukrainian “refugee” descent, opening the question of whether Krushelnycky is of Stephen Bandera aligned stock. Most of the Ukrainian nationals who were allowed into the USA, Canada and Britain after WW II were radical right wing who’d supported Hitler in Ukraine, including an ethnic Ukrainian division of Waffen SS rescued in the thousands. Did The Intercept do a background check on Krushelnycky? I doubt it.

Thirdly, Krushelnycky is reporting from Mariupol, the Kiev held area where Right Sector (Ukrainian Nazis) has its own independent ‘Azov’ battalion. If he were inclined to report factually (particularly in relation to Azov battalion provocations), he’d have immediate problems with these people. Not to mention Kiev has pushed so many outrageous lies, Kiev propaganda compares well to Roger Rabbit; insofar as reality.

Fourthly, and here it gets very sticky for The Intercept, Pierre Omidyar, The Intercept’s bankroller, has funded elements in Ukraine leading to the overthrow of the Yanukovich regime, a de facto support contributing to the present civil war. Clearly Omidyar has been supporting the side of those now constituting the regime in Kiev, which also so happens align with the politics of Intercept reporter Krushelnycky. Glenn Greenwald has claimed Omidyar’s support for the parties ruling in Kiev will make no difference in the reporting coming out of The Intercept; but actions here speak louder than words … I had actually been wondering why reporting on Ukraine had been conspicuously absent at The Intercept and now we have a shallow, rank propaganda piece worthy of those very whores of journalism Greenwald & friends have so eloquently bashed elsewhere.

The Intercept hosting Askold Krushelnycky is like The Nation hosting Bob Drefuss or the Washington Post providing a platform to David Ignatius; a professional liar does not add a ‘fair and balanced’ perspective (recalls FOX NEWS) but merely tosses a monkey wrench into the gears of truth

Now, shall we all stand up and uncritically applaud Glenn Greenwald’s perfectly honest comments recited in the Media Lens article? And bury the hypocrisy? You decide, meanwhile, let’s move on to our brilliant ‘alternative mainstream media’ sin of lies by omission, in my perspective, a by far more damning indictment and the real thrust of this article.

Part Two

Conspicuously missing from ‘alternative mainstream media’ is some particularly damning information from a Defense Intelligence Agency assessment that had found its way into the public domain. The circumstance of the information’s release appears to have been what amounts to raw political agenda combined with incredible ineptitude.

Judicial Watch, an organization with more in common with the religious right generals at the Pentagon than with actual judicial accountability, went after documents it wished to use to undercut Hillary, focusing on her tenure as Secretary of State. This is straightforward motivation in American politics, it’s a dirty game and Hillary’s tenure as head of the Department of State had been one of the most aggressive, criminal and incompetent in the history of United States foreign policy, the present basket-case that is Libya is evidence prima facie. So, Judicial Watch went after whatever documents a lottery by lawsuit might produce. But whoever was in charge of document selection and redaction, in their desire to please (a lawsuit from the left would never turn up the forthcoming information), overlooked (as did Judicial Watch) the full implications of a few sentences of a 2012 Defense Intelligence Assessment on CIA initiated policy (we’ll come to that) in Syria:

“the West, Gulf countries and Turkey support the opposition…

Ok, so that’s no big secret, this has been common knowledge but then you get the larger context:

“…there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in Eastern Syria .. and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime…”

Whoa! Alternatively stated, this would also accurately read ‘we’ll create a supportive circumstance handing Eastern Syria to Al-Qaida to bugger Assad.’ And then the kicker; the DIA assessment accurately predicts the outcome:

“ISI could also declare an Islamic State through its union with other terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria, which will create grave danger in regards to unifying Iraq…”

Which is exactly what happened, all on Hillary’s watch and what better dirt to pile on Hillary’s (very desirable) political grave than the fact she had initiated  policy directly responsible for the rise of Islamic State and consequently Iraq coming apart at the seams (again.) But wait, let’s not jump to a sole, simplistic conclusion. When Department of State wants a hatchet-job accomplished, whether a ‘color revolution’ initiated, or an insurgency created, they turn to their Siamese twin, that is the CIA. Department of State decides what needs done, the CIA decides how to go about it. Enters the scene, stage (hard) right, David Petraeus, in a play that could easily have been ghost-written by Robert Gates.

