That report was released, secure in the knowledge that most Americans do not read. So what the public "knows" about the report is what the MSM has told them about it. What the report actually tells us is quite different from what the MSM makes it out to be. Don't take my word for it, read it yourself.
But didn't all seventeen intelligence agencies agree with the report? "Agree"? Perhaps. But that unanimous "agreement" may be more political than substantive. We've travelled this road before. In October 2002, a National Intelligence estimate (pubic version) proclaimed that "most analysts assess Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program." We know now that "most analysts" then were wrong. The parallels between that 2002 Intelligence report and the January report are startling.
Agreement aside, those seventeen agencies did not all "participate" in the report. As CIA chief at the time, James Clapper, told a Senate Committee: "Only three agencies were directly involved in this assessment." But doesn't the Report supply solid evidence of a hack of the DNC emails? Wrong again. quoth the Report: "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 of fragmentary, as well as logic, argumentation, and precedents."
Best guess: disgruntled Bernie Sanders supporters leaked the emails hoping that they might tell the world that their candidate was "done in" by "establishment" Clinton partisans in the DNC. If so, this objective has backfired spectacularly, as the DNC "regulars?" have successfully shifted blame to the Russians in an attempt to excuse Clinton's defeat in the election.
So did the Russians meddle in the election? When asked that question, I think of the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld lies about Saddam's WMDs, and the MSM's uncritical acceptance of those lies. And I think of Colin Powell's dog and pony show at the UN Security Council. So I have learned this much at least: my government lies to me without scruple and the MSM amplifies those lies with a single voice. "Fool me twice? Not gonna be fooled again." (GWB)
If the Russians "meddled," their efforts were insignificant alongside the meddling of the GOP in that election: uncounted ballots in Michigan, ballot stuffing in Wisconsin, voter suppression in North Caroline and Pennsylvania, etc. All this was briefly noted here and there in the media and then promptly forgotten. What? You haven't heard about this? Why am I not surprised?
"But we are at war" shouts Morgan Freeman, along with Rachel Maddow, Malcolm Nance, Joy Reid, and countless others? Meddling in our election is "equivalent to war," we are told time and again.
And yet, "regime change" is an established, open, and unquestioned aspect of our foreign policy. In violation of the United Nations Charter, we have appointed ourselves judge, jury and executioner of other countries' governments. By some counts, as many as twenty in the last seventy years. In many cases, we have overthrown legally elected governments: Iran (1953), Chile (1973), and arguably Ukraine (2014). In Iran and Chile, these democracies were replaced with ruthless dictatorships.
And in 1996, American "election experts" along with several Russia billionaires, succeeded in flipping the election of the unpopular president, Boris Yeltsin. Far from hiding this accomplishment, Time Magazine boasted about it, in a nine page cover story, saying in effect: "aren't we Americans clever! We got to select the Russian president!" On the cover we read: "Yanks to the rescue: the secret story of how American advisors helped Yeltsin win."
Few Americans are aware of this "meddling" in the Russian presidential election. Few Russians are not aware of it.
If Russia attempts to "meddle" in our election, we are told that these attempts are "the equivalent of war." If the United States does it, it is standard operating procedure -- we call it "regime change." International norms do not apply to us. But then, don't we proudly tell the world that we are an "exceptional" nation?
Add to this, the neo-con's openly declared intention to bring about "regime change" in Russia. With a solid majority of Russians supporting Putin, good luck with that. As history testifies, outside "meddling" in Russian politics solidifies support for the Russian leader.
A suggestion: how about a deal with Putin? You keep your hands off of our politics, and we will do the same with yours. It would be easy enough for either side to recognize a violation of the deal. I believe that Putin would accept it. Is it not at least worth a try?
The second part of the DNI report deals with RT (formerly "Russia Today"). The DNI reprints a five year old article, which labors mightily to prove that which is not in dispute: namely, that RT is supported by the Russian government and thus, not surprisingly, presents the viewpoint of that government.
Next Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
2
1
1
