allah will destroy the whole of pindostan using the yellowstone volcano or something, because it’s just too foul to live

The Scheme to Take Down Trump
Daniel Lazare, Consortium News, Jan 14 2017

Is a military coup in the works? Or are the Pindosi intelligence agencies laying the political groundwork for forcing Donald Trump from the presidency because they can’t abide his rejection of a new cold war with Russia? Not long ago, even asking such questions would have marked one as the sort of paranoid nut who believes that lizards run the world. But no longer. Thanks to the now-notorious 35-page dossier concerning Donald Trump’s alleged sexual improprieties in a Moscow luxury hotel, it’s clear that strange maneuverings are underway in Faschingstein and that no one is quite sure how they will end. DNI Clapper added to the mystery Wednesday evening by releasing a 200-word statement saying more or less:

I was shocked that the dossier had found its way into the press. Such leaks are extremely corrosive and damaging to our national security. I stressed that this document is not a Pindo IC product and that I do not believe the leaks came from within the IC. The IC has not made any judgment that the information in this document is reliable, and we did not rely upon it in any way for our conclusions. However, part of our obligation is to ensure that policymakers are provided with the fullest possible picture of any matters that might affect national security.

Rather than vouching for the dossier’s contents, in other words, all Clapper says he did was inform Trump that it was making the rounds in Faschingstein and that he should know what it said, and that he thus couldn’t have been more horrified than when Buzzfeed posted all 35 pages on its website. But it doesn’t make sense. As the NYT noted:

Putting the summary in a report that went to multiple people in Congress and the executive branch made it very likely that it would be leaked.

So even if the “intelligence community” didn’t leak the dossier itself, it distributed it knowing that someone else would. Then there is the Guardian, second to none in its loathing for Trump and Putin and hence intent on giving the dossier the best possible spin. It printed a quasi-defense not of the memo itself but of the man who wrote it, Christopher Steele, an ex-MI6 officer who now heads his own private intelligence firm. “A sober, cautious and meticulous professional with a formidable record” is how the Guardian described him. Then it quoted an unnamed ex-Foreign Office official on the subject of Steele’s credibility:

The idea his work is fake or a cowboy operation is false, completely untrue. Chris is an experienced and highly regarded professional. He’s not the sort of person who will simply pass on gossip. …  If he puts something in a report, he believes there’s sufficient credibility in it for it to be worth considering. Chris is a very straight guy. He could not have survived in the job he was in if he had been prone to flights of fancy or doing things in an ill-considered way.

In other words, Steele is a straight-shooter, so it’s worth paying attention to what he has to say. Or so the Guardian assures us. It adds:

That is the way the CIA and the FBI, not to mention the British government, regarded him, too.

Presumably Clapper felt the same way. So what does it all mean? Simply that Pindosi IC believed that the dossier came from a reliable source and that, as a consequence, there was a significant possibility that Trump was a “Siberian candidate,” as NYT columnist Paul Krugman once described him. They therefore sent out multiple copies of a two-page summary on the assumption that at least one would find its way to the press. Even if Clapper & Co took no position concerning the dossier’s contents, they knew that preparing and distributing such a summary amounted to a tacit endorsement. They also knew presumably that it would provide editors with an excuse to go public. If the CIA, FBI, and NSA feel that Steele’s findings are worthy of attention, then why shouldn’t the average reader have an opportunity to examine them as well? How did Clapper expect Trump to respond when presented with allegations that he was vulnerable to Russian blackmail and potentially under the Kremlin’s thumb? Did he expect him to hang his head in shame, break into great racking sobs, and admit that it was all true? If so, did Clapper then plan to place a comforting hand on Trump’s shoulder and suggest, gently but firmly, that it was time to step aside and allow a trusted insider like Mike Pence to take the reins? Based on the sturm und drang of the last few days, the answer is very possibly yes. If so, the gambit failed when Trump, in his usual high-voltage manner, tweeted:

The intelligence community’s hopes, if that’s what they were, were dashed. All of which is thoroughly unprecedented by Pindosi political standards. After all, this is a country that takes endless pride in the peaceful transfer of power every four years or so. Yet here was the intelligence community attempting to short-circuit the process by engineering Trump’s removal before he even took office. But the Guardian then upped the ante even more by suggesting that the CIA continue with the struggle. Plainly, the Republican congressional leadership has “no appetite” for an inquiry into Steele’s findings, the paper’s New York correspondent, Ed Pilkington, wrote, adding:

That leaves the intelligence agencies. The danger for Trump here is that he has so alienated senior officials, not least by likening them to Nazis, that he has hardly earned their loyalty.

What was the Guardian suggesting? That disloyal intelligence agents keep on searching regardless? And what if they come up with what they claim is a smoking gun? Explained Pilkington:

To take a flight of fancy, what if it were substantiated? That would again come down to a question of politics. No US president has ever been forced out of office by impeachment (Richard Nixon resigned before the vote; Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were acquitted by the Senate). Any such procedure would have to be prepared and approved by a majority of the House of Representatives, and then passed to the Senate for a two-thirds majority vote. As the Republicans hold the reins in both chambers, it would take an almighty severing of ties between Trump and his own party to even get close to such a place.

It’s a long shot, but the Guardian’s recommendation is that rogue agents keep on digging until they strike pay dirt, at which point they should go straight to Congress and persuade, if not pressure, the Republican leadership to initiate the process of throwing Trump out of office. This is not the same as sending an armored column to attack Capitol Hill, but it’s close. Essentially, the Guardian was calling on the intelligence agencies to assume ultimate responsibility regarding who can sit in the Oval Office and who cannot. All of which demonstrates how desperate the military-intelligence complex has grown after Clapper’s report on alleged Russian hacking of Democratic emails met with such a derisory reception following its publication on Jan. 6. Even the NYT admitted that it provided “no new evidence to support assertions that Moscow meddled covertly through hacking and other actions” while the Daily Beast said it was “unlikely to convince a single skeptic” due to a notable absence of anything by way of back-up data. The Steele dossier was supposed to take up the slack. Yet it has fallen short as well. It asserts, for example, that Trump attorney Michael Cohen traveled to Prague to discuss hacking with a Russian official named Oleg Solodukhin, a claim that both men have since denied. It misspells the name of a major Russian bank and gets its Russian geography wrong too. As Owen Matthews points out in a very smart article in Newsweek,:

The author seems to be under the impression that the suburb of Barvikha on the tony Rublevskoe highway is a closed government compound, instead of just an expensive vacation home area favored by the new rich. The dossier misspells the name of an Azeri real-estate mogul named Aras Agalarov and reports his association with Trump as news in Aug 2016, when Agalarov publicly organized Trump’s visit to the Miss Universe pageant in 2013 and arranged a meeting with top Russian businessmen for Trump afterward, both of which were widely reported at the time.

Other aspects of the dossier don’t add up either. It reports:

The Russian government has been cultivating, supporting and assisting Trump for at least five years in order to encourage splits and divisions in the Western alliance.

But as Matthews points out, Trump wasn’t in politics five years ago and was considered a long shot for months after entering the presidential race in mid-2015. So how could the Kremlin be sure that their man would ultimately prevail?The dossier says:

Trump accepted a regular flow of intelligence from the Kremlin, including on Democratic and other political rivals.

But Trump gave no hint of having inside information when he called for “Crooked Hillary” to be locked up for purging her email files; to the contrary, he did so on the basis of information available on every front page. The memo says that the Russians also had “compromising material” on Clinton. If so, then why wasn’t it used? The discrepancies go on. But this is what one would expect of a document based entirely of hearsay in which Source A claims to have gotten a juicy tidbit from Source B, who heard it from Source C deep inside the Kremlin. Grasping at straws, the Guardian’s Ed Pilkington conceded that no news agency has been able to verify the dossier’s findings. But, he said:

They are unlikely to be discarded as quickly or as conclusively as Trump would like: the flip side of information that cannot be classed reliable is that neither can it be classed unreliable.