Robert Gates, who’d practically run the CIA under the tenures of Bill Casey and William Webster during the Reagan era, and moved on to the director’s position under Bush I, was responsible for the creation of al-Qaida when setting up a Salafist insurgency to fight the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan, working in concert with (long time intelligence career operative) Prince Bandar (‘Bush’) of Saudi Arabia. It does here to draw a parallel to the Defense Intelligence Agency assessment pointing out American intelligence (CIA) working since 2011 to facilitate Salafist militia (al-Qaida) taking control of Eastern Syria. Related to this, it should be noted here Sibel Edmonds testimony to the 9/11 commission remains classified secret on account of she’d informed the commission the CIA had maintained a working  relationship with Osama Bin Ladin up to 11 September 2001. There is evidence in the public record backing Sibel’s account, a 2001 Guardian article, citing Le Figaro reporting on a DGSE (French CIA) leak where it is divulged the CIA had met with Bin Ladin as recently as the Summer of 2001 in Dubai (we’ll come back to this.)

Only yesterday (17 June 2015) Ash Carter, the USA Secretary of Defense, and General Dempsey, the Pentagon’s Chairman for the Joint Chiefs of Staff, testified to a somewhat hostile House Armed Services Committee concerning the failure of the USA to produce any legitimate result with building the ‘moderate’ Free Syrian Army. Ash Carter had no sound answer to account for what amounts to no actual result where the programs to now have seen little other than the people the USA recruited to the ‘moderate opposition’ have taken the weapons and training and promptly defected to either Islamic State or Al-Nusra (Al-Qaida.) General Dempsey had, meanwhile, lied through his teeth when he informed the committee this training:

which officials have said is taking place in Jordan and Turkey, had just started and that it was still too soon “to give up on it.”

The (CIA friendly) Reuters piece (cited above) makes no mention of Carter and Dempsey pressed on the failures of a program which has gone on at least since its design in 2011 and implementation in 2012, and begins coming apart in 2014:

Frequently the man who carried out dirty jobs, Bandar bin Sultan surrounded himself with strict regulations in relation to the royal family and its allies, especially the US. It should be remembered that Bandar was absent from major political decisions on more than four occasions since being appointed as general secretary of the National Security Council in 2006. His absence each time was due to a conflict within the royal family or the failure of a mission warranting the suspension of his political activity. His return in July 2012, alongside former CIA Director David Petraeus, was his final bet on the success of his political future.

Bandar had been bold enough to invest all his cards, including al-Qaeda, to win the deal of his life by overthrowing the Syrian regime. However, a royal order issued on February 3 criminalizing all Saudi fighters, civilians and military, was an indirect announcement of the failure of Bandar’s mission and the need to get him entirely out of the picture. The period following the royal decree concerning the fighters was merely in preparation for the royal decree ending his political career

Prince Bandar’s Al-Qaida is directly descended from the Bin Ladin militia Robert Gates (together with Prince Bandar) had worked with, when creating the ‘Afghanis’ (Arab volunteer fighters in Afghanistan), also known generically as Salafist militia. Now, after seeing the same model applied to Syria by Robert Gate’s protege Petraeus, together with the same Bandar, the Saudis realized what had happened with the consequent rise of Islamic State and the subsequent dangers posed to the kingdom. Six months into 2015 and a record 100 executions…

the royal orders were a clear message to Saudi fighters, civilians and military alike, principally in Syria, but also in Iraq, Lebanon, and other places. It meant that a harsh fate awaits them if they decided to come back home. To avoid the grim destiny and severe punishment, they had to remain outside the borders and continue their mission until they perish or get dispersed in other fighting arenas, much like the first contingent of Arab Afghan fighters and those who emerged in Iraq after 2003, in Lebanon after the Nahr al-Bared war at the end of 2007, and those currently in Syria following the agreement between Saudi intelligence chief Bandar bin Sultan and former CIA chief David Petraeus in the summer of 2012.

