Хакерский скандал об иностранном вмешательстве в выборы президента США громыхает за океаном второй год. Скандал движется по нарастающей истерической спирали, принципиально игнорируя доказательную базу, презумпцию невиновности, политическую этику и моральные табу. Он достиг высших эшелонов исполнительной и законодательной власти, спровоцировал громкие отставки, общественную турбулентность, угрозу импичмента и дезорганизации всей политической структуры экс-гегемона планеты. Многочисленные, незаменимые и обильно оплачиваемые американские спецслужбы вынуждены лавировать в густом тумане пустых обвинений. Исторгая шлейф новых домыслов устами собственного руководства – в целях отвлечения внимания от шпионско-аналитического «профессионализма» и ради продолжения карьерного лавирования. Одно из этих обвинений побило рекорд националистического угара и при этом затерялось в туманно-обвинительном мареве. Оно принадлежит Джеймсу Клепперу. Руководителю национальной разведки США с августа 2010 по январь 2017. Куратору всех 17 разведслужб исключительной демократии на протяжении семи лет. Дипломированному бакалавру и столь же дипломированному магистру политических наук. Генерал-лейтенанту ВВС США. Заслуженному участнику вьетнамской бойни. Служивому офицеру с 33-летним стажем. Работнику спецслужб со стажем 46-летним. Почётному доктору национального университета разведки в столичном Вашингтоне.
Authored by Jonathan Haggerty and Arthur Rizer via TheHill.com, Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper famously (or infamously) told Congress the National Security Agency did not “wittingly” collect data on Americans. That turned out to be false. More recently, Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) asked the current director of national intelligence, Dan Coats whether the government could use Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act “to collect communications it knows are entirely domestic.” “Not to my knowledge. That would be illegal,” Coats responded. However, a subsequent letter from Coats’ office to Wyden’s office suggests the director’s answer was incomplete. The Office of the Director of National Intelligence clarified that “section 702(b)(4) plainly states we ‘may not intentionally acquire any communication as to which the sender and all intended recipients are known at the time of acquisition to be located in the United States.’ The DNI interpreted Senator Wyden’s question to ask about this provision and answered accordingly.” Wyden has since gone on record with his contention that the DNI did not answer his question, requesting the office provide a public response. The exchange offers insight into how intelligence agencies use semantics to obfuscate their activities, while also illustrating the frustration many privacy advocates and lawmakers encounter in the search for Section 702 surveillance transparency. FISA Section 702 authorizes two major NSA snooping programs. One is “upstream” collection, a process in which the NSA collects digital communications through the internet’s backbone — undersea cables that process large volumes of internet traffic, which internet service providers send to the government. The government attempts to sort the data for foreign targets’ information and then is supposed to discard the rest. We know some Americans’ information is retained when they communicate with a target, though minimization procedures are in place to protect their identities. Until recently, the information also could be swept up if they communicated “about” a target. The NSA recently announced it was ending “about” collection in the wake of a series of compliance incidents and privacy concerns. Some other Americans’ data may be swept up due to “technological limitations that affect scope of collection.” In other words, the NSA hasn’t invested in infrastructure that can narrow their collection. The problem is that we do not know how many Americans are swept up in 702 surveillance. We do not even have a rough estimate. A recent letter from privacy groups admonished Coats for refusing to provide information on the number of Americans swept up in 702 collection — information that both he and his predecessor had promised to deliver. Coats’ intransigence follows a familiar pattern of the NSA promising transparency and then reneging on those promises. Indeed, for the past six years the agency has flummoxed congressional oversight, with its reluctance to give the public hard data on this matter. When a powerful bureaucracy ignores both civil-society groups and its constitutional overseers, what is the solution? Congress should step in and do its job, which requires going beyond public reprimands from a handful of members. The first branch has the power to legislate and write laws requiring the executive branch to reveal the number of Americans swept up in 702 collection. The letter from privacy groups recommended such a deep dive, but the intelligence community argued it would be counterproductively invasive. A clear legal mandate from Congress could outline how the search would be conducted, with accurate protections for Americans who potentially could be unmasked. As to why the NSA would be so reluctant to answer such a simple request, privacy blogger Marcy Wheeler recently detailed a culture of ignorance that has emerged within the NSA in the wake of an July 2010 ruling by Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court Judge John Bates concerning “the deliberate collection of domestic content via upstream collection.” In Wheeler's characterization, “Bates said that if the government knew it had obtained domestic content, it had to delete the data, but if it didn’t know, it could keep it.” A perfect catch-22. These instructions cultivate a practice of willful ignorance, which probably explains the hesitance of the intelligence community to answer Wyden's question publicly. A new law would nip this habit in the bud and place heavy incentives for transparency. Until a new law is passed, privacy advocates will be at the mercy of the NSA’s mood. Civil-society groups have nobly tried to fill the gap where Congress has been lacking in its oversight and lawmaking role. It is imperative then that Section 702 be updated substantially, before it is reauthorized at the end of the year. Both Americans’ privacy rights and the intelligence community stand to benefit from clearer legal boundaries. It is Congress’ job to hold the executive branch’s feet to the fire — the very notion of the separation of powers, of checks and balances and of a free democracy depend on it.
Christopher Wray’s confirmation hearing takes place as the Trump-Russia scandal deepens.