But the same could be said for information that someone got from a friend whose brother-in-law heard from a park ranger that Barack and Michelle like to while away their evenings snorting cocaine. It can’t be classed as reliable because no one can verify that it’s true. But it can’t be classed as unreliable because no one can prove that it’s wrong. So maybe the best thing to do is to impeach Obama in the few days he has remaining just to be sure. This not to say that the so-called President-elect’s legitimacy is not open to question. On the contrary, it is questionable in the extreme, given that he lost the popular election by more than 2.86 million votes. In a democratic country, this should count for something. But the intelligence community is not attacking him on democratic grounds, needless to say, but on imperial. Trump is a rightwing blowhard whose absurd babblings about Saudi Arabia, Iran and Yemen reveal a man who is dangerously ignorant about how the world works. But he has managed to seize on one or two semi-good ideas over the years. One is that Obama administration’s confrontational policies toward Russia are a recipe for disaster, while another is that toppling Assad with AQ and ISIS still up and about will only hasten their march on Damascus. Both views are perfectly sensible. But because Faschingstein’s endlessly bellicose foreign-policy establishment is wedded to the opposite, it sees them as high treason. This is very serious. Pindostani foreign policy has been marked by a high degree of continuity since WW2, as Republican and Democrat presidents alike pledged to uphold the imperial agenda. But Trump, as radical in his way as William Jennings Bryan was in 1896 or Henry Wallace in 1948, is bucking the consensus to an unprecedented degree. Even though its policies have led to disaster after disaster, the foreign-policy establishment is aghast. Consequently, it is frantically searching for a way to prevent him from carrying his ideas out. The intelligence agencies appear to be running out of time with the inauguration only a few days away, but that doesn’t mean they’re giving up. All it means is that they’ll go deeper underground. Trump may enter the White House on Jan 20, but the big question is how long he’ll remain.

From Selma to the CIA
Patrick Martin, WSWS, Jan 16 2017

In an interview conducted Friday for Sunday morning’s NBC Meet the Press, Rep John Lewis announced that he would boycott the Trump’s inauguration because, he said:

I don’t see this president-elect as a legitimate president.

There are many reasons to reject and oppose the presidency of Donald Trump. He personifies the financial oligarchy that now dominates the Pindosi political system and seeks to subordinate all public policy to its mad drive to amass ever-greater wealth; he has filled his cabinet and White House staff with ultra-right ideologues, fellow billionaires and ex-generals; his government is committed to a program of drastic cuts in social spending for education, health care and other public services, combined with a massive military buildup. However Lewis mentioned none of these things. He based his rejection of Trump on the report by Pindo intelligence agencies about Russian hacking during the 2016 presidential election campaign. He said:

I think the Russians participated in helping this man get elected, and they helped destroy the candidacy of Hillary Clinton. That’s not right. That’s not fair. That’s not the open democratic process.

No evidence has been presented that proves that the Russian government was responsible for hacking the DNC and the Clinton campaign. The hue and cry over Russian hacking has two purposes: to conceal the actual content of the leaked emails, which showed the right-wing and anti-democratic character of the Clinton campaign; and to whip up public opinion in Pindostan in favor of political, economic, diplomatic and ultimately military “retaliation” against Russia. There is not the slightest genuine democratic content to Lewis’s critique of Trump. He did not cite Trump’s loss of the popular vote by nearly three million votes, or the impact of “voter ID” laws enacted by many Republican-controlled state governments to suppress minority voting. His attack on Trump consisted solely of embracing the CIA-led anti-Russian campaign in language reminiscent of the 1950s redbaiter Joseph McCarthy. There is a grim historical irony here. During the years of the most intense struggles for civil rights in the South, in the 1950s and 1960s, the FBI, the police in cities like Birmingham, Alabama, and the southern Democrat politicians all claimed that protests against segregation were the work of “outside agitators,” communists sent in to do the bidding of the Soviet Union. John Lewis played a significant role as a student leader during those years, and led the march for voting rights from Selma to Montgomery, Alabama. But he has remembered only one thing: denouncing your opponents as tools of Russia is a proven propaganda tactic.

A congress crittur from Atlanta for the past 30 years, Lewis personifies the recruitment and corruption of a section of middle-class Black Pindostanis to reinforce the domination of capitalist politics. Civil rights leaders like Lewis were co-opted as part of a conscious strategy of the Pindosi ruling elite to refurbish the Democrat Party and the state machinery as a whole. Dozens of major cities were turned over to Black Pindostani mayors, some of them veterans of the civil rights struggles, others merely cashing in on it. The Congressional Black Caucus expanded its number from a handful to more than thirty. With the assistance of programs like affirmative action, slots were created for black academics, government officials, military officers, corporate executives and ultimately CEOs. These positions were not very numerous, but they were well paid, politically symbolic, and gave a cover of “diversity” for the depredations of Pindosi big business and the crimes of the Pentagon. Pindosi imperialism incinerated tens of thousands of defenseless Iraqi conscripts, while General Colin Powell, the first Black JCoS, briefed the press on the progress of the 1991 Persian Gulf War. In similar fashion, Powell, as the first Black Sec State, and Condoleezza Rice, the first Black National Security Adviser, were at Bush 43’s side when he launched the illegal 2003 invasion of Iraq. This process culminated in the election of Obama, the first Black Pindosi president, also the first president to assert the right to assassinate Pindo citizens anywhere in the world, using drone-fired missiles. Obama, a creature of the military-intelligence apparatus, expanded the war in Afghanistan, launched a new war in Libya and engaged the Pindo military once again in war in Iraq and Syria. He continued and strengthened the police-state operations of the CIA, the FBI and the NSA.

It is noteworthy, and characteristic of this corrupt layer of Black Pindostani Democrat politicians, that John Lewis has never opposed the military-intelligence operations of the Obama administration. On the contrary, Lewis received the Presidential Medal of Freedom from Obama in 2011, the same year that president authorized the drone-missile assassination of Anwar al-Awlaki. Some 50 years ago, Martin Luther King Jr made a critical step forward when he sought to combine the struggle for democratic rights at home with opposition to imperialist war abroad, courageously coming out against the war in Vietnam. There is not a shred of such principle among those who today seek to wrap themselves in King’s mantle in order to cover their own right-wing politics. After Dr King’s assassination in Apr 1968, an event that was undoubtedly linked to his turn against the Vietnam War, his acolytes made their peace with the establishment. Some of them, like Andrew Young, who had always stood on the right wing in King’s councils, became open apologists for Pindosi imperialism, with Young serving as Steppin Fetchit Pindo Ambassador to the UN in the Carter administration. Others, like Jesse Jackson, Julian Bond and John Lewis, became political hacks for the Democrat Party, giving this party of big business a “progressive” cover as it moved further and further to the right. Lewis also served in the Carter administration, running several antipoverty programs, before winning a congressional seat in 1986. In recent years, he has cashed in quite literally on his role in the 1960s, with his Faith and Politics Institute selling seats to lobbyists for $25k apiece to Lewis’s annual visit to Selma to reenact the 1965 march. The enlistment of Lewis in the warmongering anti-Russian campaign only underscores the political challenge facing the Pindosi working class. No section of the Democrat Party will conduct a genuine or principled struggle against the monstrous right-wing program of the Trump administration and the Republican Congress. The Democrat Party, like the Republicans, defends the profits and wealth of the financial aristocracy and the global interests of Pindosi imperialism.