…anyone informed as to the facts should realize returning Saudi Salafist Syria and Iraq veterans are being rounded up for elimination, a direct result of David Petraeus applying the Gates-Bandar ‘Aghani’ model in Syria, resulting in the rise of Islamic State, predicted by the 2012 Defense Intelligence Agency assessment.

In fact this joint USA-Saudi training, arming and supplying Salafist militia to bolster al-Qaida in Syria has been based out of Jordan and Turkey since the logistics had been pulled together by the CIA in 2012. The Syrian ‘moderate opposition’ had been a front to launder Salafist militia all along, when handing the East of Syria over to al-Qaida. Any authentic ‘moderates’ would have nothing to do with taking Assad’s regime down, after witnessing the aftermath of Iraq. John Brennan kept the Salafist insurgency program going after Petraeus departure, the only question outstanding is, how well informed had POTUS been, Obama has a reputation for handing foreign policy off to subordinates. Only this past fall has there been ‘aboveboard’ funds announced by Obama, provided to try and bring the program under control and give it a legitimate cover. This is what General Dempsey is referring to, when he states the program had just started and that it was still too soon “to give up on it” (speaking of lies by omission.)

Figuring this stuff out isn’t rocket science, so how’s our ‘alternative mainstream media’ been doing to now? Keeping you all informed?

Epilogue

Back to Bin Ladin, Robert Gates and the CIA, there’s a bit of post script in order. Al-Qaida has been a CIA ‘asset’ since its creation had been a joint endeavor of Gates and Prince Bandar in 1980s Afghanistan. Closely aligned throughout the ensuing decades with Saudi intelligence, though not exactly on cordial terms with the CIA, al-Qaida has liaised with CIA on too many occasions to detail in this article in the cause of ‘the enemy of my enemy is my friend.’ However it does well to note many of the ‘CIA liaised’ ‘Salafist’ actions have been pointed at Russia, China and nations incorporated to their sphere of influence.

In regards to Bin Ladin, when the CIA had met with him in Dubai in Summer 2001 (according to French intelligence) it was determined Bin Ladin was gravely ill, required regular dialysis and the medical prognosis was, Bin Ladin had, at most, two years to live. It is unlikely Bin Ladin survived the stresses of the American invasion of Afghanistan. He was likely dead within a few weeks, the stresses combined with unlikely ability to keep dialysis going (imagine his dialysis machine following him over and through the mountains on a mule) almost certainly cut his two years projected survival span off in the Hindu Kush, a result of the CIA had finally turned on Bin Ladin and framed him for 9/11. Since, a virtual Bin Ladin had been kept alive until it no longer served (created for the public) reality. This is why there is so much controversy surrounding his (non) death in 2011. As the numerous lies fall apart, new lies have to be concocted, more lies to supplant the failed lies until all is a perfect tangle of lies it is hoped (by the CIA) no one will ever sort through (people at the CIA delude themselves every day.) So, where is ‘alternative mainstream media’ at in regards to this? French intelligence had quite accurately pointed to a soon to be dead Bin Ladin in 2001.

This brings us to 9/11. How is it ‘alternative mainstream media’ is silent on the fact over 2,200 certified architects and engineers have stated, in no uncertain terms, the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, as explained by the United States, is an “impossibility.”

Here follows my email to the editor of Media Lens, copied to Glenn Greenwald, Laura Poitras and Ryan Gallagher and reads just so:

Re: Defense Intelligence Agency assessment (attached)

Hello Media Lens

Read your story on Murdoch’s putrid rag and Snowden. Good stuff. But your organization (among other ‘alternative mainstream’ new outlets) still ducks the 9/11 whitewash, right?