Authored by Rick Sterling via The Strategic Culture Foundation, The U.S. mainstream media and Democratic Party politicians have built a major “scandal” out of accusing Russia of “meddling” in the U.S. election to help Donald Trump win the presidency and possibly even colluding with his campaign to do so. The charges began as “allegations” but now are routinely asserted as facts. Russian President Vladimir Putin addresses UN General Assembly on Sept. 28, 2015. (UN Photo) The Washington Post recently ran a long article claiming all the above plus saying the operation was directed by Russian President Putin himself and implying not enough has been done to “punish” Russia. The July-August 2017 edition of Mother Jones magazine features an article headlined “We Already Know Trump Betrayed America. Collusion? Maybe. Active Enabling? Definitely.” Is this effort to indict Russia and condemn Trump based on facts or political opportunism? Does it help or hurt the progressive cause of peace with justice? Following are major problems with the “anti-Russia” theme, starting with the lack of clear evidence. 1) Evidence from CrowdStrike is dubious. Accusations that Russia stole and released the Democratic National Committee (DNC) emails are based on the findings of the private company CrowdStrike. The DNC did not allow the FBI to scan the computers but relied on a hired private company which claims to have found telltale Russian alphabet characters (Cyrrilic) in the computer memory. However, CrowdStrike is known to be political biased, to be connected to the Clintons and to make false accusations such as this one documented by Voice of America. Recently, the Wikileaks “Vault7” disclosures revealed that the CIA has developed software which purposely leaves foreign language characters in memory, casting further doubt on the CrowdStrike evidence. 2) The Steele Dossier looks fictitious. The accusations of Trump-Russia collusion and Putin’s personal involvement are significantly based on the so-called “Steele Dossier,” a 35-page compilation of “opposition research” on Trump by a former MI6 officer Christopher Steele. The research and reports by Steele first were contracted by anti-Trump Republicans in the primary race and then by Clinton supporters in the presidential race. There is no supporting evidence or verification of the dossier’s claims; the reports are essentially that a Kremlin source says such-and-such. It has since been revealed that Steele was not in direct contact but collected the information via Russians in the U.K. who in turn received it from supposed Kremlin insiders. The luxury Ritz-Carlton Hotel in Moscow The reports were viewed skeptically by media, politicians and the intelligence community through the summer and fall of 2016. But elements of the dossier became public prior to the election, and it was published in full in the days before Trump’s inauguration, including sensational stories of “golden showers” by prostitutes urinating on Trump to “defile” the bed in Moscow’s Ritz-Carlton Hotel where the Obamas previously slept. Is the Steele dossier accurate or was it a P.R. dirty trick designed to damage Trump? The latter seems at least if not more likely. This Newsweek article, “Thirteen things that don’t add up in the Russia-Trump intelligence dossier,” lists some of the reasons to be skeptical. 3) The “assessment” from several (not 17) Intel Agencies gives no evidence and seems politically biased. On Jan. 6, the office of the Director of National Intelligence (DNI) released a 14-page document titled “Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent US Elections.” The report says Russian President Putin ordered a campaign including cyber activity along with “overt efforts” to influence the election through official media (RT) and social media. Half of the report (seven pages) is devoted to describing the effectiveness and growth of the Russian-sponsored news outlet known as “RT,” including faulting RT for sponsoring debates among third-party U.S. presidential candidates in 2012 and for covering the Occupy Wall Street protests. The report gives no solid evidence that the Russians did covertly interfere with the U.S. elections in 2016, acknowledging that the report “does not and cannot include the full supporting information, including specific intelligence and sources and methods.” The report further admits that its “judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact. Assessments are based on collected information, which is often incomplete or fragmentary, as well as logic, argumentation, and precedents.” So, should this report be accepted uncritically? Not if you consider past performance. The CIA has a long history of deception and disinformation, including “politicized intelligence” to support the goals of presidents and other senior officials. One clear example was the false claims about Iraq’s WMD that led to the U.S. invasion in 2003. In addition, the intelligence leadership has been known to lie under oath. For example, President Obama’s Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who issued the Jan. 6 report, lied in testimony before Congress regarding the extent of the National Security Agency’s monitoring of American citizens’ private communications. The truth was later revealed by whistleblower Edward Snowden, forcing Clapper to retract his statement. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper (right) talks with President Barack Obama in the Oval Office, with John Brennan and other national security aides present. (Photo credit: Office of Director of National Intelligence) In short, there is no good reason to uncritically accept the statements and assertions of the U.S. intelligence community. Plus, the oft-repeated claim that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies concurred in the Russia assessment was never true. There was no community-wide assessment, which would have required some form of a National Intelligence Estimate or NIE and would have included dissents as well as consensus judgments. In raising the Russia meddling allegation last October — before the presidential election — Clapper simply claimed to be speaking for the Intelligence Community and that was then falsely interpreted to mean that all 17 intelligence agencies agreed. A formal assessment – though not an NIE – was not undertaken until December leading to the Jan. 6 report, which was the work of what Clapper later described as “hand-picked” analysts from three agencies: CIA, NSA and FBI. On June 29, The New York Times ran a grudging correction to one of its stories that had repeated the false claim about the “17 intelligence agencies” although that canard continues to resonate on cable news channels as way to shut down any questioning of what has become the new groupthink believing in “Russian meddling.” Another reason to be skeptical is the fact that Trump and elements of the Intelligence Community have clashed and some senior intelligence officials may be looking to pay back the President. Even Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer warned Trump about the dangers of bucking the CIA and other agencies: “They have six ways to Sunday at getting back at you.” What better way of getting back at Trump than shining a bright light on the Steele dossier by including a summary of its contents as a classified annex to the Jan. 6 report, thus giving credence to the third-hand accusations and giving news organizations a peg for publishing the salacious allegations? Finally, it is significant that the NSA would only grant “moderate confidence” to the accusation that “Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s election chances.” Page 13 of the Jan. 6 report explains that moderate confidence means the information is “plausible but not of sufficient quality or corroborated sufficiently to warrant a higher level of confidence.” In an apparent reference to those NSA doubts, The Washington Post reported on June 25 that “Some of the most critical technical intelligence on Russia came from another country, officials said. Because of the source of the material, the NSA was reluctant to view it with high confidence.” Though the Post did not identify the country, this reference suggests that another key element of the case for Russian culpability was based not on direct investigations by the U.S. intelligence agencies, but on the work of external organizations with checkered histories. Given the Intelligence Community’s history of deception and politicization – and especially given the false assumption about the 17-agency consensus – there is every reason to be skeptical and to demand credible and verifiable evidence about the core charge that Russia did “meddle” in the U.S. election. 4) The counter-evidence seems stronger and more factual. Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), including William Binney, a former technical director of the NSA, asserts that the DNC email release was caused by a leak not a “hack.” The distinction is important: a hack is done over the Internet; a leak is done transferring files onto a memory stick with little or no record. VIPS believes the emails were taken by an insider who transferred the files onto a thumb drive. If the files had been transferred over the Internet, the NSA would have a record of that since virtually every packet is stored. Former National Security Agency official William Binney sitting in the offices of Democracy Now! in New York City. (Photo credit: Jacob Appelbaum) In addition, the publisher of the DNC and Podesta emails, Wikileaks, says it did not receive the emails from Russia. Also, Wikileaks founder Julian Assange has offered a reward for the discovery of the murderer of Seth Rich, the young DNC Director of Voter Expansion who was mysteriously murdered on July 22, 2016. When asked if Seth Rich was the source of the DNC emails, Assange does not reply directly but it is implied. Since Trump’s November victory, there also have been accusations of “Russian interference” in European elections. But in each case, subsequent investigations showed the opposite. In Germany, France and the U.K., security services found no evidence to support the initial allegations. The French security chief dismissed the claims of the Macron campaign saying the hack “was so generic and simple that it could have been practically anyone.” 5) The purported “crimes” have been wildly inflated. The leaking of DNC and Podesta emails has been inflated into an “attack on US democracy” and an “act of war.” Not to be outdone in the hyperbole department, The Washington Post article calls this “the crime of the century.” It’s quite astounding; even if Russia were guilty of hacking the DNC servers and the emails of Clinton’s campaign chairman John Podesta, the information was truthful, not “fake news” or disinformation as some mainstream media outlets have suggested. The idea that disclosing truthful and newsworthy information amounts to an “act of war” is preposterous, and indeed dangerous. Plus, the Wikileaks-related stories were secondary problems for the Clinton campaign, far less important than the FBI closing and then re-opening the criminal investigation of Clinton’s use of a private email server for her official business as Secretary of State or her labeling half of Trump’s supporters as “deplorables.” And, blaming RT for reporting on shortcomings in the U.S. democratic process and faulting the network for allowing third-party candidates to have a forum – as the Jan. 6 report does – amount to an absurdity. Even former U.S. President Jimmy Carter questions whether the U.S. is a still democracy, saying: “Now it’s just an oligarchy, with unlimited political bribery being the essence.” 6) The anti-Russia hysteria has reduced resistance to reactionary changes in domestic policy. For progressives, the anti-Russia hysteria has not only bordered on McCarthyistic challenges to people’s patriotism but has diverted time and attention from the need to build opposition to Trump policies including the loss of net neutrality, increased military spending, reductions in environmental protection, plans to slash health-care for the poor to permit more tax cuts for the rich, and reduction in other budgets for education and social programs. President Donald Trump being sworn in on Jan. 20, 2017. (Screen shot from Whitehouse.gov) Further, the “blame-Russia” and “hate Trump” campaigns have reduced the credibility of liberals and progressives and make it harder to reach out to white working-class Americans who voted for Trump, in part, because they felt ignored and disrespected by the national Democratic Party. 7) The DNC and Podesta leaks were not bad; they were good. If one is to take The Washington Post’s new slogan seriously – “Democracy Dies in Darkness” – you’d have to agree that shedding light on the secret machinations of the DNC and the Clinton campaign was a service to democracy, not an attack on democracy. The leaks exposed how the DNC was violating its mandate to remain neutral during the primaries. Instead, the DNC leadership conspired to boost Clinton’s candidacy and frustrate a successful challenge by Sen. Bernie Sanders. If there was an “attack on democracy,” it was by the DNC leadership, not from the public release of authentic emails. And, as for the Podesta emails, they revealed the contents of Clinton’s paid speeches to Wall Street, which she had sought to hide from voters, and exposed some pay-to-play features of the Clinton Foundation. 8) Social media criticizing Clinton was not bad; much of the criticism was accurate. While short on actual evidence of a Russian hack, the Jan. 6 report blames Russia for undermining “public faith in the US democratic process” by denigrating Clinton and harming “her electability and potential presidency.” The report suggests that Russia was responsible for anti-Clinton online messages, tweets, Facebook posts, etc. Yet, it was predictable that Hillary Clinton would generate a lot of opposition during the presidential campaign since she has long been a magnet for right- and left-wing criticism. She is strongly disliked by many progressives for a number of reasons, including her warmongering foreign policy. So, it should come as no surprise that social media was alive with tweets, pages, posts and campaigns against Clinton – as it was with harsh criticism of Donald Trump. It is self-deception to think this opposition was initiated or controlled in any substantial way by Moscow. Without doubt, the overwhelming majority of the criticism directed at Hillary Clinton – and at Donald Trump – was sincere and home-grown. 9) The anti-Russia hysteria distracts from an objective evaluation of why the Democratic Party lost. Instead of doing an honest and objective assessment of the election failure, the Democratic Party has invested enormous time and resources in promoting the narrative of Russian “meddling” and collusion with Trump. If the Democrats want to regain popularity – and gain congressional seats in 2018 as well as the White House in 2020 – they need to look in the mirror and undertake reforms, including a shake-up of leadership which has changed very little in over 15 years. Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton The Democrats must confront the reality that many working-class Americans view the party as elitist and lacking a deep concern for the economic suffering of average people. By concentrating so much energy on blaming “Russia, Russia, Russia,” the DNC also ignores that it tilted the primary race in Clinton’s favor while Sanders might well have been a much stronger candidate against Trump. In that sense, the Democratic Party’s leaders have nobody to blame but themselves for Trump’s victory. 10) The anti-Russia hysteria reduces resistance to neoconservative forces pushing for more war. By obsessing on Russia-gate, Democrats and liberals are playing into the hands of neoconservatives and the Military Industrial Complex, which are pushing for another war in the Middle East and an expensive New Cold War with Russia. The immediate flashpoint is Syria where the Syrian government and allies are making slow but steady progress defeating tens of thousands of foreign-funded extremists. In response, the U.S. and its allies have escalated their intervention and aggression trying to prolong the conflict and/or grab territory to block a Syrian government victory. The expanding U.S. military role in Syria also is threatening to bring about a direct clash between United States, which is operating inside Syria in violation of international law, and Russia, which has come to the aid of the internationally recognized government. The Democratic and liberal hysteria around Russia has confused huge numbers of people who now have been led to believe that Russia is America’s “enemy” and must be confronted militarily around the world. Leading liberals are allying themselves with the CIA and war hawks, while also alienating peace voters, another important voting bloc. Looking back over the eight months since the election, the obsession with Russia-gate may have started from shock over Trump’s election and then morphed into a resistance to his presidency (including the unlikely hope that the “scandal” would lead to his impeachment), but the hysteria has contributed to significant mistakes by those who have embraced it. The mainstream news media jettisoned any pretense of objectivity as it joined the “hate-Russia” and “get-Trump” movement. Many Democrats and liberals also opportunistically and uncritically accepted and promoted the anti-Russia demonization, including McCarthyistic attacks on Americans who balked at the political/media stampede and questioned the accusations as either lacking in evidence or exaggerated. Meanwhile, Trump finds himself getting pressured by Democrats and liberals to adopt even more warlike stances – to prove that he’s not Putin’s puppet – including a slide toward a new war in the Middle East and a step onto the slippery slope that could lead to nuclear annihilation.
