Russian Hacking: The CIA Never Lies?

Be honest now. Did you believe the US intelligence agencies when they claimed it was a “Slam Dunk” Iraq had WMD? That bit of propaganda cost 5,000 American lives, and more than a million Iraqi lives. To make matters even more horrible, 600,000 children under 5 years old died because of brutal sanctions.

They sold that war using fake, distorted evidence, and outright lies, to support their need for a war. They even introduced “forged” documents from Niger to sell the war. Tragically the US public bought it, hook line and sinker, even though there were knowledgeable people who saw through the ruse.  Experts who knew the intelligence was baseless, were ignored by mainstream media, and the propaganda by government and its mouthpiece, mainstream media, went unchallenged. These intelligence agencies were the very same who did not foresee the fall of the Berlin wall until it was on the ground in pieces, nor did they see the destruction of the WTC until it too, was on the ground. And this would be the same CIA who this week, submitted a written apology to the Turkish government for making “false claims” about Turkey” oil trading with Daesh.

Now we are told the Russians interfered with our elections, but this time it is different. They don’t offer any evidence  or proof whatsoever, let alone fake evidence. Their claims are based on anonymous sources, unnamed sources, and terms like “consensus view”, with not a shred of absolute proof.  Based on the Iraq lies, they learned you can sell the US public anything, if you just keep repeating the lie. The “Big Lie” theory is alive and well today. If you repeat something enough, it becomes fact. The intelligence agencies refused to brief congress, and they refused to brief the electors before voting for President. Why?

There certainly are experts in the field who should know about the alleged hacking, but they are not allowed to disrupt mainstream media’s Russophobe frenzy. Bet you never saw William Binney on mainstream media.  Who is Binney?  He is the guy who put together the NSA’s elaborate worldwide surveillance system. He has publicly stated on alternative news sites, that if something was “hacked”, the NSA would instantly know who, when, and whether the info was passed on to another party.  He designed the system. He argues, there was no hacking for that very reason. Binney insists the e-mails had to have been leaked by an “insider” who had access to the data. Never heard him on mainstream media huh? Next comes Craig Murray a former US Ambassador who claims he knows who leaked the e-mails, because he met with the individual in Washington D.C. Never heard him on mainstream media either huh?  Finally, Julian Assange, the man who released the e-mails. He insisted all along he never got the e-mails from Russia.  Another no show on mainstream media. Whatever happened to the journalistic adage of going to the source? Assange is the source, but no mainstream media journalist, and I use the term very loosely, has ventured to speak with him. The accusation has been repeated countless times, without any evidence, or consulting with any of the above three experts.

Because the big lie has been repeated so many times by corporate media, about half of the US public, according to a recent poll, believes Russia interfered, even though there is not a bit of evidence to support it. Once again they take the bait; hook, line, and sinker.

For believers of Russian hacking, I offer the following analogy. It might, but I doubt it help, because you cannot undo the effect of propaganda.  You are put on trial for murder that you did not commit. The prosecutor and judge simply say they have reached a “consensus view”, the phrase offered by intelligence agencies, that you committed the murder and are guilty. You ask for proof. They offer none. They just keep repeating that you did it. You challenge and ask how do you know I did it? Answer: we have anonymous sources, but we cannot tell you who they are, nor can we show you proof. 

Just as in the fake run-up to the Iraq war, the expert voices of the opposition are not tolerated on mainstream media. Do these folks really want a war with Russia?  Are they so upset with Trump’s pronouncement that he wanted better relations with Russia?  What sane person would not?  Hmmm.

It appears there is a war already raging between the Russophobes, who do not want better relations with Russia, and are doing their best to smear and demonize Putin, and those who do. This is the same tactic used  with Manuel Noriega of Panama, Muarmar Gaddafi, and Saddam Hussein, before they made war on all three. Demonize, then make war.

Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. Shame on those who buy into propaganda without any proof.

Think about it and use a little logic.                                                  

Mainstream Media on Syria and Russia; “Fake News”

I try my best to be an informed about what is, and has happened, in Syria.  When I watch mainstream media’s coverage I am horrified at their “Fake News”. For example, Lester Holt of NBC nightly news recently referred to Bashar Assad as the “brutal dictator”. Does Lester know that in 2014 there was a multiparty election in Syria? Does he know that Assad won the election with 88% of the vote?  Critics might say, but it was not a fair election! Was ours? 