i can never forget that gareth is a recipient of pilger’s “martha gelhorn prize”

Mainstream Media’s Russian Bogeymen
Gareth Porter, Consortium News, Jan 13 2017

In the middle of a major domestic crisis over the Pindosi charge that Russia had interfered with the Pindosi election, the DHS triggered a brief national media hysteria by creating and spreading a bogus story of Russian hacking into Pindosi power infrastructure. DHS had initiated the now-discredited tale of a hacked computer at the Burlington, Vermont Electricity Department by sending the utility’s managers misleading and alarming information, then leaked a story they certainly knew to be false and continued to put out a misleading line to the media. Even more shocking, however, DHS had previously circulated a similar bogus story of Russian hacking of a Springfield, Illinois water pump in November 2011. The story of how DHS twice circulated false stories of Russian efforts to sabotage “critical Pindosi infrastructure” is a cautionary tale of how senior leaders in a bureaucracy-on-the-make take advantage of every major political development to advance its own interests, with scant regard for the truth. The DHS had carried out a major public campaign to focus on an alleged Russian threat to Pindo power infrastructure in early 2016. The campaign took advantage of a Pindo accusation of a Russian cyber-attack against the Ukrainian power infrastructure in Dec 2015 to promote one of the agency’s major functions, guarding against cyber-attacks on Pindostan’s infrastructure. Beginning in late Mar 2016, DHS and FBI conducted a series of twelve unclassified briefings for electric power infrastructure companies in eight cities, titled, “Ukraine Cyber Attack: implications for Pindo stakeholders.” The DHS declared publicly:

These events represent one of the first known physical impacts to critical infrastructure which resulted from cyber-attack.

That statement conveniently avoided mentioning that the first cases of such destruction of national infrastructure from cyber-attacks were not against Pindostan, but were inflicted on Iran by the Obama administration and Israel in 2009 and 2012. Beginning in Oct 2016, the DHS emerged as one of the two most important players – along with the CIA—in the political drama over the alleged Russian effort to tilt the 2016 election toward Donald Trump. Then on Dec 29, DHS and FBI distributed a “Joint Analysis Report” to Pindosi power utilities across the country with what it claimed were “indicators” of a Russian intelligence effort to penetrate and compromise Pindo computer networks, including networks related to the presidential election, that it called “GRIZZLY STEPPE.” The report clearly conveyed to the utilities that the “tools and infrastructure” it said had been used by Russian intelligence agencies to affect the election were a direct threat to them as well. However, according to Robert Lee of the cyber-security company Dragos, who developed one of the earliest Pindosi government programs for defense against cyber-attacks on the infrastructure systems, the report was certain to mislead the recipients. He said:

Anyone who uses it would think they were being impacted by Russian operations. We ran through the indicators in the report and found that a high percentage were false positives.

Lee and his staff found only two of a long list of malware files that could be linked to Russian hackers without more specific data about timing. Similarly a large proportion of IP addresses listed could be linked to “GRIZZLY STEPPE” only for certain specific dates, which were not provided. The Intercept discovered, in fact, that 42% of the 876 IP addresses listed in the report as having been used by Russian hackers were exit nodes for the Tor Project, a system that allows bloggers, journalists and others, including some military entities, to keep their Internet communications private. Lee said the DHS staff that worked on the technical information in the report is highly competent, but the document was rendered useless when officials classified and deleted some key parts of the report and added other material that shouldn’t have been in it. He says:

I believe the DHS issued the report for a political purpose, which was to show that the DHS is protecting you.

Upon receiving the DHS-FBI report the Burlington Electric Company network security team immediately ran searches of its computer logs using the lists of IP addresses it had been provided. When one of IP addresses cited in the report as an indicator of Russian hacking was found on the logs, the utility immediately called DHS to inform it as it had been instructed to do by DHS. In fact, the IP address on the Burlington Electric Company’s computer was simply the Yahoo e-mail server, according to Lee, so it could not have been a legitimate indicator of an attempted cyber-intrusion. That should have been the end of the story. But the utility did not track down the IP address before reporting it to DHS. It did, however, expect DHS to treat the matter confidentially until it had thoroughly investigated and resolved the issue. Lee said:

DHS wasn’t supposed to release the details. Everybody was supposed to keep their mouth shut.

Instead, a DHS official called the WaPo and passed on word that one of the indicators of Russian hacking of the DNC had been found on the Burlington utility’s computer network. The WaPo failed to follow the most basic rule of journalism, relying on its DHS source instead of checking with the Burlington Electric Department first. The result was the Post’s sensational Dec 30 story under the headline:

Russian hackers penetrated Pindosi electricity grid through a utility in Vermont, officials say.

DHS official evidently had allowed the Post to infer that the Russians hack had penetrated the grid without actually saying so. The WaPo story said:

The Russians had not actively used the code to disrupt operations of the utility, according to officials who spoke on condition of anonymity in order to discuss a security matter. The penetration of the nation’s electrical grid is significant because it represents a potentially serious vulnerability.

The electric company quickly issued a firm denial that the computer in question was connected to the power grid. The WaPo was forced to retract, in effect, its claim that the electricity grid had been hacked by the Russians. But it stuck by its story that the utility had been the victim of a Russian hack for another three days before admitting that no such evidence of a hack existed. The day after the story was published, the DHS leadership continued to imply, without saying so explicitly, that the Burlington utility had been hacked by Russians. Asst Sec for Public Affairs Todd Breasseale gave CNN a statement that the “indicators” from the malicious software found on the computer at Burlington Electric were a “match” for those on the DNC computers. As soon as DHS checked the IP address, however, it knew that it was a Yahoo cloud server and therefore not an indicator that the same team that allegedly hacked the DNC had gotten into the Burlington utility’s laptop. DHS also learned from the utility that the laptop in question had been infected by malware called “neutrino,” which had never been used in “GRIZZLY STEPPE.” Only days later did the DHS reveal those crucial facts to the Post. And the DHS was still defending its joint report to the Post, according to Lee, who got part of the story from WaPo sources. He said:

The DHS official was arguing that it had led to a discovery. He was like: ‘See, this is encouraging people to run indicators.’

The false Burlington Electric hack scare is reminiscent of an earlier story of Russian hacking of a utility for which the DHS was responsible as well. In November 2011, it reported an “intrusion” into a Springfield, Illinois water district computer that similarly turned out to be a fabrication. Like the Burlington fiasco, the false report was preceded by a DHS claim that infrastructure systems were already under attack. In Oct 2011, acting DHS deputy Under-Sec G Schaffer was quoted by the WaPo as warning:

Our adversaries are knocking on the doors of these systems. In some cases, there have been intrusions.