Authored by Robert Parry via ConsoortiumNews.com, As much as the U.S. mainstream media wants people to believe that it is the Guardian of Truth, it is actually lost in a wilderness of propaganda and falsehoods, a dangerous land of delusion that is putting the future of humankind at risk as tension escalate with nuclear-armed Russia. Russian President Vladimir Putin addresses a crowd on May 9, 2014, celebrating the 69th anniversary of victory over Nazi Germany and the 70th anniversary of the liberation of the Crimean port city of Sevastopol from the Nazis. (Russian government photo) This media problem has grown over recent decades as lucrative careerism has replaced responsible professionalism. Pack journalism has always been a threat to quality reporting but now it has evolved into a self-sustaining media lifestyle in which the old motto, “there’s safety in numbers,” is borne out by the fact that being horrendously wrong, such as on Iraq’s WMD, leads to almost no accountability because so many important colleagues were wrong as well. Similarly, there has been no accountability after many mainstream journalists and commentators falsely stated as flat-fact that “all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies” concurred that Russia did “meddle” in last November’s U.S. election. For months, this claim has been the go-to put-down whenever anyone questions the groupthink of Russian venality perverting American democracy. Even the esteemed “Politifact” deemed the assertion “true.” But it was never true. It was at best a needled distortion of a claim by President Obama’s Director of National Intelligence James Clapper when he issued a statement last Oct. 7 alleging Russian meddling. Because Clapper was the chief of the U.S. Intelligence Community, his opinion morphed into a claim that it represented the consensus of all 17 intelligence agencies, a dishonest twist that Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton began touting. However, for people who understand how the U.S. Intelligence Community works, the claim of a 17-agencies consensus has a specific meaning, some form of a National Intelligence Estimate (or NIE) that seeks out judgments and dissents from the various agencies. But there was no NIE regarding alleged Russian meddling and there apparently wasn’t even a formal assessment from a subset of the agencies at the time of Clapper’s statement. President Obama did not order a publishable assessment until December – after the election – and it was not completed until Jan. 6, when a report from Clapper’s office presented the opinions of analysts from the Central Intelligence Agency, Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency – three agencies (or four if you count the DNI’s office), not 17. Lacking Hard Evidence The report also contained no hard evidence of a Russian “hack” and amounted to a one-sided circumstantial case at best. However, by then, the U.S. mainstream media had embraced the “all-17-intelligence-agencies” refrain and anyone who disagreed, including President Trump, was treated as delusional. The argument went: “How can anyone question what all 17 intelligence agencies have confirmed as true?” Director of National Intelligence James Clapper (right) talks with President Barack Obama in the Oval Office, with John Brennan and other national security aides present. (Photo credit: Office of Director of National Intelligence) It wasn’t until May 8 when then-former DNI Clapper belatedly set the record straight in sworn congressional testimony in which he explained that there were only three “contributing agencies” from which analysts were “hand-picked.” The reference to “hand-picked” analysts pricked the ears of some former U.S. intelligence analysts who had suffered through earlier periods of “politicized” intelligence when malleable analysts were chosen to deliver what their political bosses wanted to hear. On May 23, also in congressional testimony, former CIA Director John Brennan confirmed Clapper’s description, saying only four of the 17 U.S. intelligence agencies took part in the assessment. Brennan said the Jan. 6 report “followed the general model of how you want to do something like this with some notable exceptions. It only involved the FBI, NSA and CIA as well as the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. It wasn’t a full inter-agency community assessment that was coordinated among the 17 agencies.” After this testimony, some of the major news organizations, which had been waving around the “17-intelligence-agencies” meme, subtly changed their phrasing to either depict Russian “meddling” as an established fact no longer requiring attribution or referred to the “unanimous judgment” of the Intelligence Community without citing a specific number. This “unanimous judgment” formulation was deceptive, too, because it suggested that all 17 agencies were in accord albeit without exactly saying that. For a regular reader of The New York Times or a frequent viewer of CNN, the distinction would almost assuredly not be detected. For more than a month after the Clapper-Brennan testimonies, there was no formal correction. A Belated Correction Finally, on June 25, the Times’ hand was forced when White House correspondent Maggie Haberman reverted to the old formulation, mocking Trump for “still refus[ing] to acknowledge a basic fact agreed upon by 17 American intelligence agencies that he now oversees: Russia orchestrated the attacks, and did it to help get him elected.” New York Times building in New York City. (Photo from Wikipedia) When this falsehood was called to the Times’ attention, it had little choice but to append a correction to the article, noting that the intelligence “assessment was made by four intelligence agencies — the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency. The assessment was not approved by all 17 organizations in the American intelligence community.” The Associated Press ran a similar “clarification” applied to some of its fallacious reporting repeating the “17-intelligence-agencies” meme. So, you might have thought that the mainstream media was finally adjusting its reporting to conform to reality. But that would mean that one of the pillars of the Russia-gate “scandal” had crumbled, the certainty that Russia and Vladimir Putin did “meddle” in the election. The story would have to go back to square one and the major news organizations would have to begin reporting on whether or not there ever was solid evidence to support what had become a “certainty” – and there appeared to be no stomach for such soul-searching. Since pretty much all the important media figures had made the same error, it would be much easier to simply move on as if nothing had changed. That would mean that skepticism would still be unwelcome and curious leads would not be followed. For instance, there was a head-turning reference in an otherwise typical Washington Post take-out on June 25 accusing Russia of committing “the crime of the century.” A reference, stuck deep inside the five-page opus, said, “Some of the most critical technical intelligence on Russia came from another country, officials said. Because of the source of the material, the NSA was reluctant to view it with high confidence.” Though the Post did not identify the country, this reference suggests that more than one key element of the case for Russian culpability was based not on direct investigations by the U.S. intelligence agencies, but on the work of external organizations. Earlier, the Democratic National Committee denied the FBI access to its supposedly hacked computers, forcing the investigators to rely on a DNC contractor called CrowdStrike, which has a checkered record of getting this sort of analytics right and whose chief technology officer, Dmitri Alperovitch, is an anti-Putin Russian émigré with ties to