The
C.I.A.'s rash, evidence-free "report" is a rear-guard political
action against the winning faction of the Deep State...
This is a blatantly politicized
"report" that is not supported by any evidence, nor is it supported
by the other 16 intelligence agencies.
The recent pronouncement by the
C.I.A. that Russian hackers intervened in the U.S. presidential election
doesn't pass the sniff test--on multiple levels. Let's
consider the story on the most basic levels.
1. If the report is so "secret," why is it
dominating the news flow?
2. Why was the "secret report" released now?
3. What actual forensic evidence is there of intervention? Were voting machines tampered with? Or
is this "secret report" just another dose of fact-free "fake
news" like The Washington Post's list of 200
"Russian propaganda" websites?
4. The report claims the entire U.S. intelligence community
is in agreement on the "proof of Russian intervention on behalf of
Trump" story, but then there's this:
"The C.I.A. presentation to senators about Russia’s intentions
fell short of a formal U.S. assessment produced by all 17 intelligence
agencies. A senior U.S. official said there were minor disagreements among
intelligence officials about the agency’s assessment, in part because some
questions remain unanswered."
Given that the N.S.A. (National Security Agency) was so secret that its existence was denied for
decades, do you really think the NSA is going to go
public if it disagrees with the C.I.A.?
Given the structure of the Deep
State and the intelligence community, "minor disagreements" could
well mean complete, total disavowal of the C.I.A.'s report.
That this is the
reality is suggested by the F.B.I.'s denunciation of the report's
evidence-free, sweeping conclusion:
5. The supposed interventions clearly fall under the purview
of the NSA. So why is the C.I.A. going public in what is clearly a
politicized report intended to influence the public via massive, sustained
coverage in the mainstream media?
6. Notice the double standard: so when the U.S.
attempts to influence public opinion in other nations, it's OK, but when other
nations pursue the same goal, it's not OK?
7. What [ Why] are we to make of the sustained campaign to elevate
"Russian hackers and propaganda" from signal noise to the deciding
factor in the U.S. election?
8. Russian hacking and attempts to influence American public
opinion are not new. The intelligence agencies tasked with protecting
American cyberspace have long identified state-sponsored hacking from Russia
and China as major threats. So why, all of a sudden,
are we being told the Russians successfully influenced a U.S. election?
What changed? What new capabilities
did they develop?
9. And most importantly, what evidence is there that Russian efforts affected the
election? Were digital fingerprints found on voting
machine records? Were payments to American media employees uncovered?
Shouldn't
statements purported to be "fact" or the "truth" be
substantiated beyond "trust
us, an agency with a long history of failed
intelligence, misinformation and illegal over-reach"?
10. Doesn't it raise alarms that
such a momentous accusation is totally devoid of evidence? If
you're going public with the conclusion, you have to go public with at least
some of the evidence.
Here's the media
blitz and some skeptical response:
Longtime readers know I have
proposed a major divide in the Deep State --the elements of the federal government which
don't change regardless of who is in elected office. This includes the
intelligence community, the Pentagon, the diplomatic and trade infrastructure,
Research and Revelopment, and America's own organs of media "framing"
and "placement."
Is the Deep State Fracturing into Disunity? (March 14,
2014)
More recently, I wondered if the more progressive elements of
the Deep State recognized the dangers to U.S. security posed by the neocons and
their candidate, Hillary Clinton, and had decided to undermine her candidacy:
Could the Deep State Be Sabotaging Hillary? (August 8,
2016)
In other words, it's not the
Russians who sabotaged Hillary--it's America's own Deep State that undermined
her coronation. It
wasn't a matter of personalities; it was much more profound than that. It was
about the risks posed by the neocon strategies and policies, and just as
importantly, the politicization of
the intelligence network.
And this is precisely what we
discern in the C.I.A.'s unprecedented and quite frankly, absurd "secret
report:" a
blatantly politicized "report" that is not
supported by any evidence, nor is it supported by the other 16 intelligence
agencies. (Silence doesn't mean approval in this sphere.)
We can now discern the warring
camps of the Deep State more clearly. On the one side is the C.I.A., the mainstream media, and the
civilians who have feasted on wealth and power from their participation in the
neocon's Global Project.
On the other side is the Defense Department's own
intelligence agencies (D.I.A. et al.), the N.S.A., the F.B.I. and at
least a few well-placed civilians who recognize the neocon agenda as a clear
and present danger to the security of the nation.
From this perspective, the
C.I.A.'s rash, evidence-free "report" is a rear-guard political
action against the winning faction of the Deep State. The
Deep State elements that profited from the neocon agenda were confident that
Hillary's victory would guarantee another eight years of globalist
intervention. Her loss means they are now on the defensive, and like a
cornered, enraged beast, they are lashing out with whatever they have in hand.
This goes a long way in explaining the C.I.A's release of a
painfully threadbare and politicized "report."
….
----
===
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario