Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'West Mall' started by Horn6721, Dec 13, 2016.
CIA apparently let Al Gore write this part
It happens. I have written stuff in here that Rush Limbaugh talks about the next day too. Theft of intellectual property is a burden some of us just have to live with.
Michael Moore, circa 2010 --
You are now on the side of Michael Moore, Julian Assange and Putin. That has to feel "icky" in some way.
What happened to all you "it was the Russians" posters?
Where did you go?
Is this why you guys have stopped losing your minds over THE RUSSIANS?
Because "the Russian hackers" were not actually Russians?
But rather, just your basic garden-variety Democrats?
LOL, what a clown show
"Three brothers who managed office information technology for members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and other lawmakers were abruptly relieved of their duties on suspicion that they accessed congressional computer networks without permission.
Brothers Abid, Imran, and Jamal Awan were barred from computer networks at the House of Representatives Thursday.....
* * *
Signs of trouble have long been visible in public records. The Congressional Credit Union repossessed Abid’s car in 2009, and he declared bankruptcy in 2012, facing multiple lawsuits.
Security-sensitive jobs typically require background checks for credit and legal problems that can create pressures to cash in on access to secret information and documents.
Alvi has multiple second mortgages. She did not respond to TheDCNF’s request for comment....."
Anyone want to guess the religion of these guys?
Anyone at all?
FWIW, these bros managed office IT for members of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. The HIC is part of the deepest oversight network and has responsibility over the most sensitive and secretive government intelligence, including covert anti-terrorism activity. Some of them also sit on CIA oversight.
Now, think about this -- the members get advance briefings on things like the recent Trump-authorized operation in Yemen (the one in which a US soldier died, as well as some civilians)
And now the bros are suspended/fired
Where there's smoke there's fire? Lots of anonymous sources being reported that there was a lot of ongoing communication between the Russian's and Trump's campaign.
The Flynn connection simply re-energized the issue.
FWIW -- "Anonymous" claims to be on the inside of the Trump Admin.
Says the leakers have been identified and will be prosecuted.
He/she also promises daily updates
The identifying should not be that difficult since there are only so many people on earth who have access to this info. However, rooting them out of there might not be so easy since a bureaucratic wall of protection automatically goes up to protect all Fed Govt employees.
In my DC office, we once had two secretaries perp-walked out of the office. They were part of a ring stealing franked mail. Less than 6 months later, they were back on the job.
(click to enlarge)
Unfortunately not very reliable
Apparently we know this because Obama had his spooks wiretapping the Trump campaign ala Nixon.
Four Big Reasons Russophobia is Raging in the USA
For the sake of brevity, I'll copy reason #4 which is probably the most interesting to our posters. If you are looking for reasons the Left is so anti-Russian, there are explanations that go beyond the elections. For the other three big reasons, just read the article.
4) Ideology – No, the crazed rhetoric coming from “mainstream” Democratic figures like Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff isn’t just an opportunistic way of explaining the failure of Hillary Clinton to win the White House – there’s much more to it than that. Perhaps the most powerful factor driving the anti-Russian polemics we’re hearing from our liberal Democratic politicians and pundits – the kind we haven’t heard in this country since the heyday of McCarthyism – is ideology.
Russia has become an international locus of populist conservatism and nationalism. Against the globalism of the Davos crowd, Putin has enunciated the revival of national sovereignty as the organizing principle of his preferred international order. Against the cultural cosmopolitanism of the Western elites, Russia has championed traditional values. This is a red flag for American liberals, whose war on behalf of political correctness ignores such outdated forms as national boundaries.
Far more serious, however, is Putin’s opposition to the idea of a “liberal international order”: the Russian leader, who clearly doesn’t know his proper place in the world, has stubbornly upheld the validity of a multi-polar world where Washington’s will is far from supreme.
The ideological divide between East and West really started in the run up to the Iraq war, when neoconservatives went ballistic as Putin cleaned out the oligarchs and derided US war propaganda. He has since articulated a consistently disdainful critique of the idea that has shaped US foreign policy since the end of the cold war: the concept of America as a “hyperpower,” dominant all over the globe.
Putin is an unrepentant nationalist, and nationalism in any form – whether Russian, American, French, British, or whatever – is the enemy not only of our liberal globalists, but also of the neoconservatives. This antipathy is what united them during the 2016 election, and it is what brings them together in the Anti-Russian Popular Front. That they are both focused on a campaign to discredit – and impeach – President Trump on the grounds that he’s “Putin’s puppet” marries their twin obsessions in a perfect storm of vitriol.
You don’t have to approve of either Putin or Trump to see the danger in this. As the American political scene undergoes a seismic realignment, the War Party is taking advantage of this plastic moment to augment and strengthen its forces. With Putin as the new Saddam Hussein, and Russia as the new Iraq, our tireless warmongers are at it again. In a modern reenactment of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, the liberal-neocon alliance is desperately maneuvering for a confrontation with Russia – they’ve even brought George W. Bush out of mothballs!