the anti-Russian think tank, Atlantic Council. Relying on Outsiders You might be wondering why something as important as this “crime of the century,” which has pushed the world closer to nuclear annihilation, is dependent on dubious entities outside the U.S. government with possible conflicts of interest. President Donald Trump being sworn in on Jan. 20, 2017. (Screen shot from Whitehouse.gov) If the U.S. government really took this issue seriously, which it should, why didn’t the FBI seize the DNC’s computers and insist that impartial government experts lead the investigation? And why – given the extraordinary expertise of the NSA in computer hacking – is “some of the most critical technical intelligence on Russia [coming] from another country,” one that doesn’t inspire the NSA’s confidence? But such pesky questions are not likely to be asked or answered by a mainstream U.S. media that displays deep-seated bias toward both Putin and Trump. Mostly, major news outlets continue to brush aside the clarifications and return to various formulations that continue to embrace the “17-intelligence-agencies” canard, albeit in slightly different forms, such as references to the collective Intelligence Community without the specific number. Anyone who questions this established conventional wisdom is still crazy and out of step. For instance, James Holmes of Esquire was stunned on Thursday when Trump at a news conference in Poland reminded the traveling press corps about the inaccurate reporting regarding the 17 intelligence agencies and said he still wasn’t entirely sure about Russia’s guilt. “In public, he’s still casting doubt on the intelligence community’s finding that Russia interfered in the 2016 election nearly nine months after the fact,” Holmes sputtered before describing Trump’s comment as a “rant.” So, if you thought that a chastened mainstream media might stop in the wake of the “17-intelligence-agencies” falsehood and rethink the whole Russia-gate business, you would have been sadly mistaken. But the problem is not just the question of whether Russia hacked into Democratic emails and slipped them to WikiLeaks for publication (something that both Russia and WikiLeaks deny). Perhaps the larger danger is how the major U.S. news outlets have adopted a consistently propagandistic approach toward everything relating to Russia. Hating Putin This pattern traces back to the earliest days of Vladimir Putin’s presidency in 2000 when he began to rein in the U.S.-prescribed “shock therapy,” which had sold off Russia’s assets to well-connected insiders, making billions of dollars for the West-favored “oligarchs,” even as the process threw millions of average Russian into poverty. Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, who pushed for the Ukraine coup and helped pick the post-coup leaders. But the U.S. mainstream media’s contempt for Putin reached new heights after he helped President Obama head off neoconservative (and liberal interventionist) demands for a full-scale U.S. military assault on Syria in August 2013 and helped bring Iran into a restrictive nuclear agreement when the neocons wanted to bomb-bomb-bomb Iran. The neocons delivered their payback to Putin in early 2014 by supporting a violent coup in Ukraine, overthrowing elected President Viktor Yanukovych and installing a fiercely anti-Russian regime. The U.S. operation was spearheaded by neocon National Endowment for Democracy President Carl Gershman and neocon Assistant Secretary of State for European Affairs Victoria Nuland, with enthusiastic support from neocon Sen. John McCain. Nuland was heard in an intercepted pre-coup phone call with U.S. Ambassador Geoffrey Pyatt discussing who should become the new leaders and pondering how to “glue” or “midwife this thing.” Despite the clear evidence of U.S. interference in Ukrainian politics, the U.S. government and the mainstream media embraced the coup and accused Putin of “aggression” when ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine, called the Donbas, resisted the coup regime. When ethnic Russians and other citizens in Crimea voted overwhelmingly in a referendum to reject the coup regime and rejoin Russia – a move protected by some of the 20,000 Russian troops inside Crimea as part of a basing agreement – that became a Russian “invasion.” But it was the most peculiar “invasion,” since there were no images of tanks crashing across borders or amphibious landing craft on Crimean beaches, because no such “invasion” had occurred. However, in virtually every instance, the U.S. mainstream media insisted on the most extreme anti-Russian propaganda line and accused people who questioned this Official Narrative of disseminating Russian “propaganda” – or being a “Moscow stooge” or acting as a “useful fool.” There was no tolerance for skepticism about whatever the State Department or the Washington think tanks were saying. Trump Meets Putin So, since Trump met with Putin at the G-20 summit in Hamburg, Germany, the U.S. mainstream media has been in a frenzy, linking up its groupthinks about the Ukraine “invasion” with its groupthinks about Russia “hacking” the election. Washington Post columnist David Ignatius. (Photo credit: Aude) In a July 3 editorial, The Washington Post declared, “Mr. Trump simply cannot fail to admonish Mr. Putin for Russia’s attempts to meddle in the 2016 presidential election. He must make clear the United States will not tolerate it, period. Naturally, this is a difficult issue for Mr. Trump, who reaped the benefit of Russia’s intervention and now faces a special counsel’s investigation, but nonetheless, in his first session with Mr. Putin, the president must not hesitate to be blunt. … “On Ukraine, Mr. Trump must also display determination. Russia fomented an armed uprising and seized Crimea in violation of international norms, and it continues to instigate violence in the Donbas. Mr. Trump ought to make it unmistakably clear to Mr.Putin that the United States will not retreat from the sanctions imposed over Ukraine until the conditions of peace agreements are met.” Along the same lines, even while suggesting the value of some collaboration with Russia toward ending the war in Syria, Post columnist David Ignatius wrote in a July 5 column, “Russian-American cooperation on Syria faces a huge obstacle right now. It would legitimize a Russian regime that invaded Ukraine and meddled in U.S. and European elections, in addition to its intervention in Syria.” Note the smug certainty of Ignatius and the Post editors. There is no doubt that Russia “invaded” Ukraine; “seized” Crimea; “meddled” in U.S. and European elections. Yet all these groupthinks should be subjected to skepticism, not simply treated as undeniable truths. But seeing only one side to a story is where the U.S. mainstream media is at this point in history. Yes, it is possible that Russia was responsible for the Democratic hacks and did funnel the material to WikiLeaks, but evidence has so far been lacking. And, instead of presenting both sides fairly, the major media acts as if only one side deserves any respect and dissenting views must be ridiculed and condemned. In this perverted process, collectively approved versions of complex situations congeal into conventional wisdom, which simply cannot be significantly reconsidered regardless of future revelations. As offensive as this rejection of true truth-seeking may be, it also represents an extraordinary danger when mixed with the existential risk of nuclear conflagration. With the stakes this high, the demand for hard evidence – and the avoidance of soft-minded groupthink – should go without question. Journalists and commentators should hold themselves to professional precision, not slide into sloppy careerism, lost in “propaganda-ville.”
VIDEO: James Clapper Confronts CNN’s Narrative… While on CNN.
EVEN OBAMA CRONIES ARE COMPLAINING ABOUT CNN THESE DAYS: James Clapper Confronts CNN’s Narrative — …
EVEN OBAMA CRONIES ARE COMPLAINING ABOUT CNN THESE DAYS: James Clapper Confronts CNN’s Narrative — While on CNN.
Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said Friday there’s no evidence anyone other than the Russians meddled in the 2016 presidential election, undercutting claims President Donald Trump made earlier this week.“It was only the Russians,” Clapper told MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell. “And they did so very aggressively and effectively.”Clapper said it was possible others might have meddled, but contended that there “wasn't any evidence” to support that claim. While speaking in Poland this week, Trump said he thinks it was Russia that hacked into the election that he eventually won, but went on to say it was “probably other people, and/or countries, and I see nothing wrong with that statement. ... Nobody really knows for sure.”Clapper said that if Trump didn’t discuss the issue of Russian hacking during his meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin on Friday, it would embolden Russia “to continue their activities.”“Looking ahead to 2018 elections, they'll be more aggressive about it,” Clapper said. The ex-intel chief also commented on the community he used to head and said it “will continue to convey truth to power even if the power ignores the truth.”Trump weakens his position, Clapper said, when he publicly disparages “the very high confidence assessment done by the U.S. Intelligence community.” “I think in a sense that actually gives strength to Putin's position as he walks in and sits down for this meeting.” The former intelligence director also discussed the increased escalation of North Korea this week as it launched its first intercontinental ballistic missile said to be capable of reaching the coasts of Alaska. He said he didn’t think any preemptive military action would be responsible."If we were to do that, I think the North Koreans would react reflexively, without deliberation and would rain all that artillery and rocketry on the northern part of South Korea, which is where half the South Korean population lives,” he said. “That is not a realistic option in my view," Clapper said. "[It would] be very reckless because you're endangering millions of people and there would be untold death and destruction, I believe, if such a war were to ensue.”
Update: We have a fourth Trump attack story as MSNBC's Rachel Maddow claims that "someone is shopping a carefully forged, fairly convincing fake NSA document" to news organizations pointing to Trump campaign collusion with Russia... "we don't know who is doing it but we're wroking on it." * * * It's been relatively quiet in the last few weeks on the "the Russians did it, and Trump's Putin's best-buddy" propaganda-fest, but it appears the Deep State had three stories tonight - just hours ahead of Trump's face-to-face with Putin - claim Russian hackers are targeting US nuclear facilities, the Russians are nonchalantly stepping up their spying, and that Russia alone interfered with the US election. With all eyes on the 'handshake' as Putin and Trump come face-to-face for the first time as world leaders, it seems the Deep State is desperately fearful of some rapprochement, crushing the need for NATO, and destroying the excuses for massive, unprecedented military-industrial complex spending. And so, three stories (2 anonymously sourced and one with no facts behind it) in The New York Times (who recently retracted their "17 intelligence agencies" lie) and CNN (where do we start with these guys? let's just go with full retraction of an anonymously sourced lie about Scaramucci and Kushner and the Russians) should stir up enough angst to ensure the meeting is at best awkward and at worst a lose-lose for Trump (at least in the eyes of the media). First off we have the 'news' that hackers have reportedly been breaking into computer networks of companies operating United States nuclear power stations, energy facilities and manufacturing plants, according to a new report by The New York Times. The origins of the hackers are not known. But the report indicated that an “advanced persistent threat” actor was responsible, which is the language security specialists often use to describe hackers backed by governments. The two people familiar with the investigation say that, while it is still in its early stages, the hackers’ techniques mimicked those of the organization known to cybersecurity specialists as “Energetic Bear,” the Russian hacking group that researchers have tied to attacks on the energy sector since at least 2012. And Bloomberg piled on... The chief suspect is Russia, according to three people familiar with the continuing effort to eject the hackers from the computer networks. So that's that 5 people - who know something - suspect it was the Russians that are hacking US nuclear facilities (but there's no proof). Next we move to CNN who claim a 'current and former U.S. intelligence officials' told them that Russian spies have been stepping up their intelligence gathering efforts in the U.S. since the election, feeling emboldened by the lack of significant U.S. response to Russian election meddling. "Russians have maintained an aggressive collection posture in the US, and their success in election meddling has not deterred them," said a former senior intelligence official familiar with Trump administration efforts. "The concerning point with Russia is the volume of people that are coming to the US. They have a lot more intelligence officers in the US" compared to what they have in other countries, one of the former intelligence officials says. But, according to Steve Hall, retired CIA chief of operations, the Russians could also be seeking more information on Trump's administration, which is new and still unpredictable to Moscow "Whenever there is a deterioration of relations between countries — the espionage and intelligence collection part becomes that much more important as they try to determine the plans and intentions of the adversarial government," So that's more anonymous sourcing about Russian spies... doing what they would normally do during a presidential transition. And so finally, a third story - with CNN trotting out former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, to pin the 'Russians did it' tail on the "this is why we lost the election" donkey... Former DNI James Clapper: I think Russia’s goal here is to “prep the battlefield” for the 2018 elections https://t.co/lkEj7yTPQd — CNN (@CNN) July 6, 2017 Claiming that the Russians alone were responsible for interference... "As far as others doing this, well that's new to me," Clapper, who served under former President Barack Obama, said during an interview on CNN's "The Situation Room." "We saw no evidence whatsoever that [there] was anyone involved in this other than the Russians," he said. Clapper's comments draw a contrast from Trump, who declined earlier Thursday to single out Russia for interference in the 2016 White House race. So in summary - 3 stories pinning Russia for shameful acts against 'Murica that just happen to hit hours before Trump shakes hands with Putin... ensuring that unless Trump slams Putin to the ground like a wrestling-CNN-logo, he will be adjudged as being soft... and therefore clearly in cahoots with the Russian leader. Seriously, do the Deep State realy think Americans are that dumb? (rhetorical question)
'This is an assault on us, our nation, our country': James Clapper bristles at Trump casting doubt on Russian interference
Former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper on Thursday reaffirmed his beliefs that...
Власти США не предоставили никаких доказательств того, что президент Дональд Трамп мог вступить в сговор с представителями России, обвиняемой Вашингтоном во вмешательстве в американские выборы. Как сообщила Fox News со ссылкой на источник в Конгрессе США, пятимесячное расследование этой якобы имевшей место проблемы ни к чему не привело. Хотя в расследовании принимали участие пять комитетов в обеих палатах Конгресса и три федеральных ведомства. "Главная проблема заключается в том, что спустя месяцы и месяцы множественных расследований никто так и не обнаружил никаких доказательств сговора", - цитирует телеканал свой источник.