Meanwhile, how about something on the fact it was western democracies utilizing Al-Qaida as a ‘strategic asset’ led to the rise of Islamic State?

“the West, Gulf countries and Turkey support the opposition…

“…there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared Salafist principality in Eastern Syria .. and this is exactly what the supporting powers to the opposition want, in order to isolate the Syrian regime…”

“ISI could also declare an Islamic State through its union with other terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria, which will create grave danger in regards to unifying Iraq…”

Does courage in journalism come in degrees? Just curious.

Ron West
http://www.ronaldthomaswest.com

*

Meanwhile, I recommend taking your reading to Sibel Edmonds ‘Boiling Frogs Post‘ .. as opposed to the cowardice of Media Lens on 9/11 or The Intercept founded on money from a neo-Nazi supporting fascist billionaire named Pierre Omidyar. It’s not that I would agree with Sibel in every detail, it’s about Sibel turned down a multi-million dollar settlement from the USA to not talk about her experiences and discoveries when working as an FBI translator in the USA’s so-called ‘war on terror’

*

S1

*

Related:

Litmus Test On WikiLeaks ‘Saudi Cables’ release

*

The Intercept Takes A Dive, Episode 2

Call this one ‘the Iranian (Pierre Omidyar) who owns a Jew (Glenn Greenwald) that pimps a Polack (Marcin Mamoń)’ in a case that is, prima facie, an information operation. With focus having come to the fact of Pierre Omidyar, The Intercept’s bankroller, has funded elements in Ukraine leading to the overthrow of the Yanukovich regime, a de facto support contributing to the present civil war, clearly Omidyar has been supporting the side of those now constituting the regime in Kiev. How will The Intercept spin it’s bending over to take billionaire ‘Shah-man’ Omidyar’s shaft from behind?

The Intercept previously hosting Askold Krushelnycky (see ‘The Intercept Takes A Dive‘) struck me as similar to The Nation hosting Bob Drefuss or the Washington Post providing a platform to David Ignatius; a professional liar does not add a ‘fair and balanced’ perspective (recalls FOX NEWS) but merely tosses a monkey wrench into the gears of truth.

Now we have some famous Polish journalist (famous in Poland, in any case), Marcin Mamoń, has been taken on by The Intercept, and he somehow manages to screw Greenwald while in the same moment giving Omidyar a blow-job:

Intercept_Dive_2

This newest one reads as though it’d been scripted by the brighter minds of western intelligence; following initial references to “Russian backed [ethnic Russian] separatists” suddenly the language changes:

“When Kolomoisky saw that the Russians might capture Dnipropetrovsk”

And

“When the Russians stopped approximately 120 miles short of Dnipropetrovsk, Kolomoisky suddenly lost interest and stopped paying the volunteer battalions”

And

“There are suspicions that his location was betrayed to the Russians”

And

“They came to a small village called Chernukhino, where they stumbled upon Russian soldiers. There was shooting, and the Chechens killed a few Russians — the rest of the Russians withdrew. The Russians, however, managed to give the village’s coordinates to their artillery, and soon all hell broke loose”

So, it goes like this: Russians, Russians, Russians, Russian soldiers, Russians, Russians, Russians.

Intercept_Russian

Proof? Or is everyone on the side opposed to Kiev “Russian” for the sake of Mamoń’s journalism? The bias (at the least) is palpable; the forceful point in subliminal psychology being driven home is ‘these are Russian soldiers.’ The CIA psy-ops people have to be high-fiving over at Langley. The Intercept just morphed Ukrainians who happen to be ethnic Russian separatists: into Putin’s army in the Donbass region of Ukraine.