Whether they can revive the dead carcass of the Bush wing of the GOP remains to be seen: I’ll believe it when I see it. However that may be, I have to sit back and just enjoy this moment, because the sight of our “liberals” hailing Dubya as the voice of Republican sanity goes to show what we knew all along – that these people have no shame.
An Important Note: Yes, we’re living in craaazy times. George W. Bush is the hero of “liberals.” The Democratic party is sounding like the John Birch Society, circa 1963. A reality television star is the President of these United States. It’s a brand new world – but some things never change. And one of those eternal truths is that the War Party is active, and relentless, ginning up wars on every continent.
A liberal-neocon alliance shouldn't surprise anybody. The neocons were Trotskyites, and most neocons were Democrats before Reagan.
I think what may be surprising, is the assumption that the left supports peace movements. This was true during the Vietnam War era, but certainly not true now. The left today is all about being social justice warriors. In the case of Russia, you have a country becoming more religious, conservative, and supportive of traditional values. That can't stand. Screw peace.
Yer just a cheezy ladies man, Deez. Face it.
You're right, but cheeziness works. And if you're a cheesy guy who can also make a fondue, that's just irresistable. lol
Dare I say, I guess if this Trump thing doesnt work out...sounds like a great place to move for many posters here. Me...I'll stick with the American carnage.
Have you ever noticed that de-bunkings of Trump/Russia conspiracies never seem to get as much coverage by the media as the original rumors?
It's a recurring trope
This is worth a read if you have a moment http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2017/03/06/trump-russia-conspiracy-trap/
The media has a short attention span on a number of things. This is what Trump is counting on with his latest controversial statements.
Trying to hack elections, plotting assassinations, funding NGO's to ignite color revolutions, using psyops and propaganda to shape public opinion in target countries. These are all past and current US policy as carried out though the CIA and State Department.
So IF the Russians attempted to use one or more of these tactics against the United States, this should be considered an act of war. As the "exceptional country" only the United States has the right to dictate and shape policy in foreign countries. What am I missing?
You're missing that we've never done this to each other. When we used the Stuxnet virus to stimy nuclear capabilities (set them back years) did that mean we shouldn't care is Russia does the same to our nuclear capabilities? That logic doesn't make sense.
In each of the color revolutions we weren't operating in Russia, but other countries just as Russia has and is doing now (see: Eastern Ukraine). Could Ukraine declare war on the US for influencing the election? Sure, but how successful do you think that would be? We both agree to fight proxy wars to avoid the direct confrontations.
Russia now directly confronted us IN the USA with their meddling. I think that deserves sanctions, proxy wars and many other covert activities.
I'm not sure where you came up with the accusation that Russia has attacked our nuclear capabilities. Both the US and Russia are developing electronic warfare, jamming capabilities, and so forth. That's what militaries do, in order to keep up.
In the case of Iran, you can make the argument that the Iranian nuclear program presented a potential threat to US national security. In that specific instance, attacking their facilities with the Stuxnet virus is defensible.
But in general, our intelligence agencies and more specifically the CIA should be involved in spying. The intent should be to gather information in order to protect America from harm caused by an external enemy. But instead, the CIA has expanded its repertoire to include making policy such as the things I've mentioned - assassination, color revolutions, influencing elections, drug running, funding terrorists, etc.
I don't know about you, but I have a problem with these things. Not only are these actions antagonistic and unconstitutional, they plant seeds of totalitarianism. The CIA does not answer to Congress, does not inform Congress, and it appears they do not answer to the commander and chief. They expect it to be the other way around. It's evident they have a hand in the media and are use misinformation to shape public opinion, both overseas and at home.
As far as not interfering with Russian elections, uh no...
That was a hypothetical example carrying your logic to it's conclusion: "if the US does XXX in country X then we shouldn't have an issue with Russia doing it here". My point is that we didn't do this to Russia yet they did this to us. We should be pissed off and it deserves a significant response.
Boris Yeltsin? Bill Clinton giving him campaign advice? Telling him which campaign commercial to run? Was that illegal in Russia for a canididate to receive non-paid campaign advice from a foreigner? I don't know but if it's not illegal then while I talk apples you are comparing them to snicker bars. It is illegal in the US to hack someone. One is illegal, I believe the other isn't. Now, maybe Putin was giving advice to Trump? That in and of itself is not illegal except that he directed the hacking of Trump's opponent.
I think I made my point. The CIA makes policy and answers to no one.
But you want to take a more specific point and then distort reality. First of all, the 1996 election was much more than Clinton advising Yeltsin. But more recently in 2012 the US tried to stir up a color revolution within Russia including a bunch of claims the election was rigged. Russians took to the streets in counter protests in favor of Putin and put it to rest.
Even now the US is actively trying to shape opinion in Macedonia and Hungary, in the former case to sell NATO membership. When another country does the same, the US complains of interference and expanding influence.
Do you think the CIA's intent is to undermine US interest?