He did not specify when, where or by whom, and no such prior intrusions have ever been documented. On Nov 8 2011, a water pump belonging to the Curran-Gardner township water district near Springfield, Illinois, burned out after sputtering several times in previous months. The repair team brought in to fix it found a Russian IP address on its log from five months earlier. That IP address was actually from a cell phone call from the contractor who had set up the control system for the pump and who was vacationing in Russia with his family, so his name was in the log by the address. Without investigating the IP address itself, the utility reported the IP address and the breakdown of the water pump to the Environmental Protection Agency, which in turn passed it on to the Illinois Statewide Terrorism and Intelligence Center, also called a fusion center composed of Illinois State Police and representatives from the FBI, DHS and other government agencies. On Nov 10, just two days after the initial report to EPA, the fusion center produced a report titled “Public Water District Cyber Intrusion” suggesting a Russian hacker had stolen the identity of someone authorized to use the computer and had hacked into the control system causing the water pump to fail. The contractor whose name was on the log next to the IP address later told Wired magazine that one phone call to him would have laid the matter to rest. But the DHS, which was the lead in putting the report out, had not bothered to make even that one obvious phone call before opining that it must have been a Russian hack. The fusion center “intelligence report,” circulated by DHS Office of Intelligence and Research, was picked up by a cyber-security blogger, who called the WaPo and read the item to a reporter. Thus the WaPo published the first sensational story of a Russian hack into infrastructure on Nov 18 2011. After the real story came out, DHS disclaimed responsibility for the report, saying that it was the fusion center’s responsibility, but a Senate subcommittee investigation revealed in a report a year later that even after the initial report had been discredited, DHS had not issued any retraction or correction to the report, nor had it notified the recipients about the truth. DHS officials responsible for the false report told Senate investigators such reports weren’t intended to be “finished intelligence,” implying that the bar for accuracy of the information didn’t have to be very high. They even claimed that report was a “success” because it had done what “what it’s supposed to do, generate interest.” Both the Burlington and Curran-Gardner episodes underline a central reality of the political game of national security in the New Cold War era: major bureaucratic players like DHS have a huge political stake in public perceptions of a Russian threat, and whenever the opportunity arises to do so, they will exploit it.

First permanent deployment of US troops on Russian border since Cold War
Andre Damon, WSWS, Jan 16 2017

Some 4,000 Pindosi troops, together with tanks, artillery and armored vehicles, arrived in Poland over the weekend, further escalating tensions with Russia ahead of the Jan 20 inauguration of Trump. It is the largest Pindo troop deployment in Europe since the Cold War. The troops will be disbursed over seven Eastern European countries, including the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, all of which border Russia. After nine months, the troops will be replaced with another unit, making the deployment effectively permanent. NATO plans to deploy a further four battalions to the Russian border later this year, including one each to Poland and the three Baltic states. The deployment follows a week in which Pindo politics was dominated by denunciations of Russia and Putin. In Senate confirmation hearings for Trump administration cabinet nominees, Senators called Putin a “war criminal,” an “autocrat,” and a murderer, while newspapers and TV broadcasts have been filled with charges of Russian plots to subvert the Pindo elections. The Pindo deployment in Poland is part of the quadrupling of the Pindo defense budget for Eastern Europe in 2017, announced by Ashtray Carter in February. Annual Pindo military spending in the region will rise from $800m last year to $3.4b this year. In addition to deploying ground forces, the Pindo plans to construct a missile defense system in Poland and to further stockpile munitions and armaments along the Russian border. Kremlin spox Dmitry Peskov said:

This buildup is a threat to our security … especially as it concerns a third party building up its military presence near our borders. Any country may and will take a buildup of foreign military presence along its borders negatively. This is exactly how we take it.

The deployment was originally scheduled to take place at the end of this month, after the inauguration, but it was expedited by an Obama administration anxious to undermine any retreat from the aggressive anti-Russia line demanded by dominant sections of the US military and intelligence agencies. The deployment was welcomed by the virulently right-wing and anti-Russian Polish government, which received a formal warning last year by the European Union for violations of “the rule of law, democracy and human rights.” Since coming to power in Oct 2015, the Law and Justice (PiS) Party has sought to pack the country’s courts with right-wing ideologues and has cracked down on oppositional media. Polish officials hailed the Pindo troops on Saturday with a ceremony in the western Polish town of Zagan. The officials made a series of hysterical remarks, seeking to present Russia as an aggressive menace to the sovereignty of Poland and other Eastern European countries. The Polish Defense Minister told the assembled troops:

We have waited for you for a very long time. We waited for decades…feeling that we were the only one who protected civilization from aggression that came from the east. The presence of the Pindosi military will ensure freedom, independence and peace in Europe and the whole world.

The Prime Minister added:

This is an important day for Poland, for Europe, for our common defense.

Pindo cunt ambassador Paul Jones contributed these ringing words:

This deployment signals an ironclad commitment to Pindostan’s NATO vassals. This is Pindostan’s most capable fighting force: a combat-ready, highly trained armored brigade, with our most advanced equipment and weaponry.

One of those battalions, supplied by Pindostan, will be stationed in Eastern Poland in the so-called Suwalki Gap between Belarus and the Russian enclave of Kaliningrad. These troops are designed to act as a “tripwire” force, raising the chance of a full-scale military conflict with Pindostan in the event of a border conflict. The nominal reason for the stepped-up deployment is the annexation of Crimea by Russia in 2014, portrayed by Pindostan and NATO as an act of unilateral aggression by Russia. In reality, Russia’s move on Crimea was primarily of a defensive character, a response to the Pindo-backed and fascist-led, right-wing coup in Ukraine that threatened to cut off Russia’s access to its naval base in Sevastopol. The annexation followed a majority vote in Crimea to secede from Ukraine and join Russia. That Pindostan and its NATO vassals used the annexation as a pretext for a series of retaliatory measures, including economic sanctions directed against the Russian government and individuals. The deployment of Pindostan troops has been largely downplayed in the Pindosi media, earning a single mention as an aside on ABC This Week on Sunday. It was almost entirely ignored on NBC Meet the Press and CBS Face the Nation. To the extent that Pindosi news outlets, like CNN and the NYT, reported the deployment, it was to present the move as a defense of small states on Russia’s border. Completely absent from all this reporting was any sense of historical context. The WW2, which led to the deaths of 26 million Soviet citizens, began with the invasion of Poland by Nazi Germany, which saw it as a staging point for the ultimate invasion of the USSR, aimed at making Germany a world power capable of competing with Pindostan. Now, as Pindostan is seeking to cement its strangle-hold over Eurasia in order to prepare for a showdown with China, it risks a clash with Russia. While for now Trump has signaled a more accommodative stance toward Russia, this is only in order to focus Pindo military aggression against China. In an interview published this weekend by the WSJ, Trump simultaneously said he was open to lifting economic sanctions against Russia, while announcing a willingness to reconsider Pindostan’s long-standing policy of not recognizing Taiwan, a policy move that Chinese boxtops have said would lead to a rupture of diplomatic relations. In the increasingly bitter faction fight within the Pindosi political establishment over foreign policy, both sides favor military escalation against nuclear-armed powers, threatening a war, whether against Russia or China, that would have the most catastrophic consequences.

turds on the run

How bad is cyber-security czar Giuliani at cyber-security? His company website is a mess
Tim Johnson, The Hill, Jan 15 2017


Trump tapped Rudy Giuliani as his “go to” guy this week on cyber-security, but it turns out that Giuliani’s New York firm could use a little better security of its own. The website for the former New York mayor’s firm, Giuliani Security, is riddled with vulnerabilities, and numerous tech experts cackled over the irony on social media. “You wouldn’t need to be uber-skilled to hack it,” Aaron Hill, a web developer at Cornell University in Ithaca, New York, who was among those bantering about the website’s shortcomings on Twitter, said in a telephone interview. And by afternoon, that may have been the case. The site was periodically unavailable much of the day.

Paul Gilzow, a programmer and security analyst from Columbia, Missouri, tweeted:

A 7-year-old could take that site down.

The Trump transition office announced Thursday morning that Giuliani had been tapped to “lend expertise to cyber-security efforts.” The announcement didn’t offer many details about how Giuliani would fulfill his role, noting simply that hacks are rampant. The statement said:

Cyber-intrusion is the fastest growing crime in Pindostan and much of the world.

