Aki Peritz, Politico: Why Is Trump Siding With Assange Over the CIA?
As a former CIA analyst, I never thought I’d see a U.S. president link arms with a man whose mission is to steal America’s hard-won secrets.
We are through the looking glass now.
The next president of the United States is siding with Julian Assange, a man who wears his anti-Americanism proudly and acts like the textbook definition of a Russian asset, over the U.S. intelligence community – thousands of smart, patriotic people who work long hours for middling pay, some risking their lives to keep the rest of us safe.
I was once one of them, and I can only imagine how my former colleagues are feeling now. Never in our history has a U.S. president openly chosen to trust the word of a foreign adversary ahead of his own analysts.
Read more ....
Commentaries, Analysis, And Editorials -- January 4, 2017
Congress Seeing Red After Russia Hack -- Tim Mak, Daily Beast
Russians! Under my bed! -- Glenn Reynolds, USA Today
What the U.S. Lost in Syria -- Bloomberg editorial
Syria: What it will mean if rebels snub peace talks -- Tim Lister, CNN
Is Iraqi Kurdistan heading toward civil war? -- Denise Natali, Al-Monitor
What Does It Mean to Be At War with “Radical Islam”? On the Attractions and Dangers of a Vague Term -- Daniel Byman, Lawfare
Turkey brandishes Incirlik card to threaten US -- Amberin Zaman, Al-Monitor
Turkey's 'security' president, Erdoğan faces new test as attacks mount -- Scott Peterson, CSM
The illusions of Moscow-Tokyo rapprochement -- Stephen Blank, Intersection Project
Why is Russia so interested in Afghanistan all of a sudden? -- Masood Saifullah, DW
The Rise of Taliban Diplomacy -- Ahmad Bilal Khalil, The Diplomat
Kim Jong-un's New Year Speech Doesn't Mean Anything -- Bruce Klingner, National Interest
Understanding America's Global Role in the Age of Trump -- Rodger Baker, Stratfor
Kissinger's Washington Is Coming Back Around -- Eli Lake, Bloomberg
The Growing Urban-Rural Divide Around the World -- Jon Emont, The Atlantic
When Can We Expect to See Queen Elizabeth Again? -- Simon Perry, People
23 comments:
I have an open mind, but where is the evidence? This is still hearsay regardless of how you couch it.
Three things:
1) The very people who once derided the intelligence community (US and a large portion of the western intelligence community) over the Iraq war, saying they were politically motivated and not to be trusted are now saying trust them at their word for they are "good Americans"!
2) This is guess on my part, pure speculation, but I believe the so called report due on Friday is very weak and has no real evidence. All of what we see like the above is an attempt strengthen a "notion".
3) It should be noticed that it is inferred that Comey, Clapper, and Brennan are to give the briefing, not as it is later said attending the briefing.
As I said, I have an open mind, but not for hearsay, accusations, and political hackery.
Beyond the heads of some agencies (political appointees) and so called pundits (attributed as ex-agents) there has been absolutely no names named, no concrete evidence offered, or anything else that any of these people are willing to put their names on a piece of paper in attestment. Even the above refuse to say anything they could be directly held accountable for.
One more thing: It has been bandied about that the alleged action of Russia amounts to an "act of war". If that is the case then no argument that intelligence is by nature a murky business and also by nature some things cannot be revealed is either plausible or permissable. When you declared something an "act of war" and take governmental action accordingly (expulsion of diplo corp and quasi legal proptery confiscation) it is by definition, in a democracy, an object of debate and consent and must be displayed and defended.
The NSA, CIA, DIA etc did not hype the Iraq War intelligence or create the Dodgy Dossier.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_of_Special_Plans
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_Inquiry
They issued reports with dissenting opinions, doubts, caveats and questions about the reliablity of informants, evidence, intelligence, etc,
which the White House Office of Special Plans and 10 Downing Street then stripped of the qualifiers, "souped them up", and shopped them to willing participants in the Media and Government.
There is no current White House Office of Special Plans.
Any definative evidence of the Russian hacks is going to be "way above your pay grade", and will not be released to the Media because of "sources and methods".
Because the hacks involved, as the CIA puts it, "people and groups aligned with Russian interests", and not actual Russian institutions, Russia will always have plausible deniability, and Alex Jones had a new stream of CT fodder to milk for at least 4 years.
Bush II and the Republican House and Senate added "cyber attacks" to the list of attacks on America that were an "Act of War".
https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/5220
Again, hearsay and accusation. Plus how would anyone know my pay grade?
That's all you are going to get, unless you are sitting in the meeting on Friday.
Snowdon say's the NSA can track exfil packets from source to receipt.
If that's true, the. The NSA not only has a presence on every Internet server, but can track every packet on the web from start to finish.
That's not something they are ever going to confirm or deny in public.
