Hacking: The CIA Never Lies?
December 22, 2016 "Information
- 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 will 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
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
Think about it and use a little logic.
expressed in this article are the author's own and do
not necessarily reflect Information Clearing House