Most of the coverage has centered around Aleppo, and the mainstream Aleppo narrative has been, it was besieged by the brutal dictator, who wanted to slaughter all the residents of Aleppo.  The fact is, Aleppo is divided into two parts and has been for four years. West Aleppo is controlled by the Syrian government, and East Aleppo was captured, and has been held by terrorists and thugs for the past four years. Residents of East Aleppo have not been allowed to leave, and have been shot in the streets for trying. The jihadists who control East Aleppo, these would be the same “moderates” and “rebels” that beheaded the 9-year-old boy, and showed the beheading to the world, have also controlled the hospitals in east Aleppo and have used them to treat their own, and to launch artillery barrages into west Aleppo, killing innocents every day for the past four years. 

Finally, with the help of the Russians and others, the Syrian government  liberated East Aleppo and rescued its’ resident from the terrorists.  This is a completely different narrative from what one gets watching mainstream news, which gets its news from anonymous twitter accounts, “unnamed activists”, and the White Helmets. That fake organization is funded by the US, France, and other western nations to the tune of $100 million, and is nothing more than a propaganda tool for the west. It has been completely exposed and thoroughly discredited, except by mainstream media, which uses its propaganda as if it were factual. The US had no actual reporters anywhere near Aleppo.  There are however, reporters from other countries who were in and out of Aleppo daily, like Vanessa Beeley and Canadian journalist Eva Bartlett, who fully understand what has happened and report it accordingly. If your goal is trying to defeat the terrorist and jihadists forces in Syria, the liberation of east Aleppo is a major victory. If, on the other hand, you support terrorists, or have as your goal, prolonging the war to weaken Assad, then the taking of Aleppo represents a tragedy. According to mainstream media, the retaking of Aleppo by government forces and defeating the terrorist is a tragedy.

One of the best journalists in the world, when it comes to the middle east, is Patrick Cockburn.  You probably never heard of him if you rely on mainstream “fake” media, because his voice is not allowed. He is however, recognized as one of the best sources in the world on Syria and the Middle East, but his voice and work cannot get by the censors of mainstream media. Cockburn’s most recent article: “There’s More Propaganda Than News Coming Out of Aleppo This Week” argues that jihadists early, on killed or captured western journalists, and gained the narrative using fake sources, twitter accounts and the like. When is the last time you heard Noam Chomsky on mainstream media? He is one of the best minds in the country, but he cannot get by the censors. Other great foreign policy journalists such as Eric Margolis, Pepe Escobar,  the great Glenn Greenwald, and Jeremy Scahill, are not tolerated by mainstream “fake” media.

It is interesting to see mainstream media shed crocodile tears for the civilians of Aleppo, yet when the US besieged the city of Fallujah in Iraq in 2004, the “fake” news folks were cheerleaders. This was a city of 300,000, which was basically leveled by the US led forces. The US claimed Fallujah was held by terrorists and proceeded to level the city to save the city.  No one knows, nor will ever know, how many civilians were killed in a brutal assault on a civilian city. The point here is, mainstream “fake” news acted as cheerleaders, and never once worried about civilians being slaughtered, nor did they shed any tears during the “Shock and Awe” destruction of Bagdad. Funny how they can just turn around and shed crocodile tears for the civilians of Aleppo, but cheer when we kill civilians.

In no way am I a champion of Bashar Assad, but I respect the right of the Syrian people to pick their own leader.  How many times have you heard Obama and officials in the administration, along with crazies like John McCain and Lindsey Graham, chant in unison: “Assad must go”.  None of the crazies ever tried to explain what gives the US government the legal right to decide who should lead the Syrian people.  Then again, what is the law, when you have power. Still, it is interesting to see how upset and angry these same folks are, when Russia is falsely accused of trying to hack into our elections. Julian Assange and Craig Murray claim them never got anything from Russia, and they know who leaked the e-mails. Former ambassador Craig Murray, even claims to have met the individual, and insists the individual is an insider. William Binney, the man who designed the NSA’s surveillance system, has come forward and vehemently argued if anyone hacked those emails, the NSA would instantly know who hacked, when, where, and whether those e-mails were passed on to another party.  Binney, the foremost expert in the world, is banned from mainstream “fake” media, as are Murray and Assange. They cannot get over the wall of censors who wish always to control the narrative. 