Notable neglect  in the coverage is; even if his volunteer troops are not expecting to be paid, how does the Chechen commander feed, transport and keep his 500 man battalion provided with ammunition, if his benefactor had dumped his force months previous to this? War is an incredibly expensive business. Villagers handing out cabbage and sausages just won’t get the job done. There has to have been serious alternative financing, and that is skirted with a vague reference to ‘help’ from the ‘Ukrainian people.’

Insofar as the point of the Kiev aligned volunteer battalions, Mamoń’s thesis is, these are a case of ‘the chickens come home to roost’ for Putin. Their ties to Islamic State coupled to the Ukrainian authorities at Kiev not only tolerate them, but somehow must be logistically supporting them, doesn’t really enter the picture. His article imparts a sort of strange rehabilitation worthy of those western Ukrainian fascists who worship Stephan Bandera. A kind of ‘they were justified’ rationale overlooking these are rank criminals and committed terrorists.

At the end of the day, I don’t give a rat’s ass if Marcin Mamoń is on easy terms with Chechen militants & big-shot Islamic State personalities, and neither should Glenn Greenwald be impressed; this Mamoń guy smells BAD and his ‘Eau de Omidyar’ is distinct in the air; if everyone on the Donbass region’s separatist side is Russian, we can just as easily make the case (more accurately) many, many fighters on the Kiev side are Nazi, that is with the exception of certain Chechen fighters, hosted by Kiev, and at least some apparently provided courtesy of the Islamic State.

Ukraine for Dummies

Intercept_Drone

The Intercept was too good to be true, now having published a rank propaganda piece worthy of the BBC news

The Intercept Takes A Dive

I sent this in a mail to Glenn Greenwald, as well submitted it as a comment (that did not post) at the article:

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/02/17/russian-drone-shot-ukraine/

Reads like a BBC propaganda piece

And with that short mail concerning the (above linked) article at The Intercept, you will discover a short, shallow piece that parrots a Ukrainian (Kiev) narrative claiming Ukrainian forces have downed a Russian surveillance drone. What’s wrong with this picture? As a former qualified operator of an American surface to air missile system (Improved HAWK) I can tell you right off this is a surface to air missile systems test drone and not a surveillance model. It is as simple as the color. A surveillance drone will be painted to blend with the sky. The Russians are not going to beg Kiev’s forces to shoot down one of their surveillance drones by sending it overhead painted bright orange.

Now, to the article’s author; Askold Krushelnycky. Firstly, in his own words, he was clearly in the camp of the so-called ‘Orange Revolution’ (a CIA instigated ‘color revolution‘ or part of the ‘democracy’ investment Victoria Nuland had reported the USA spent $5 billion on) putting him squarely in political opposition to the Russian ethnic majority of the Donbass region of Ukraine. So much for impartiality.

Secondly, Krushelnycky is first generation British of Ukrainian “refugee” descent, opening the question of whether Krushelnycky is of Stephen Bandera aligned stock. Most of the Ukrainian nationals who were allowed into the USA, Canada and Britain after WW II were radical right wing who’d supported Hitler in Ukraine, including an ethnic Ukrainian division of Waffen SS rescued in the thousands. Did The Intercept do a background check on Krushelnycky? I doubt it.

Thirdly, Krushelnycky is reporting from Mariupol, the Kiev held area where Right Sector (Ukrainian Nazis) has its own independent ‘Azov’ battalion. If he were inclined to report factually (particularly in relation to Azov battalion provocations), he’d have immediate problems with these people. Not to mention Kiev has pushed so many outrageous lies, Kiev propaganda compares well to Roger Rabbit; insofar as reality.

Fourthly, and here it gets very sticky for The Intercept, Pierre Omidyar, The Intercept’s bankroller, has funded elements in Ukraine leading to the overthrow of the Yanukovich regime, a de facto support contributing to the present civil war. Clearly Omidyar has been supporting the side of those now constituting the regime in Kiev, which also so happens align with the politics of Intercept reporter Krushelnycky. Glenn Greenwald has claimed Omidyar’s support for the parties ruling in Kiev will make no difference in the reporting coming out of The Intercept; but actions here speak louder than words … I had actually been wondering why reporting on Ukraine had been conspicuously absent at The Intercept and now we have a shallow, rank propaganda piece worthy of those very whores of journalism Greenwald & friends have so eloquently bashed elsewhere.