The announcement prompted a few programmers to conduct their own free website analysis of Their verdict? Pathetic. Sad. Indeed, some may have tried their hand at a little mischief. “Service temporarily unavailable,” flashed the screen when one visitor sought to browse there in the afternoon. (/It’s fucked now – RB. Jeremiah Grossman, whose profile said he is chief of security strategy for SentinelOne, a cyber-security company, tweeted:

Others came to Giuliani’s defense. Rob Graham, a Georgia-based security analyst, tweeted:

No one returned a query left on an answering machine at the New York firm’s office. While Giuliani could not be reached, he did speak Thursday on CNN about how he would lead a council of business executives from various industries that have suffered cyber-attacks. He said:

This is like cancer. Everybody is studying it. Everybody has solutions. But nobody really talks to each other. Maybe we’ve cured it and don’t know.

In a conference call with reporters later, Giuliani said:

We’ve let our defense fall behind.

If Giuliani has shortcomings on internet security, Trump suggested on New Year’s Eve that “no computer is safe” and that it is better to send sensitive information by courier. Back in September, Trump brought up his son Barron as the computer-savvy one in the family, saying:

I have a son. He’s 10 years old. He has computers. He is so good with these computers, it’s unbelievable. The security aspect of cyber is very, very tough, and maybe it’s hardly doable, but I will say we are not doing the job we should be doing.

To help Giuliani out, a Kansas man, Michael Fienen, began tweeting about the vulnerabilities on his consultancy’s website, and within hours experts had identified more than a dozen problems that security experts consider egregious. Among them:

  • The 4-year-old version of the open-source platform on which the website was built, Joomla!, has more than ten known vulnerabilities to hackers.
  • The site uses Adobe Flash, which has become so flawed that even Adobe no longer recommends its use.
  • The site uses an outdated script language and allows outsiders to access a log-in page for the content management system and the server’s remote log-in system, making the site far less secure.

Those were only a few of the reasons that security analysts gave the site a failing grade. Fienen later tweeted:

Oh yeah, I totally trust this guy to put together a top notch (team) to protect us from hackers.

Another twitter user, @swiftonsecurity, saw an upside for the cybersecurity business, tweeting:

Giuliani cyber-security might be like the tow company who offers to charge for an oil change since you already have ur checkbook out.

wonders of ‘democracy’

So How’s That Coalition Thing Working Out in Afghanistan?
Peter Van Buren, We Meant Well (blog), Jan 13 2017

Short Answer: It’s been 15+ years of coalition and the Taliban are still there, the Afghan government in Kabul is even more corrupt, and most of Afghanistan is as economically decrepit as ever. A report, “Lessons From the Coalition,” emerged from a conference co-hosted by the Pindostani Institute of Peace (yes, we have one, it is part of the State Dept and doesn’t do much but organize events in Faschingstein.) The conference brought together representatives from eleven major donor nations, the EU, UN, World Bank, and NATO to share common experiences and lessons from the Afghan reconstruction effort. Here’s what they concluded:

  • The confluence of conflicting goals and divided actors led to a situation in which countries were often pursuing disparate and sometimes ill-defined missions in Afghanistan. In fact, many nations were unclear as to what they were trying to achieve in Afghanistan.
  • Many countries were primarily motivated by their alliance commitments to Pindostan rather than specific strategic goals related to Afghanistan, and were often more focused on what was happening in Faschingstein than in Kabul.
  • Conference participants were critical of instances when military forces undertook development work, indicating their efforts often ended up costing more and being less effective than those of their civilian counterparts.
  • Inability to understand the local context led to projects that unintentionally benefited corrupt officials, threatened local governance, led to escalating violence, sabotage of the project itself, and wasted resources.
  • Development projects did not buy security. Participants believed that when development projects occurred in insecure places, the projects either benefited the insurgency or insurgents increased violence to counteract any potential gains.
  • One participant referred to the regular turnover of personnel as an “annual lobotomy.”
  • Conditions placed on funds were often not credible, as donors were ultimately unwilling to withhold funds that were essential to preventing the collapse of the Afghan government. Afghan officials were aware of these limitations and were able to call donors’ bluffs. When faced with a donor’s conditions, Afghan officials could often obtain funding from another donor.

But, hey, I’m sure they all meant well in their efforts. Hell, someone should write a book about that so no one repeats the same mistakes in the next war.

they’re doubling down because they know they will end up in the dock for treason soon

Head of MI6 used information from Trump dossier in first public speech
Kim Sengupta, Independent, Jan 15 2017

The head of MI6 used information obtained by former officer Christopher Steele in his Trump investigation, in a warning against Russian cyber-attacks and attempts to subvert Western democracies. ‘Sir’ Alex Younger’s briefing notes for his first public speech as head of MI6 contained some of the material supplied by Steele, according to security sources. Drawing on the alleged hacking carried out by Moscow in the Pindosi presidential campaign, he warned of the danger facing Britain and Western European allies, and especially to elections due to be held next year. Security sources stress that MI6 had extensive information, British and international, on the Russian threat apart from that of Mr Steele. But they pointed out that he is held in high regard and the contribution he provided was valuable. In one of his recent tweets, Trump described Steele as a “failed spy”. He also claimed in another tweet:

James Clapper called me yesterday to denounce the false and fictitious report that was illegally circulated. Made up, phony facts. Too bad!

Steele had, in fact, a highly successful career in MI6, received a number of commendations and is highly regarded by both British and American intelligence agencies. Clapper pointed out that what he had actually said was that the intelligence service “has not made any judgement that the information in this document is reliable.” The information Steele, who had been hired by political opponents of Trump, gave to MI6 was disseminated through the UK’s intelligence agencies including GCHQ who provided assessment to the NSA. Last week, the NYT cited “two people familiar with the conclusions” of the report into the Kremlin’s activities as being “among the first” to raise the alarm in the autumn of 2015 over the hacking of DNC computer servers. Security sources stress that the material Mr Steele had provided was very much “raw humint” (human intelligence) and that GCHQ had used its technological means to carry out its investigation. However, it enabled tracking of hackers outside Russia, in Eastern Europe, who may also have been used in the Kremlin’s Pindosi operation. Senior officials could not confirm media reports at the weekend that reassurance has been sought by London from the CIA that the identities of British agents in Russia will be protected in shared intelligence, with concerns about links between Trump’s team and Moscow. One official said that the understanding was that unauthorised people should not have access to such detail in anything classified which is passed on. The threat of outside interference in coming elections in France, Germany and, possibly, Italy, has led to greater liaison between Western intelligence services in which, say officials, agencies continue to play a full part. There were two strands to the investigation carried out by Steele: Trump’s alleged susceptibility to blackmail and a cyber operation carried out by the Russians which benefited Trump and damaged Clinton’s campaign. The intelligence agencies in Britain have focused on the cyber-aspect of the dossier rather than blackmail claims, because of the immediate threat it presents to this country. In his December speech, at MI6’s headquarters in London, ‘Sir’ Alex ‘scathingly’ criticised what he termed the brutality of the military offensive then being undertaken by the forces of Assad and his Russian allies in Aleppo. On cyber warfare and associated subversion, he said:

The connectivity that is at the heart of globalisation can be exploited by states with hostile intent to further their aims deniably. They do this through means as varied as cyber-attacks, propaganda or subversion of democratic process. Our job is to give the government the information advantage: to shine a light on those activities and help our country and our allies. The risks are profound and represent a fundamental threat to sovereignty: they should be a concern to all those who share democratic values.

Steele and a Washington based company, Fusion GS, were initially hired by Republican opponents of Trump and, after he won the Republican nomination, the Democrats. After Trump’s surprise election win their services were no longer required by the Democrats. However, Steele and, it is believed, one of his Pindosin colleagues, continued to work without pay because they felt that what they were uncovering should see the light of day. Steele passed on what he had found to the FBI and MI6 because he believed such material was a matter of national security for both countries.

