Intelligence agencies make their living by lying: now they're truthful?
By Jon Rappoport
A few delicious contradictions and dissonances:
The political Left has long attacked the CIA and other spying
agencies as criminal liars, but suddenly those agencies are as pure as
the driven snow, because they claim Russia hacked the US election and
took victory away from Hillary Clinton.
Putin, the supposed arch-villain in this operation, heavily
censors the press in Russia. That would be bad---except now, many of the
people who support the claim that Putin masterminded the election-hack
in the US want to heavily censor independent media outlets in the US,
who claim the Russian hack is a lie based on zero evidence. Putin
censoring news in Russia=bad. Censoring "fake news" in the US=good.
In the push for launching Gulf War 2 in Iraq, the political
Left in the US demanded detailed proof that Saddam had weapons of mass
destruction. When it comes to the accusation that Russia hacked the US
election, no proof is necessary. After all, the CIA must protect its
"sources and methods." A simple assertion of hacking is sufficient.
Among green opponents of GMO crops, it's common knowledge
that the FDA never offered evidence of safety before certifying GMOs in
the 1990s. However, those green people who support Hillary only need the
CIA to say Russia hacked the election to believe it. No evidence
necessary.
Here is a 1981 statement attributed to Bill Casey, incoming
director of the CIA: "We'll know our disinformation program is complete
when everything the American public believes is false."
And how about this one, from David Talbot, author of The
Devil's Chessboard: Allen Dulles, the CIA, and the Rise of America's
Secret Government. Talbot is discussing James Jesus Angleton, who was
the head of Agency counterintelligence from 1954-1975: "These were some
of James Jesus Angleton's dying words. 'Fundamentally, the founding
fathers of U.S. intelligence were liars. The better you lied and the
more you betrayed, the more likely you would be promoted. . . . Outside
of their duplicity, the only thing they had in common was a desire for
absolute power. I did things that, in looking back on my life, I regret.
But I was part of it and loved being in it'..."
What we're really looking at here, in the "Russian hack"
allegation, is a wholesale revision of attitude toward the US
intelligence community. Now, because it's convenient for "progressives,"
these agencies are protecting the security of the United States with
truth, honesty, and righteous investigations.
Much of this revisionist propaganda is aimed at the young,
who have never studied the history of the CIA, have zero knowledge of
its regime-change ops, its MKULTRA mind-control programs, or its illegal
structure that exceeds by miles its original charter.
The NSA is also, of course, involved in the Russian-hack
story, because that agency spies on emails and phone calls 24/7. They
would surely be able to present evidence about who hacked the Hillary,
DNC, and Podesta emails---if indeed any hacking, as opposed to inside
leaking, occurred at all. But if they offered information, would you
believe them? They've been lying about the extent of their spying for
decades. Their track record doesn't inspire holy trust.
These days, major media are lining up behind the Russian-hack
claim. For them, nothing matters except the political agenda. For them,
the election isn't over and it never will be. Donald Trump scorched
them, time and time again, during the campaign, and they will have their
revenge, no matter what it takes.
Further, the emails WikiLeaks released reveal extensive
cooperation between the press, the DNC, and Hillary Clinton. That's a
bitter pill for the press to swallow, to say the least.
For example, the Daily Caller (10/17/16) reported:
"A Politico reporter has been caught sending his journalism to Hillary Clinton's campaign chairman for approval."
"In an April 30, 2015 email, released Monday by
WikiLeaks, Politico's chief political correspondent Glenn Thrush asked
John Podesta to approve his writing pre-publication. Thrush begged
Podesta not to tell anyone he had shared the copy and referred to
himself as 'a hack' in the email exchange.
"'No worries Because I have become a hack I will send u the
whole section that pertains to u,' Thrush wrote to Podesta. 'Please
don't share or tell anyone I did this Tell me if I fucked up anything'."
"The Politico reporter then included five paragraphs from a
story he would publish May 1 titled: 'Hillary's big-money dilemma'.
Podesta replied that, off-the-record, there were 'no problems'."
Just to be clear, Glenn Thrush isn't saying he's a hacker. He's saying
he's a hack. Dictionary.com offers a useful definition of the term: "a
professional who renounces or surrenders individual independence,
integrity, belief, etc., in return for money or other reward in the
performance of a task normally thought of as involving a strong personal
commitment..."
But that's not all. On December 12, 2016, Huffington Post
reported: "Politico chief political correspondent Glenn Thrush is
joining The New York Times to cover the White House, the newspaper
confirmed Monday."
"Over the past eight years, Thrush has emerged as one of
Politico's standout journalists, most recently writing a 13,000-word
dive into the pivotal moments of the 2016 election."
"'We're thrilled that Glenn Thrush is joining The Times,'
Elisabeth Bumiller, the paper's Washington bureau chief, said in a
statement to The Huffington Post. 'He's a premier political journalist, a
master of breaking news and long-form story telling and a stellar
addition to our White House team'."
Wikipedia offers this telling paragraph on the revelations
about Thrush in the Wikileaks-released email: "The email and its wording
prompted criticism of Thrush from some commentators and on social
media. Thrush replied on Twitter that 'checking if a portion of a story
that pertained to him [Podesta] was accurate... I DO THIS WITH
EVERYBODY.' Politico's vice president of communications,
Brad Dayspring, said that 'Glenn is one of the top political reporters
in the country, in no small part because he understands that it is his
job is to get inside information, not appear perfect when someone
illegally hacks email... I can speak with firsthand knowledge and
experience that Glenn checks the validity of often complex reporting
with everybody, on both sides of the aisle'."
Are you getting this? Are you getting the dazzling spin? It's quite hilarious. Rotten eggs are turned into caviar.
For big media, it's vital to support the Russian-hack story.
It allows them to denounce and reject the CONTENT of the leaked emails
and divert people from focusing on the press-Hillary cooperation
throughout the presidential campaign.
"Who cares what the leaked emails SAY? All you need to know
is: THE RUSSIANS DID IT. Russians are bad. We are good. Russians bad. We
good."
The CIA is good, too. Always was.
If you buy all this, you'll surely be interested in
purchasing my special ant farms. The ants are trained to drive your car.
Put 50 of them behind the wheel and they'll take you right to the
market and back home again. They can also pilot a space ship to Mars.
For that, you'll need to order one of my ships separately...
No comments:
Post a Comment