The Intercept hosting Askold Krushelnycky is like The Nation hosting Bob Drefuss or the Washington Post providing a platform to David Ignatius; a professional liar does not add a ‘fair and balanced’ perspective (recalls FOX NEWS) but merely tosses a monkey wrench into the gears of truth-

C’est la vie.

Related:

The Intercept Takes A Dive Episode 2 ‘Eau de Omidyar’

Ukraine for Dummies

*

The proposal in this essay “In fact it is perfectly possible by the time Snowden had traveled to Moscow with Harrison, he may no longer have been in possession of the documents at all” in fact had been almost immediately established as the case in fact, when Snowden stated he was no longer in possession of any NSA documents when he’d traveled to Russia, in his Moscow interview with NBC

It is a near impossible task to try and wipe egg off someone’s face, that is, if that someone doesn’t care to acknowledge the facts, if the facts shake their foundation in reality or they are simply willfully stubborn. When egg yolk has dried on ceramic, those of you who know how to wash dishes will know to use fingernails, or risk scratches and look for the steel wool. So this analysis is going to be abrasive to the idealists in the peace movement and associated journalists concerned with social justice. And it is an attempt to pull Glenn Greenwald’s chestnuts out of the fire, before they are reduced to ashes by counter-espionage and damage control spooks. Good luck with that, is the cynical admonition to myself, because this one might get eggs thrown at me with a vengeance.

Our present story begins precisely 11 months ago, 23 June 2013, when The Guardian had reported concerning the WikiLeaks supposed (reported widely in ‘mainstream’ media) ‘legal expert’ accompanying Edward Snowden, Sarah Harrison, on Snowden’s odyssey to Moscow:

“Despite her closeness to Assange, Harrison may seem a strange choice to accompany Snowden, as unlike several people close to WikiLeaks – most notably human rights lawyer Jennifer Robinson – Harrison has no legal qualifications or background”

Yeah, that’s likely why Snowden faxed perfectly useless asylum requests all over the world from the Moscow airport, not realizing (technically speaking, such as in an embassy) he had to be standing on the territory of the nation he would wish to acquire asylum in. But it gets by far more interesting. As I’d pointed out in my piece ‘WikiLeaks & Spy Agencies‘…

“In espionage [or counter-espionage], there are three basic means of penetrating and/or using a hostile organization to one’s advantage:

1)  Turning an employee through some means such as blackmail, sex, bribery or appeal to a psychological weakness such as working on someone’s conscience or ideology and convince them to become your organization’s asset (agent/traitor)

2)  Placing your own officer within the organization as an employee (spy)

3) Using psychology and disinformation to convince the organization’s staff to work to your advantage and/or commit acts against its own interests (false flag/sale)

Typically there would be each of these approaches assessed individually and in various combinations and/or variants when planning an operation. WikiLeaks would be vulnerable to this on several counts”

…now, we will look at this a bit more closely in a related development of the past several days.

On 19 May, 2014, the new venture of Greenwald (among others) ‘The Intercept’ published a piece based on the Snowden NSA documents, concerning MYSTIC sub-project SOMALGET, detailing how entire nations are being prepared for TOTAL surveillance of phone traffic, inclusive of all audio conversation. The apparent ‘pilot program’ of laboratory test animals is the Bahamas and an unnamed nation (in the intercept article.)