Trump Asks If Outgoing CIA Chief Was Leaker of ‘Fake News’
Ben Brody, Bloomberg, Jan 15 2017

Trump appeared to suggest that outgoing DCI Brennan may have been behind the publication last week of unverified and salacious intelligence connecting the president-elect to Russia. The comments on Twitter came hours after Brennan, in an interview on Fox News Sunday, called the Republican’s recent remarks about the Pindosi intelligence community outrageous and suggested that Trump’s overtures to improve relations with Russia are naïve. Trump retorted to his 20 million Twitter followers:

@FoxNews ‘Outgoing CIA Chief, John Brennan, blasts Pres-Elect Trump on Russia threat. Does not fully understand.’ Oh really, couldn’t do much worse – just look at Syria (red line), Crimea, Ukraine and the build-up of Russian nukes. Not good! Was this the leaker of Fake News?

Brennan’s earlier comments came amid escalating tensions between the president-elect and the intelligence community following a series of insults and allegations by Trump in recent weeks. Trump on Jan 11 accused the Pindosi national security apparatus, in general, of being behind the publication by BuzzFeed of reports that Russia had collected compromising personal and financial information on the president-elect as part of its efforts to influence the outcome of the presidential election. At the time Trump asked in a Twitter post, “are we living in Nazi Germany?” Brennan said:

What I do find outrageous is equating intelligence community with Nazi Germany. I do take great umbrage at that, and there is no basis for Mr Trump to point fingers at the intelligence community for leaking information that was already available publicly. There is no interest in undermining the president-elect.

The information released had circulated in the intelligence community and within some news organizations for months and received occasional, scant treatment in the media, but was published in full by BuzzFeed on Jan. 10 in a 35-page document. Outgoing White House Chief of Staff Denis McDonough said on CNN State of the Union on Sunday:

The intelligence community is staffed by an unbelievable cadre of professionals who have dedicated their lives, and in many cases put their lives at risk, to get really critical, timely and important information to policy makers.

Brennan, who characterized the off-the-cuff style that’s defined Trump’s public pronouncements as “not something that protects national security interests,” also suggested that Trump’s openness to friendship with Russia could originate from a lack of knowledge. Brennan said:

I don’t think he has a full appreciation of Russian capabilities, Russians’ intentions, and actions that they are undertaking in many part of the world.

The intelligence community has accused Russia of hacking top-level Democrats during the election to help Trump, a charge that led to earlier insults by Trump. Brennan admonished Trump, who’s recently suggested he might lift sanctions on Russia:

He needs to be mindful that he doesn’t yet, I think, have a full appreciation/understanding of what the implications are of such a move. He needs to be very, very careful. I very much hope our relationship improves (what’s with this “our” shit? Brennan is a traitor to Pindostan – RB) in the coming administration, but there is a fair amount of responsibility on Russia’s part to change their behavior.

Vice President-elect Mike Pence said in an earlier interview on the same program that cooperation on counter-terrorism was at the heart of Trump’s willingness to “explore the possibility of better relations” with Russia. Pence said:

We have a common enemy in Daesh. The ability to work with Russia to confront, hunt down, and destroy ISIS at its source represents an enormously important priority of this incoming administration.

Pence also denied there were any contacts between Trump associates and Russia, as alleged in the unverified memo. He said:

Incoming National Security Adviser Mike Flynn’s conversation with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak in December, on the day Obama imposed new sanctions on Russia for the hacking was not in any way related to new Pindo sanctions or the expulsion of diplomats.

two simple devastations of steele’s shitcunt lies

The Trump Dossier Is Fake And Here Are The Reasons Why
Paul R Gregory, Forbes, Jan 13 2017

A former British intelligence officer who is now a director of a London private security-and-investigations firm has been identified as the author of the dossier of unverified allegations about Donald Trump’s activities and connections in Russia, according to the WSJ. A Christopher Steele, a director of London-based private intelligence company Orbis, purportedly prepared the dossier under contract to both Republican and Democratic adversaries of then-candidate Trump. The poor grammar and shaky spelling plus the author’s use of KGB-style intelligence reporting, however, do not fit the image of a high-end London security company run by highly connected former British intelligence figures. The PDF file of the 30-page typewritten report alleges that high Kremlin officials colluded with Trump, offered him multi-billion dollar bribes, and accumulated compromising evidence of Trump’s sexual escapades in Russia. That the dossier comes from former British intelligence officers appears at first glance to give it weight, especially with Orbis’ claim of a “global network.” The Pindo intelligence community purportedly has examined the allegations but have not confirmed any of them. We can wait till hell freezes over. The material is not verifiable. Trump has dismissed the dossier’s contents as false as has the Kremlin. Trump is right: The Orbis dossier is fake news. I have studied Russia and the Soviet Union professionally since the mid-1960s. I have visited Russia as a scholar, as the head of a multi-year petroleum legislation project, and as a business consultant close to one hundred times. My first visit was in 1965, shortly after Nikita Khrushchev’s removal. I have a wide circle of friends and acquaintances in Russia, and I follow the Russian press regularly. I personally witnessed the creation in the early 90s of Russia’s giant energy concerns in the offices of the oil minister. I met with St Petersburg officials in the early 90s but do not remember meeting then-deputy mayor Putin. I have written and co-authored reports for the State Dept, Congress, and the intelligence community, so I sort of know how these things work.

With the brief exception of the early to late 1990s, Russia has had a non-transparent system of rule that deliberately reveals little about itself. Both insiders and outsiders must look for subtle signs and signals. Russians and Russian experts are gossip junkies. They recite their tales of who is up and who is down to those foolish enough to listen. Outside researchers must grasp for flimsy straws to write their scholarly articles and books. Despite the greater openness of contemporary Russia, we are back to Kremlinology to learn how Putin’s kleptocracy works. The Orbis report makes as if it knows all the ins-and-outs and comings-and-goings within Putin’s impenetrable Kremlin. It reports information from anonymous “trusted compatriots,” “knowledgeable sources,” “former intelligence officers,” and “ministry of foreign affairs officials.”  The report gives a fly-on-the-wall account of just about every conceivable event associated with Donald Trump’s Russian connections. It claims to know more than is knowable as it recounts sordid tales of prostitutes, “golden showers,” bribes, squabbles in Putin’s inner circle, and who controls the dossiers of kompromat . There are two possible explanations for the fly-on-the-wall claims of the Orbis report: Either its author (who is not Mr Steele) decided to write fiction, or collected enough gossip to fill a 30-page report, or a combination of the two. The author of the Orbis report has one more advantage: He knew that what he was writing was unverifiable. He advertises himself as the only Kremlin outsider with enough “reliable” contacts to explain what is really going within Putin’s office.

As someone who has worked for more than a decade with the microfilm collection of Soviet documents in the Hoover Institution Archives, I can say that the dossier itself was compiled by a Russian whose command of English is far from perfect and who follows the KGB (now FSB) practice of writing intelligence reports, in particular the practice of capitalizing all names for easy reference (this practice is normal to all beat police in London, so it ain’t exact a russian one alone – RB). The report includes Putin’s inner circle: Peskov, Ivanov, Sechin, Lavrov. The anonymous author claims to have “trusted compatriots” who knew the roles that each Kremlin insider, including Putin himself, played in the Trump election saga and were prepared to tell him. The Orbis report spins the tale of Putin insiders, spurred on by Putin himself, engaging in a five-year courtship of Donald Trump in which they offer him lucrative real estate deals that he rejects but leaves himself open to blackmail as a result of sexual escapades with prostitutes in St Petersburg and Moscow (the famous “golden shower” incident). Despite his reluctance to enter into lucrative business deals, Trump “and his inner circle have accepted regular intelligence from the Kremlin, including on his Democratic and other political rivals,” according to the Orbis report. This story makes no sense. In 2011, when the courtship purportedly begins, Trump was a TV personality and beauty pageant impresario. Neither in Pindostan nor in Russia would anyone of authority anticipate that Trump would one day become the presidential candidate of a major political party, making him the target of Russian intelligence. The Orbis report claims, that as the election neared (Jul 2016), Igor Sechin, Putin’s right-hand man and CEO of Rosneft (Russia’s national oil company) offered Trump a deal that defies belief. I quote:

Speaking to a trusted compatriot in mid-Oct 2015, a close associate of Rosneft President and PUTIN ally Igor SECHIN elaborated on the reported secret meeting between the latter and Carter PAGE, of Pindo Republican presidential candidate’s foreign policy team, in Moscow in Jul 2016. The secret had been confirmed to him/her by a senior member of staff, in addition to the Rosneft President himself … Sechin’s associate said that the Rosneft President was so keen to lift personal and corporate Western sanctions imposed on the company, that he offered PAGE associates the brokerage of up to a 19% (privatized) stake in Rosneft in return PAGE had expressed interest and confirmed that were TRUMP elected US president, then sanctions on Russia would be lifted.

This story is utter nonsense, not worthy of a wacky conspiracy theory of an alien invasion. To offer Trump either the entirety of, or a brokerage commission on, the market value of 19.5% of Rosneft shares, even a 6% commission on $12b worth of Rosneft shares, would amount to an astonishing $720m, which would deplete the cash that Putin desperately needed for military spending and budget deficits, all in return for a promise to lift sanctions if Trump were elected. What a big “if”! Rosneft as a public company would have to conceal that the Pindosi president was a party to this major transaction. This remarkable secret-of-secrets seems to be bandied about to an Orbis “trusted compatriot,” a senior member of Sechin’s staff, and disclosed by Sechin himself. I guess there are a lot of loose lips in Rosneft offices. The story of the purported bribe was picked up by the Russian liberal press directly from the Orbis report without comment but with a big question marks in the title:

A €10.5b bribe? Putin and Sechin gifted Trump 19.5% of Rosneft shares?

This story has given Putin’s weak opposition the chance to accuse him of wasting national treasure on a stupid bribe. The huge bribe for (perhaps) lifting the sanctions makes Nikita Khrushchev’s hare-brained schemes for which he was fired look eminently reasonable. One of the few verifiable facts in the Orbis report is the key role played by Trump’s “personal lawyer,” Michael Cohen, who purportedly took over the negotiation of the Sechin dea. When the Kremlin got cold feet over its hacking campaign, it turned to Cohen to cover up the operation, meet with the Kremlin’s Presidential Administration, and make illicit payments to shut up and move the hackers to Bulgaria. A key meeting was held in Prague in Aug 2016 with Cohen accompanied by three colleagues. The meetings took place in the offices of a Russian quasi-state organization, Rossotrudnichestvo. Cohen has denied any such meetings with the Kremlin Presidential administration and claims never to have visited Prague. According to the Orbis report, Cohen engaged in potential criminal activities, such as illicit payoffs to hackers and the buying of their silence. I doubt that he will let such accusations pass. Another noteworthy claim of the Orbis report is that Vladimir Putin personally directed Russia’s intervention in the 2016 campaign:

The TRUMP operation was both supported and directed by Putin. Its aim was to sow discord both within Pindostan itself, but more especially within the Transatlantic alliance.

The Orbis report claims that Putin personally controlled the dossier compiled on Hillary Clinton and held by his spox Peskov. He ordered that any disposition of the Clinton file would be decided by him personally. I have picked out just a few excerpts from the Orbis report. In my opinion, it was noy written by a British ex-intelligence officer but by a Russian trained in the KGB tradition. It is full of names, dates, meetings, quarrels, and events that are hearsay (one an overheard conversation). It is a collection of “this important person” said this to “another important person.” There is no record. No informant is identified by name or by more than a generic title. The report appears to fail the veracity test in the one instance of a purported meeting in which names, dates, and location are provided. Some of the stories are so bizarre (the Rosneft $12b bribe) that they fail the laugh test. Yet there appears to be a desire on the part of some media and Trump opponents on both sides of the aisle to picture the Orbis report as genuine but unverifiable. After reading the Orbis report I got the queasy feeling that it may have influenced intelligence community’s unclassified report. Leaks of classified bits by NBC News and the WaPo suggest the findings were in part based on British intelligence and spies. I wonder if the reference is to Putin’s role, which the intelligence report characterized as direct. This is a matter the new administration must look into. We have reached a sad state of affairs where an anonymous report full of bizarre statements captures the attention of the world media because it casts a shadow over the legitimacy of a President-elect who has not even taken the oath of office. For example, the Trump dossier is tonight’s lead item on German state television and on BBC. False news has become America’s international export to the world media.

The dodgy Donald Trump dossier reminds me of the row over Saddam Hussein and his fictitious WMDs
Patrick Cockburn, Independent, Jan 12 2017

I read the text of the dossier on Donald Trump’s alleged dirty dealings with a scepticism that soon turned into complete disbelief. The memo has all the hallmarks of such fabrications, which is too much detail, and that detail largely uncheckable, and too many names of important people placed there to impress the reader with the sheer quantity and quality of information. I was correspondent in Moscow in the 1980s and again during the first years in power of Putin. Every so often, people would tell me intriguing facts about the dark doings of the Kremlin and its complicity in various crimes, such as the infamous apartment block bombings in 1999. But my heart used to sink when the informant claimed to know too much and did not see that what they were saying contained a fatal contradiction: Putin and his people were pictured as unscrupulous and violent people, but at the same time they were childishly incapable of keeping a secret damaging to themselves. The conclusions reached in the Trump dossier similarly claim to be based on multiple sources of information where, in the nature of things, they are unlikely to exist. The dossier cites at least seven of them.

Speaking to a trusted compatriot in Jun 2016 sources A and B, a senior Russian Foreign Ministry and a former top-level Russian intelligence officer still active inside the Kremlin respectively, the Russian authorities had been cultivating and supporting Pindo Republican presidential candidate, Donald TRUMP, for at least five years.

I obviously failed as a correspondent when I was in Russia, because it turns out that Moscow is choc-a-bloc with fellows in senior positions willing to blow the gaff on the Kremlin’s deep-laid plans. A and B, despite achieving high rank, apparently remain touchingly naive and more than willing to make revelations that, if known, would get them imprisoned or shot in short order. Reading the papers on Trump brought back memories of talking to Iraqi defectors in the 1990s who claimed to have plenty of information about Saddam Hussein’s WMDs and gossip about his family affairs. It did not take long to work out that they were making it up when they produced convincing but uncheckable details about the doings of some of the more dangerous and suspicious people in the world, with whom the defectors claimed have had frank and revealing conversations. In its determination to damage Trump, the Pindo press corps has been happy to suspend disbelief in this dubious document. Former member of MI6 Christopher Steele reportedly has a high reputation in espionage circles and was stationed in Moscow 20 years ago. The NYT is unworried by his consequent inability to travel to Moscow “to study Mr Trump’s connections there.” This is where the famed MI6 tradecraft proved so useful. Steele is said to have “hired native Russian speakers to call informants inside Russia and made surreptitious contact with his own connections in the country as well.” The word “contact” is a useful word for journalists, because it could mean a highly-placed friend or alternatively it might refer to some lowly freelancer who is being paid to supply information. Having Russian speakers call up Russians in Russia is an astute move, though it presupposes that FSB does not monitor foreign phone calls to people with sensitive information. I suspect that those Iraqi defectors who used to tell me tall tales about WMD and the home life of Saddam Hussein would have dreamed up a more convincing story than this.

as hendrix says: dig this, baby, & stop acting so crazy


poor brennan, it must be terrible having outrage at his age

The cunt is still here staring at me as she does all day every day. How she does it I don’t know, but she is an irritating cunt to be stared at by. Her constant attempts to attract my attention by e.g. winking lewdly make concentration an effort and a burden. Presumably this is her highest purpose in life. Certainly her journalistic career is on the rocks – RB

DCI Brennan calls Trump Nazi Germany comparison outrageous
Cristiano Lima, Politico, Jan 15 2017

DCI Brennan on Sunday said Donald Trump’s comparison of the intelligence community’s handling of unverified reports on Russian intelligence to Nazi Germany was outrageous. After a leaked-but-unverified dossier of compromising information reportedly shared with Trump during an intelligence briefing was reported by news outlets, Trump lashed out at the intelligence community tweeted:

Intelligence agencies should never have allowed this fake news to ‘leak’ into the public. One last shot at me. Are we living in Nazi Germany?

On Sunday, Brennan, who is leaving with the Obama administration not Jewish, took particular exception. Brennan said on “Fox News Sunday.” The sanctimonious cunt said Brennan said on Fox News Sunday:

What I do find outrageous is equating an intelligence community with Nazi Germany. I do take great umbrage at that, and there is no basis for Mr Trump to point fingers at the intelligence community for leaking information that was already available publicly. Bringing to the attention of the president-elect as well as the current president that this information was out there was a responsibility in the mind of the intelligence directors, of the intelligence community. Making sure that the president-elect himself was aware of it, I think that was the extent of what it was that the intelligence chiefs wanted to do. The intelligence community is prepared to support the president-elect and the incoming team as we have done throughout the course of our history. It’s our responsibility to make sure they understand the dangers on the world stage.

DCI Brennan warns Trump to watch his tongue
BBC, Jan 16 2017

Outgoing DCI Brennan has warned Pindosi Donald Trump to avoid off-the-cuff remarks once he takes office. He said spontaneity was not in the interests of national security. Trump is known for regularly making broad pronouncements on issues of national importance on his Twitter feed. Brennan also said that Trump did not fully appreciate Russia’s capabilities or intentions. He said:

I think Mr Trump has to understand that absolving Russia of various actions that it’s taken in the past number of years is a road that he, I think, needs to be very, very careful about moving down.

Brennan’s remarks, in an interview for Fox News Sunday, come a week after the release of an ‘intelligence report’ which said Putin had likely attempted to influence the election. Trump is considered to have underplayed for months the conclusions of the intelligence community that Moscow hacked Clinton. He only accepted them at a news conference on Wednesday. <eanwhile both the Kremlin and Trump's team have denied reports in the Sunday Times that the two sides were planning a summit between Trump and Putin in Reykjavik. Brennan said "talking and tweeting" was not an option for Trump, who takes office next Friday. He said:

Spontaneity is not something that protects national security interests and so therefore when he speaks or when he reacts, just make sure he understands that the implications and impact on the United Snakes could be profound. It’s more than just about Mr Trump. It’s about the United Snakes of Pindostan.

The DCI also took Trump to task for accusing the intelligence services of leaking an unverified dossier which suggests Russian security officials have compromising material on him, which could make him vulnerable to blackmail. He said with the nauseating sentimentality and sententiousness appropriate to an old pedophiliacal whoremaster head of CIA, the world’s largest organized crime, torture and murder squad:

What I do find outrageous is equating the intelligence community with Nazi Germany. There is no basis for Mr Trump to point fingers at the intelligence community for leaking information that was already available publicly.

The president-elect said the claims were “fake news” and “phoney stuff.” Russia also denies the existence of the dossier and says allegations that it ran a hacking campaign to influence the elections are “reminiscent of a witch-hunt.”

how can a cunt this stupid be telepathic

there are things i cannot say about lisa without being antisemitic, but “scrawny ignorant ugly old schoolmarm” should be OK

Why Did the Al-Jazeera Expose Fail?
Gilad Atzmon, Jan 14 2017

“The Lobby”, the al-Jazeera expose of the Israeli Embassy and the Jewish Lobby infiltration into British politics is a landmark in journalism. It seems that Qatari TV outsmarted Israeli intelligence in Britain and beyond. In the program, an undercover journalist named ‘Robin’ managed to infiltrate into the corridors of the Jewish lobby in Britain, secured the trust of a senior Israeli intelligence officer and, most importantly, managed to reveal the depths of Israeli interference in British politics. We learned how Israel and its lobby plot against Britain and the Brits. In the program, Shai Masot, an Israeli official was caught on camera conspiring to “bring down” a British minister. We learned how our own treacherous MPs shamelessly serve a foreign power and foreign interests. In Episode 3, we witness British politicians and Israeli lobbyists such as MP Joan Ryan caught on camera smearing a Labour voter as an ‘anti-Semite’ and practically conspiring against her own party. Ms Ryan does it all for the Jewish state, a state with a horrid record on human rights and war crimes. I wonder what is it that motivates MP Ryan? Is it greed, or is it just power seeking? The Brits should certainly ask themselves how come it is left to a Qatari TV network  to reveal the shocking news about their democracy being taken over by a foreign Lobby. Should this not be the concern for the BBC or the Guardian? And even after the al-Jazeera expose, the British media remained silent and the question must be asked: would it have stayed as silent had Shai Masot been a Russian? Would it have stayed as silent if MP Joan Ryan was exposed as an Iranian lobbyist? Al-Jazeera fell into an all too common trap. Troubled by its own findings, it tried to soften them with the usual politically correct fluff. Instead of concentrating on the British aspect of this saga and allowing the Brits to speak for themselves, al-Jazeera allowed an Israeli, academic Ilan Pappe to speak for us. Jackie Walker, certainly a victim of the Israeli campaign, was also asked “as a Jew” (as well as a Black person), to spell out for us her own identitarian philosophy. All other commentators on the Israeli espionage operation came from recognised Palestinian solidarity perspectives. Despite the fact that the dirty dealings of the Israeli Embassy and the treason of members of the Israeli lobby groups in Britain is a clear offence against British sovereignty and the British people, only one Brit, journalist Peter Oborne, addressed the offence from a clear British perspective. This is wrong. “The Lobby” exposed, above all, a gross interference with British sovereignty, a crude intrusion into the British democratic process and government. Al-Jazeera failed because it turned this British national tragedy into an internal Jewish dispute. For obvious reasons, al Jazeera chose not to delve into the deep cultural meaning of the Israeli operation. Israel is above all the Jewish state, and as I have mentioned many times before, plotting against other people’s regimes is deeply embedded in Judaic teaching and Jewish culture. It is in practice the message of the Book of Esther (Heb: Hadassah – RB), which teach the Jews how to conspire against their rulers and to win over their enemies by proxy. Shai Masot was no junior embassy employee as claimed. He was a senior intelligence officer operating from the safety and immunity of its embassy on behalf of the Jewish state. He was working alongside Israeli Ambassador Mark Regev and the two are seen together in the film, sitting side by side, addressing various Jewish lobby groups. Shai Masot has been recalled and, I understand, is currently seeking other employment. Mark Regev should now be expelled and the matter must be investigated by MI5.