Authored by Caitlin Johnstone via Medium.com, “Seventeen intelligence agencies”? - ?if you’ve been following the maniacal #TrumpRussia coverage to any extent, you’ve heard this phrase used uncritically, time and again, regardless of your ideological loyalties. Pundits, papers and rank-and-file establishment loyalists have been unquestioningly regurgitating the nonsensical line that 17 intelligence agencies confirmed Russian interference in the US elections ever since Hillary Clinton made that baseless assertion in a debate back in October. Clinton's "17 US intelligence agencies" may be the biggest, most immediately disprovable wopper ever intentionally made during a debate. — WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) October 20, 2016 Hillary Clinton's "17 US intelligence agencies" include: *Coast Guard*DEA*Navel Intelligence*Department of Energy*Air Force recon — WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) October 20, 2016 The innate absurdity of the claim was immediately attacked by WikiLeaks and anti-establishment outlets who pointed out that this would necessarily need to involve full investigations from agencies like the Coast Guard, the DEA and the Energy Department in order to be true. Nevertheless, many high-profile pro-establishment outlets like Politifact and USA Today found Clinton’s claims to be 100 percent true on the grounds that James Clapper, then-Director of National Intelligence and notorious Russophobic racist, “speaks on behalf of” all 17 intelligence agencies. To this day Politifact stands by its false claim on the basis of that same spurious assertion. 3490 fake news stories that reported that "17 intelligence agencies" made US election hacking report when only 3 did https://t.co/QGaG47rzBL — WikiLeaks (@wikileaks) May 8, 2017 New Cracks in Russia-gate ‘Assessment’ https://t.co/pEb9Nsdobq Can you say WMD's in Iraq? Does this look like '17 intelligence agencies? pic.twitter.com/ZJkqTZtMmb — Laughing Lefty (@laughingliberal) May 23, 2017 It turns out, however, that in addition to Clapper’s office there were only three intelligence agencies involved in that assessment, not 17, and that the conclusions were drawn not by the actual agencies in full, but by a mere two dozen loyalists from those agencies hand-selected by Russophobic eugenicist Clapper himself. The great Robert Parry notes in his Consortium News article about this point, “as any intelligence expert will tell you, if you ‘hand-pick’ the analysts, you are really hand-picking the conclusion. For instance, if the analysts were known to be hard-liners on Russia or supporters of Hillary Clinton, they could be expected to deliver the one-sided report that they did.” As reported by Parry, we have known about these facts since they emerged from Clapper’s racist face hole on May 8, and they were confirmed by former CIA Director John Brennan on May 23. And yet at a California technology conference on May 31, Hillary Clinton repeated the same lie she’s been spouting since October: “Seventeen agencies, all in agreement, which I know from my experience as a Senator and Secretary of State, is hard to get. They concluded with high confidence that the Russians ran an extensive information war campaign against my campaign, to influence voters in the election. They did it through paid advertising we think; they did it through false news sites; they did it through these thousand agents; they did it through machine learning, which you know, kept spewing out this stuff over and over again. The algorithms that they developed. So that was the conclusion.” The “17 intelligence agencies” lie had been completely, thoroughly debunked for weeks, and yet not a soul called Clinton out on her brazen lie within the establishment press. Indeed, establishment pundits like Megyn Kelly continued to repeat the lie, and have continued to do so throughout the month of June. NYT issues a correction repudiating the "17 intelligence agencies" canard that continues to get endlessly repeated https://t.co/lXDrPTPsHe pic.twitter.com/2gCuqjRBNM — Michael Tracey (@mtracey) June 29, 2017 All this changed when CNN was sent reeling by a 1–2–3-punch combination ensuing from its horrendously propagandistic Russia coverage, which has seen three of its journalists lose their jobs and sent the network into international disgrace. All of a sudden we are seeing establishment outlets getting a lot more conscientious about what they choose to publish about the Russian Federation, and today we saw none other than the New York Times posting the very first retraction of this long-debunked lie that we have seen in establishment media. Correction: June 29, 2017 A White House Memo article on Monday about President Trump’s deflections and denials about Russia referred incorrectly to the source of an intelligence assessment that said Russia orchestrated hacking attacks during last year’s presidential election. The assessment was made by four intelligence agencies — the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency. The assessment was not approved by all 17 organizations in the American intelligence community. You just know how that went down, too; the retraction tells a complete story with a beginning, middle and end. The article’s author repeated the “17 intelligence agencies” lie without so much as a second thought, because it’s something they’ve been saying for months and getting away with?—?hey, it’s only Russia, right? They’re the Official Bad Guys so we can print whatever we want about them. The Washington Post has been getting away with telling brazen lie after brazen lie about Russia and suffering no consequences for it whatsoever, so we’ve got plenty of wiggle room here. The article passed by the editors for the same reason, but then someone up top received a complaint about the false claim in the article and immediately pulled the author into his office, yelling, “You fool! What’s the matter with you? Are you trying to get us CNNed???” As I never get tired of reminding the brainwashed consumers of mainstream media, Russiagate is bullshit, and we fucking told you so. The entire thing was sparked off by two dozen agents hand-selected by a racist man with a racist agenda, and only persists because the US deep state wants regime change in Moscow and Damascus. This moronic conspiracy theory has been permitted to march on for far too long, and in the meantime we’ve been goose stepped to the brink of World War 3 as a result of this administration’s idiotic behavior in Syria. That’s where a real resistance needs to happen; not a McResistance to imaginary threats fed to the masses by the lying corporate media, but a real resistance to a very real and tangible threat from actions by the Trump administration and the unelected power establishment with which he is unquestionably aligned in a nation that the United States has no business involving itself in whatsoever. Come on, America. I know you can snap out of the trance they’ve got you in. I know you’ve got it in you. Slam the brakes on the course they’ve got you on. Protest US involvement in Syria. Don’t let them Iraq you again.
Meddling is in Russia’s DNA according to the former director of US national intelligence James Clapper and that proves Moscow is still making attempts to be involved in American politics, he was appearing in a new documentary that aired on CNN during prime time. RT LIVE http://rt.com/on-air Subscribe to RT! http://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=RussiaToday Like us on Facebook http://www.facebook.com/RTnews Follow us on Twitter http://twitter.com/RT_com Follow us on Instagram http://instagram.com/rt Follow us on Google+ http://plus.google.com/+RT Listen to us on Soundcloud: https://soundcloud.com/rttv RT (Russia Today) is a global news network broadcasting from Moscow and Washington studios. RT is the first news channel to break the 1 billion YouTube views benchmark.
Officials say even a disclosure of skeleton of original report could put sources and methods at risk.
Подняв флаг борьбы с «Исламским государством» (ИГ), США наносят теперь авиаудары по позициям ИГ не только в Ираке, но и в Сирии. Делается это без согласия правительства Сирии и без принятия соответствующего решения Советом Безопасности ООН. Начинают оправдываться опасения Москвы и Тегерана на тот счёт, что целью ракетно-бомбовых ударов является окончательное уничтожение сирийской инфраструктуры. По заявлению представителя Пентагона Джона Кирби, США нанесли авиаудары по 12 нефтеперерабатывающим заводам в Сирии. Якобы их контролировали боевики-экстремисты. Таких атак по позициям ИГ, говорит Джон Кирби, «будет больше». Здесь следует напомнить, что мятеж в Сирии, продолжающийся четвёртый год, стал разрастаться практически синхронно с подписанием 25 июня 2011 г. в Бушере меморандума о строительстве нового газопровода Иран – Ирак – Сирия. Борьбу американцев с правительством Башара Асада справедливо называют войной за нефть и газ. Дамаск попал в число врагов Америки в 2009 году, когда Асад отказался принять американский план строительства газопровода из Катара в Европу. Вместо этого Сирия предпочла сделку с Ираном, дав согласие на участие в строительстве газопровода через Ирак к своим портам на Средиземном море. Именно тогда всемирную известность приобрели слова бывшего госсекретаря США Генри Киссинджера: «Нефть слишком важна, чтобы оставлять ее арабам». Создание халифата на обширной территории Ирака и Сирии ведет к потере Соединенными Штатами (ExxonMobil Corporation) и Великобританией (BP и Royal Dutch Shell) позиций в нефтегазовом секторе Ирака и возможности доступа (после приближаемой американцами смены режима в Дамаске) к сирийским запасам углеводородов. Пока террористы ИГ воевали с сирийскими правительственными войсками, они американцев устраивали, но как только они вторглись в Ирак и объявили о создании собственного государства, Америка объявила им войну. Никаких двойных стандартов у США здесь нет. Налицо неизменное стремление американской элиты к мировому господству, и война с «Исламским государством» – всего лишь локальная операция. В позиции США много нестыковок и противоречий, а объясняются они тем, что Вашингтону всё труднее диктовать свои условия остальному миру. Нет сомнения в том, что Сирия остается для США главной мишенью на Ближнем Востоке, в том числе с точки зрения реализации планов по ослаблению России. «Исламское государство» — это проект американского происхождения, его цель — создание мощной дестабилизирующей волны, которая распространится вглубь Евразии. На первом этапе, переключая внимание международного сообщества на борьбу с ИГ, американцы подготавливают под шумок свержение президента Башара Асада. Именно так оценивают односторонние действия Вашингтона против «Исламского государства» многие страны мира. Поэтому не получилось у Обамы и формирование «широкой» коалиции. Американцам удалось добиться возмещения своих расходов монархиями Персидского залива (Бахрейн, Катар, Саудовская Аравия и ОАЭ), удалось склонить Иорданию предоставить свою инфраструктуру, привлечь к нанесению авиаударов некоторых союзников по НАТО - Великобританию, Францию, Бельгию и Данию. По данным Госдепартамента, 54 страны и три международные организации - ЕС, НАТО и Лига арабских государств – тоже обещали внести в эту кампанию свой вклад. Однако анонсированное Джоном Керри «всемирное» участие в коалиции не состоялось. Доверие к Америке осталось лишь у немногих. Мир еще не забыл, как в 2003 году США вторглись в Ирак без санкции ООН. Вашингтон тогда заявлял, что Ирак ведёт разработки оружия массового поражения и разоружить его нужно силой. Голосование в СБ ООН по этому вопросу так и не состоялось, поскольку Россия, Китай и Франция дали понять, что наложат вето на любой проект резолюции, подразумевающий применение военной силы против Ирака. Тогда, как и сейчас, США вызывающе пренебрегли международным общественным мнением, агрессия против Ирака началась, страна была разрушена, и последствия этого мы наблюдаем по сей день. Сегодня история повторяется. Джеймс Клеппер, глава Национальной разведки США, во время своего ежегодного выступления перед сенатской комиссией по разведке (29 января 2014) отчитался в угрозах, нависших над Америкой. Коснулся он и Сирии, сообщив ничему не соответствующие данные о составе «повстанцев». Его главный тезис состоял в том, что на 80% это «умеренные» противники режима, которые вполне могут принимать финансовую помощь США, за предоставление которой американский сенат в свое время тайно проголосовал. Теперь эти «умеренные» в одночасье превратились в непримиримых террористов, и против одной из их организаций американцы начали войну. Заметим: не против террористов вообще, а лишь против «Исламского государства». Интересно, а что думают руководители американской разведки об «умеренности» группировки «Джебхат ан-Нусра», этого сирийского отделения «Аль-Каиды»? В ответ на авиаудары по территории Сирии лидеры «Джебхат ан-Нусра» уже заявили о готовности противостоять Америке совместно с ИГ. Своими действиями американцы консолидируют терроризм. В эфире телеканала CBS Обама заявил, что в свое время американским военным удалось нанести поражение «Аль-Каиде» в Ираке, после чего организация «ушла в подполье», но «за последние два года, воспользовавшись хаосом во время гражданской войны в Сирии, боевики смогли восстановить свои силы». О том, что хаос и гражданская война в Сирии - прямое следствие действий США на Ближнем Востоке, американский президент не сказал. Председатель Объединенного комитета начальников штабов США генерал Мартин Демпси считает, что для успешной борьбы с группировкой «Исламское государство» в Ираке и Сирии необходимо провести наземную операцию. По мнению Демпси, нужно принять политическое решение и ввести войска в эти страны. Если это произойдёт, дестабилизирующая волна начнёт распространяться за пределы Сирии и Ирака, ряды террористов пополнятся новыми непримиримыми бойцами, а перед военно-промышленным комплексом США откроются захватывающие дух перспективы.