“The only thing worse than a liar is a liar that’s also a hypocrite!” Tennessee Williams
Intelligence Agencies Make Their Living by Lying: Now They’re Truthful?
by Jon Rappoport
December 20, 2016
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’.”
(To read about Jon’s mega-collection, Power Outside The Matrix, click here.)
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…
NSA Whistleblower Destroys CIA Narrative – “Hard Evidence Points To Inside Leak, Not Russia Hack”
“A group of retired senior intelligence officials, including the NSA whistleblower William Binney (former Technical Director, World Geopolitical & Military Analysis, NSA), have posted an open letter on consortiumnews.com that destroys the Obama administration’s “Russian hacking” narrative.
Within the letter, Binney argues that, thanks to the NSA’s “extensive domestic data-collection network,” any data removed remotely from Hillary Clinton or DNC servers would have passed over fiber networks and therefore would have been captured by the NSA who could have then analyzed packet data to determine the origination point and destination address of those packets. As Binney further notes, the only way the leaks could have avoided NSA detection is if they were never passed over fiber networks but rather downloaded to a thumb drive by someone with internal access to servers…”