The funny thing about cyber stuff like backdoors, embedded codes, rootkits, is anybody can use them, once they find them.
None of that matters. There has been public accusations with no supporting evidence beyond hearsay. The accusers are part of the US government. They are also the ones who have labeled the alleged actions an "act of war" not I. No amount of rationalization, links, or equivocation can change that, only evidence.
LMAO, and I've never LMAO at you before James.
You are never going to see "hard evidence", unless you live into 2067, if they declassify it then.
The Alphabet Agencies are not going to release the sourcecode, or the tapes of the GRU/FSB conversations recorded by the Smartfridge in the Cafeteria, because of "sources and methods",
The "best" evidence you are ever going to get, maybe, is Trump publically changing his mind, although that's IMHO, probably not going to happen for four key reasons,
A) I not sure he understands or can even learn to understand the complexities,
B) given that, the evidence would have to be overwhelming,
C) his bromance with Putin,
D) it helped get him elected and is "in the past" now, no harm, no foul for him.
There will be House and Senate Hearings, and while some classified info will leak, it won't be "slam dunk" hard evidence, as it will be made fuzzy enough to be leaked with out compromising US Cyber Security.
The House and Senate hearings are going to be a lot more "hardassed" on the hacks, because nobody rig's US Elections, ( except the Reps, Senators, AIPAC and parties through gerrymandering, vote supression and Citizen's United cash).
They won't be happy that Anonamous, the Russians, Chinese or some other hacker collective might be able to rig elections against them. That whole "Incumbent" advantage might just go away.
Does not matter. Every single point is view point. So it remains unsubstantiated.
Welcome to the post fact world.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/welcome-to-donald-trumps-post-fact-america-w452917
Once upon a time, we as a species used to take a few facts, like we need to breathe air, water is wet, rocks are heavy, to leap to conclusions like jumping into a lake with a big bag of rocks tied to our feet, was a bad idea.
Now we live in an "opinion" based world, where no number of facts ever changes opinion and actions are taken based on opinion.
Thus:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=S6V0S1m5a7U
Still does not matter. The topic is an accusation made by government officials. Until such time as there is evidence it remains unsubstantiated.
Like I said, if you are waiting for the public release of evidence, you'll have to wait until 2067.
https://www.google.ca/amp/www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/amp52002/nixon-vietnam-peace-talks-1968/?client=safari
Over 30,000 dead Americans, 1.2 million dead South Asians, $1 Trillion wasted dollars, 7 more years of lost war, all just for one man to to win a Presidential election.
The topic is still the accusation made by the current administration. Until there is evidence otherwise, it remains an unsubstantiated accusation. All else matters not.
It will remain "unsubstantiated", if you are looking for a release of hard evidence,
By this Administration, maybe the next, maybe all the ones after that, until 2067 at the earliest.
Just keep in mind your "principaled stand" if Trump tweet's on Friday "The Russians did it!" or at any time in his term.
Regardless of time passed, any accusation without evidence remains an accusation.
Hang on to that cynicism after Friday, James.
I'd hate to see a Trump Tweet change your mind.
Immaterial and not important. The topic is an accusation made by the sitting administration. Until there is proof it remains an accusation.
So, is you is, or is you ain't gonna change your mind off a Trump Tweet?
Does not matter, without evidence it remains an accusation.
Hold to that James, after Friday.
What I or anyone else thinks doesn't matter. Whether Friday, the year 2067, or tomorrow, without evidence it remains an accusation. Nothing can change that condition.
Without "evidence" the actions taken by BHO are unwarranted. Before such actions can be continued the evidence will need to be presented to the American people. The stakes are simply to high. Mere accusations simply aren't enough to justify the expelling of 35 Russian diplomats or proposed additional sanctions against Russia.
Even if Trump changes his mind after the briefing, we still need to see the evidence. We are already in Cold War 2 or on the precipice of it. In order to justify an escalation, we will need the hard evidence. I suppose DJT could order the hard evidence released by executive order. Failure to do this could not be supported no matter who the POTUS is.
The hard evidence is needed NOW!! Not in 2067, not tomorrow, not next week but NOW!! Maybe some can afford blind trust or mock the situation. Their countries ard not the ones who are going to bear the brunt of a Russian response. America will bear the brunt of a Russian response.
Part of the reason DJT got elected was to improve relations with Russia. Increased sanctions and expelling diplomats takes us in the wrong direction. Before exacerbating tensions further sound justification needs to be presented. This means presenting ALL evidence to the American people without holding ANYTHING back.
Supposing Mr. Putin himself orchestrated the hacking it sedms all he did was expose American corruption. Perhaps we should thank him.
B.
Perhaps so, but that is for another discussion. Of course if evidence does emerge then my opinion must change, but until that time it remains an unsubstantiated accusation with all that entails.
Post a Comment