If you really are curious about world events, you must work at it, and find good alternative sources. You are ignorant of world events if you only rely on mainstream “fake” media.

The Fake News Controversy is Larger than you Think.

Mainstream media, for many years has been able to control the narrative and push their positions, and the government’s, which are, for the most part, one and the same.  Most of the time a trusting public has been too busy trying to survive a weak economy, so they have not figured out they are constantly fed distortions, exaggerations, and sometimes outright likes. Cases in point follow.  The US public bought into the government and media narrative, that Iraq had WMD, and consequently made war on Iraq which took at least a million lives for no legitimate reason. Many experts knew full well that the intelligence had been altered and shaped to meet the need of the media and government, but their voices were excluded from the debate by mainstream media. In the same way, third parties have been excluded from debates and exposure by mainstream media for years. Progressives such as Dennis Kucinich were marginalized by the corporate media, and in the past election, the voice of Jill Stein was muted by media. 

The recent election, I suggest, overwhelmingly proves my point.  In the early days of the primary Donald Trump was the media darling. His rivals cried foul because Trump was covered 24-7 by the corporate media, and rivals felt they could not compete with the free publicity and exposure Trump was given.  Indeed, FAIR, a reliable media watchdog, calculated Trump received about 2 billion dollars’ worth of free air time, proving the cry of foul by his rival’s to be legitimate. Media did not care; Trump was so outlandish he was making money for the media moguls. At some point, however, media realized they created a Frankenstein, and quickly reversed their course. Trump instantly became the devil incarnate, and negative stories about him and his candidacy prevailed.  The turning point developed when Trump announced he had no reason to fight Russia, and saw no reason why we could not peacefully work with Russia, improving relations for both countries, and therefore the world. Mainstream media, the corporate pro war voice, could not take this kind of insolence. Their narrative was Russia and Putin were a threat, and should be treated that way, so they turned their pens and cameras on Trump and tried to bring him down. Media promotes war. The New York Times with Judith Miller, helped lie us into a war with Iraq, and has been pushing us into a confrontation with Russia, along with the Washington Post.  For two years, Russia has been blamed for everything, despite the absence of proof for any of the accusations.  Russia had been thoroughly demonized by the media in the same way that Manuel Noriega, Muammar Gaddafi, and Saddam Hussein, had been demonized. The demonizing has proven itself to be the first step in setting the stage for war, and it appears with the complete vilification of Putin and Russia by corporate media, we are on the way to a war. A horrible thought.

Meanwhile, Trump won the election. Hate him or like him, give him credit for winning the election with the entire establishment against him.  His own party would not contribute to his campaign, corporate media was solidly behind Hillary, and gave her a complete pass on the content of damaging e-mails from within her campaign. Media chose to gloss over the illegal Clinton team tactics of sabotaging Sanders, and focused on those nasty Russians. Almost every major newspaper endorsed the Clinton campaign, yet Trump prevailed.  Corporate media was truly shocked; not that Trump won, but because they had lost control.  They controlled the narrative, but lost control of the voters. The voters voted the wrong way! Make no mistake; this writer is not, nor will ever be, in the Trump camp, nor am I a Hillary supporter. I did not have a dog in this fight, so I watched it as an outsider or spectator, who saw things that others, who might have been emotionally committed, did not see.  It is clear that media tried to promote Hillary, and was horrified that they had lost the ability to control the narrative and the public. 

The “fake news “controversy is nothing more than corporate media’s attempt to slander alternative media, because corporate media finally realized they lost control, and no one takes them seriously.  By and large, people do not read newspapers, nor do mainstream news outlets and cable news have any credibility. Corporate media had to do something to regain control of the narrative, and they attempted to do so with the fake news nonsense, and with the assistance of their gal Hillary Clinton. They are trying to convince the public it is only they who can be trusted.  This is an effort to recapture the public and regain control of the narrative.  They are frightened and shocked; for the first time they lost control of the narrative. Their effort is akin to Chris Cuomo, CNN anchor, telling the US public it was illegal for them to read the contents of WikiLeaks e-mails, and that only news outlets were legally able to read those e-mails.  Cuomo entreated the public to let CNN interpret the emails, and tell you what is important. His amateurish attempt, made him a laughing stock. The fake news controversy is Cuomo’s effort magnified tenfold.  Trust us, and no one else, they suggest.  Everything outside of corporate media is “fake”, they insist.

How stupid does corporate media think we are??