mystic_somalget_final

^NSA illustration via The Intercept

Almost immediately, Julian Assange (@WikiLeaks) and Greenwald were in a ‘twitter’ spat over Greenwald with-holding the 2nd nations name, Assange claiming Greenwald’s rationale for following long established journalism protocol to protect at risk persons by with-holding information was essentially selling out. AND THEN, WikiLeaks (Assange) threatened to reveal the nation’s name, if The Intercept and Greenwald refused to do so .. and subsequently named Afghanistan. What we see here, on its face, is brilliant counter-espionage work, of a nature so serious a threat to Greenwald (and others) journalism at The Intercept, as to appear to send Greenwald to Moscow to meet with Snowden, or so rumor would have it:

^Destination Moscow (in closing remarks by hostess)

The problem with WikiLeaks naming the unnamed country? Now, the ‘mainstream’ (CIA manipulated) media can claim in full on attack on Greenwald and the others at The Intercept, these journalists have no credibility insofar as security of content concerning the NSA documents in their possession. As well, there most certainly will be assessment of possibility to link Greenwald (and others at The Intercept) to any criminal case being developed against Assange. Touche, NSA! Counter-espionage has drawn blood.

Now to the question .. how did WikiLeaks acquire the name of Afghanistan? WikiLeaks isn’t saying. But first suspicion would naturally fall on close Assange confidant Sarah Harrison who’d been with Snowden ’24/7′ for weeks while Snowden was sorting out where he might be able to safely stay (having to ultimately settle on Russia.) I believe this is the least likely scenario, however we will go there first. It’s as simple as Sarah Harrison would have stole the documents from Snowden. If that were the case, WikiLeaks has all of the Snowden NSA disclosures and they don’t dare admit they’d violated Snowden’s trust. If Greenwald is indeed in Moscow meeting with Snowden, it would go to exploring this possibility. But I doubt this is what happened, not because WikiLeaks would not have stolen the documents if they could have, but because I expect Snowden was smart enough to secure the documents throughout Sarah Harrison’s stay with him, not every possible ‘honey-pot’ or using a woman in seduction for operational purposes is going to be successful. Whether Harrison were Assange’s mole or a British intelligence agent or double agent, Snowden was not a good candidate to fall for this sort of operation when it is demonstrable Snowden’s own girlfriend had no idea what he was  up to in the months and days leading up to his revelations and flight. The man is well disciplined in the rules of personal secrecy attending espionage. In fact it is perfectly possible by the time Snowden had traveled to Moscow with Harrison, he may no longer have been in possession of the documents at all. But the brilliant aspect of this, from the point of view of counter-espionage and exploiting public perception is, it will appear the documents were not secured and Greenwald & Laura Poitras can be pilloried as irresponsible and endangering the USA’s national security, inclusive of putting lives at risk, possibly to a point of building a criminal case. Meanwhile, if Greenwald had traveled to Moscow, he is barking up the wrong tree.

The more likely scenario is quite straightforward. The NSA arranged to ‘leak’ the information concerned to WikiLeaks, for clear intent of going after Greenwald and The Intercept with PsyOps, sowing distrust and misleading the principal players in a counter-operation that will be highly publicized propaganda.

So, one might ask, how can leaking the nation’s name, Afghanistan, almost certainly laundered via some CIA embed or ‘social justice’ source known to WikiLeaks, square with the USA purportedly concerned for the lives put at risk? Here is where the cynicism of evil plays in the world of spy craft; people at the top, certainly inclusive of Obama’s CIA Director John ‘Kill List‘ Brennan, NSA associates and ‘friends’ play the game of ‘trade-offs.’ The people whose lives are ‘at risk’ due to the disclosures will be relatively low level assets, easily expendable technicians. They are suddenly fodder for the greater gain of going after Greenwald and damaging The Intercept. It is actually as simple as that. If some of these technicians are killed, so much the better from the point of view at the top, that will be frosting on the cake of working to destroy (and likely pursue a frame-up with criminal charges) those persons who initially broke the Snowden story and facilitated the NSA documents release.

To Glenn & Co at The Intercept, welcome to the real world of spies.

Related stories:

Above Top Secret How (not) To Leak

WikiLeaks and Spy Agencies Probable information operations

%d bloggers like this: