The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 Philip Giraldi ArchiveBlogview
What Did John Brennan and Anonymous Sources Really Say?
Speaking to a Russian becomes treasonous
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>
Brennan 2
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments

The Washington Post and a number of other mainstream media outlets are sensing blood in the water in the wake of former CIA Director John Brennan’s public testimony before the House Intelligence Committee. The Post headlined a front page featured article with Brennan’s explosive testimony just made it harder for the GOP to protect Trump. The article states that Brennan during the 2016 campaign “reviewed intelligence that showed ‘contacts and interaction’ between Russian actors and people associated with the Trump campaign.” Politico was also in on the chase in an article entitled Brennan: Russia may have successfully recruited Trump campaign aides.

The precise money quote by Brennan that the two articles chiefly rely on is “I encountered and am aware of information and intelligence that revealed contacts and interactions between Russian officials and US persons involved in the Trump campaign that I was concerned about because of known Russian efforts to suborn such individuals. It raised questions in my mind whether or not Russia was able to gain the co-operation of those individuals.”

Now first of all, the CIA is not supposed to keep tabs on American citizens and tracking the activities of known associates of a presidential candidate should have sent warning bells off, yet Brennan clearly persisted in following the trail. What Brennan did not describe, because it was “classified,” was how he came upon the information in the first place. We know from the New York Times and other sources that it came from foreign intelligence services, including the British, Dutch and Estonians, and there has to be a strong suspicion that the forwarding of at least some of that information might have been sought or possibly inspired by Brennan unofficially in the first place. But whatever the provenance of the intelligence, it is clear that Brennan then used that information to request an FBI investigation into a possible Russian operation directed against potential key advisers if Trump were to somehow get nominated and elected, which admittedly was a longshot at the time. That is how Russiagate began.

But where the information ultimately came from as well as its reliability is just speculation as the source documents have not been made public. What is not speculative is what Brennan actually said in his testimony. He said that Americans associated with Trump and his campaign had met with Russians. He was “concerned” because of known Russian efforts to “suborn such individuals.” Note that Brennan, presumably deliberately, did not say “suborn those individuals.” Sure, Russian intelligence (and CIA, MI-6, and Mossad as well as a host of others) seek to recruit people with access to politically useful information. That is what they do for a living, but Brennan is not saying that he has or saw any evidence that that was the case with the Trump associates. He is speaking generically of “such individuals” because he knows that spies, inter alia, recruit politicians and the Russians presumably, like the Americans and British, do so aggressively.

At a later point in his testimony Brennan also said that “I had unresolved questions in my mind about whether or not the Russians had been successful in getting U.S. persons, involved in the campaign or not, to work on their behalf, again, either in a witting or unwitting fashion,” clearly meant to imply that some friends of Trump might have become Russian agents voluntarily but others might have cooperated without knowing it. It is a line that has surfaced elsewhere previously, most notably in the demented meanderings of former acting Director of Central Intelligence Michael Morell. As the purpose of recruiting an intelligence agent is to have a resource that can be directed to do things for you, the statement is an absurdity and Brennan and Morell, as a former Director and acting Director of the CIA, should know better. That they don’t explains a lot of things about today’s CIA.

Brennan confirms his lack of any hard evidence when he also poses the question “whether or not Russia was able to gain the co-operation of those individuals.” He doesn’t know whether the Americans were approached and asked to cooperate by Russian intelligence officers and, even if they were, he does not know whether they agreed to do so. That means that the Americans in question were guilty only of meeting and talking to Russians, which was presumably enough to open an FBI investigation. One might well consider that at the time and even to this day Russia was not and is not a declared enemy of the United States and meeting Russians is not a criminal offense.

In his testimony, Brennan also hit the main theme that appears to be accepted by nearly everyone inside the beltway, namely that Russian sought to influence and even pervert the outcome of the 2016 election. Interpreting his testimony, the Post article asserts that “Russia was engaged in an ‘aggressive’ and ‘multifaceted ‘effort to interfere in our election.” As has been noted frequently before, even though this assertion has apparently been endorsed by nearly everyone in the power structure AKA (also known as) “those who matter,” it is singularly lacking in any actual evidence.

Nor has any evidence been produced to support the claim that it was Russia that hacked the Democratic National Committee (DNC) server, which now is accepted as Gospel, but that is just one side to the story being promoted. Last Wednesday, the New York Times led off its front page with a piece entitled Top Russian Officials Discussed How to Influence Trump Aides Last Summer. Based, as always, on anonymous sources citing “highly classified” intelligence, the article claimed that “American spies collected information last summer revealing that senior Russian intelligence and political officials were discussing how to exert influence over Donald J. Trump through his advisers…” The “discussions,” which are presumably NSA intercepts of phone calls, reportedly focused on two aides in particular, Paul Manafort and Michael Flynn, both of whom had established relationships with Russian businessmen and government officials.

The article goes on to concede that “It is unclear, however, whether Russian officials actually tried to directly influence Mr. Manafort and Mr. Flynn…,” and that’s about all there is to the tale, though the Times wanders on for another three pages, recapping Brennan and the Flynn saga lest anyone has forgotten. So what do we have? Russians were talking on the phone about the possibility of influencing an American’s presidential candidate’s advisers, an observation alluded to by Brennan and also revealed in somewhat more detail by anonymous sources. Pretty thin gruel, isn’t it? Isn’t that what diplomats and intelligence officers do?

It would appear that the New York Times’ editors are unaware that the United States routinely interferes in elections worldwide and that the action taken in various places including Ukraine goes far beyond phone conversations. In some other places like Libya, Syria, Iraq, Somalia and Afghanistan the interference is particularly robust taking place at the point of a bayonet, but the Times and Washington Post don’t appear to have any problem when the regime change is being accomplished ostensibly to make the world more democratic, even if it almost never has that result.

How one regards all of the dreck coming out of the Fourth Estate and poseurs like John Brennan pretty much depends on the extent one is willing to trust that what the government, its highly-politicized bureaucrats and the media tell the public is true. For me, that would be not a lot. The desire to bring down the buffoonish Donald Trump is understandable, but buying into government and media lies will only lead to more lies that have real consequences, up to and including the impending wars against North Korea and Iran. It is imperative that every American should question everything he or she reads in a newspaper, sees on television “news” or hears coming out of the mouths of former and current government employees.

 
    []
  1. RobinG says:

    Thanks for the reassurance, Phil. It’s lonely standing against the tide, and many are trying to fabricate excuses for the lack of evidence.

    Take Melvin Goodman, author of Whistleblower at the CIA, for instance. (I realize CIA is a big place, but did you know him?) I’ve met Mr. Goodman, and he struck me as thoughtful, rational and capable of objective discussion. However, in his talk at the Gaithersburg Book Festival, he seemed a rather different person. At the end of Q&A, he said that he was trying to figure out how the Russians had laundered the “hacked” DNC emails to make it look like they were leaked by an insider. He’s sure the Russians did it. With such creative speculation, who needs facts?

    The book, though, is probably pretty good. Which makes it that much stranger that he’s taking the political line on the DNC emails!

    https://www.c-span.org/video/?427995-3/whistleblower-cia

    Melvin A. Goodman talked about his book, Whistleblower at the CIA: An Insider’s Account of the Politics of Intelligence.

    Read More
    • Replies: @chris
    He seems to be trying to ingratiate himself with his old bosses, in the hope that if he jumps on the anti-Trump project with them, they'll let bygones be bygones. His desperate virtue signaling has the advantage of polishing his bonafide Democratic party ideology credentials for all to see. Notice, in what regards the Trump-Russian connection allegations, his starting point is the MSM-Intel presumption of guilt - where's he getting the Intel from when the Intel agencies haven't provided one spec of evidence so far?

    His analysis of leaks, is better and better the further he goes back in time, but as he approaches the present, it seems to converge perfectly with the current MSM-Intel establishment line regarding Manning, Snowden and Assange, to the point of laughably calling the NYT, WaPo, WSJ the preeminent newspapers for Intel analysts ! If that's not sycophantic behavior, I don't know what is.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /pgiraldi/what-did-john-brennan-and-anonymous-sources-really-say/#comment-1889086
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. Ah, another day, another disgraceful display by the media.
    Incidentally:
    “The “discussions,” which are presumably NSA intercepts of phone calls, reportedly….”
    “Presumably” here is quite generous: I’d be tempted to presume a whole string of lies….

    Read More
  3. It’s like climate change: The MSM tells us that 17 intelligence agencies agree that the Russians hacked the election and thereby influenced it, but when you dig a little you find that NSA, for example, did not express a high degree of confidence that this might have actually been the case. Nevertheless, the case is settled. Pravda and Izvestia should have been so convinced in their day.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Jeff Davis
    "The MSM tells us that 17 intelligence agencies agree that the Russians hacked the election..."

    But if you stayed alert and continued to watch carefully, you found out that -- Whoops! -- it wasn't 17 intel agencies that agreed to this assessment. The "all 17 intelligence agencies agree" statement was a baldfaced lie, told from the start to give the lie-within-the-lie more impact, make it more unassailably convincing. But that's to be expected because the CIA are top-tier professionals of the lying business. Thus the big important lie was greased up for frictionless penetration by the credibility enhancing "everybody, all 17, unanimously declare it's true" sales pitch.

    Only later, well after the lie had been sold, absorbed, and achieved the status of "established fact" -- mission accomplished -- do we find out that the "assessment" came from just three: the CIA and FBI, both committed to taking Trump down, and the NSA under Adm. Rogers, who refused to assert confidence in the assessment. So the lie got "half-way round the world" to become the accepted truth by the mind-raped viewers of the Deep State-obsequious MSM, and the truth, for all intents and purposes never "got its boots on" at all.

    I have to add that, from all I see, the Deep State is committed to at least "owning" Trump if not removing him, and that their arrogance after years of virtual control of the state, is such that they feel safe and confident in this plan, and are completely free of any fear of consequences, even any notion of the possibility of consequences. All of which is based on the idea that Trump will lie down for them, that Trump will just suck it up without complaint. Maybe they're right. But I continue to believe that they are blindly overconfident. That Trump is not just a fighter, but a monster of a bad boy who, when has gotten all his pieces in place for the battle, will drop down on them like the wrath of god, and with the full power of the executive. Thus I await the coming infamous Battle of the DC Swamp.

    Given that reality rarely plays out according to one's hopes or plans, nevertheless consider these factors:

    (1) the Deep State anti-Trump effort is evidence free. It's impact is purely political, and works through the flimsy case made with the propagandized public that Trump has done something wrong, and it only works for as long as the "smoke" blinds everyone to truth. Impeachment -- which is the only means of removing Trump (other than assassination or forcing his resignation by threatening his family) -- requires the capture of both the House & Senate both Republican. If and when the smoke clears, Trump will be safe and the "smoke generators" will be in trouble. So Trump can just wait it out. If he stays frosty, and patient, and just waits it out, the smoke will clear and he will have won this first and most crucial battle,.... by doing nothing at all. (Sun Tzu would approve.)

    But the Deep State -- CIA, Neocons, et al -- are not going to give up. They will continue to obstruct and conspire -- it's what they do -- and I expect that Trump knows this. So after that first crucial battle is won, and he consolidates his power, he will be compelled to move against them if he expects to move forward and effectively implement his policies.

    At which point he can:

    (2) Neuter the upper levels of the IC Community, by releasing to the public the entire un-redacted 6700 page torture report, and indicting for war crimes everyone at CIA who were involved in torture. Command authority goes all the way to the top.

    (3) Rip the Congress a new one by indicting everyone who initiated and engaged in the Iraq war through the AUMF for Iraq or follow-on funding. Plus all those Neocons who are up to their eyeballs in culpability -- not to mention treason -- for conspiracy to commit war crimes in Iraq by providing the phony intel used by Bush/Cheney to take the US into that illegal war.

    (My wife is calling me to go shopping with her, so you guys will have to take it from there.)
  4. The end result of Brennan’s fulminations likely is nuclear war, since he seems to consider even contact with the Russians treasonous. His view is both fascist and nihilist and treasonous to civilization itself and a threat to our survival.

    Read More
    • Replies: @LauraMR
    Is he an Anglo-Zionist?

    I kind of missed a reference to the true puppet-masters in the article...
    , @annamaria
    Brennan is just a regular profiteering opportunist. Someone needs to remind the scoundrel that the civil war in Ukraine (initiated by an illegal Kievan junta sponsored and installed by the US), had started immediately upon Brennan's arrival to Kiev in 2014. He tried to make the visit secret but this did not work and Brennan's presence in Ukraine became widely known: https://sputniknews.com/world/20140415189240842-ANALYSIS-CIA-Director-Brennans-Trip-to-Ukraine-Initiates-Use-Of/
    "CIA Director John Brennan visited Ukraine over the weekend, information that was confirmed by White House Press Secretary Jay Carney on Monday, after being reported by media on Sunday.
    Over the same weekend, Kiev authorities cracked down on pro-federalization protests in eastern Ukraine. Regime troops advanced toward a number of cities in eastern Ukraine Tuesday to attack the protesters. “Brennan’s appearance in Kiev just before the announcement of a violent crackdown in eastern Ukraine is just too timely to assume that it is a coincidence,” Turbeville [an American international affairs expert] said.
    “Brennan, who has been actively involved in arming insurgents in Libya, Syria and Venezuela, has a reputation for using thuggish tactics in pursuit of CIA goals,” Wayne Madsen, an American investigative journalist told RIA Novosti."
    This is a fact showing the US' direct meddling in the affairs of another state and in creating a war on a border with Russian federation. Brennan has been so much immersed in lies and politicking and war crimes that it is impossible to expect any decent reasoning from this miserable opportunist.
  5. It all seems quite simple to me.
    After WWI the USA people decided that their sons should not die ever more for imperialism.
    Isolation, neutrality laws.
    In 1932 Roosevelt was brought into politics to make the USA great, great as the country controlling the world.
    Trump and his rich friends understand that this policy is not just ruining the USA, but is ruining them personally.
    If I’m right in this, it is the greatest change in USA foreign policy since 1932.
    Of course those, their mouth pieces Washpost, CNN and NYT, who still want USA control of the world, have aligned their careers on this policy, do anything to get rid of Trump.
    As Russia is seen by them as the next country to be subjugated, any talk with this ‘enemy’ to them is high treason.

    Read More
  6. Russ says:

    Lisa Frank has recently (5/18/2017) written beautifully on the topic of Comey in the FBI:

    http://stateofthenation2012.com/?p=72788

    Just as Ms. Frank dissects Comey’s background and motivations, so a similar dissection is now in order for Mr. Brennan.

    Read More
  7. LauraMR says:
    @exiled off mainstreet
    The end result of Brennan's fulminations likely is nuclear war, since he seems to consider even contact with the Russians treasonous. His view is both fascist and nihilist and treasonous to civilization itself and a threat to our survival.

    Is he an Anglo-Zionist?

    I kind of missed a reference to the true puppet-masters in the article…

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Alarmist

    "Is he an Anglo-Zionist?"
     
    Scuttlebutt has it he is a closeted-Muslim. The most Snopes will say on this is that it is unproven.

    http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/brennan.asp
    , @truthtellerAryan
    Who in our government, in the last seventy some years hasn't been a stooge of the Zionists? Even our great "White hope", DJT, is circling in the same orbit, and trying very hard to keep in step with the dance.......
  8. Renoman says:

    I’ll say it again “what has Russia ever done to the USA”? The answer is Nothing!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tom Welsh
    “[W]hat has Russia ever done to the USA”?

    Er, supported the US government during the American Civil War? Given it Alaska for a token payment? Won WW2 for it?
    , @Hibernian
    Internal subversion. Not so much by the nation Russia as by those who ruled it 1917-1991.
  9. mp says:

    Is someone going to look in to how the Izzys influence our politicians and elections? No. Why? Because Russia is the “enemy” and Israel is our “ally.” Can someone explain in simple terms why Russia is the enemy? Yes. Because Jews don’t like them very much. Can someone explain in simple terms why Israel is our ally? Because of New York City, Hollywood, CNN, Fox, MSNBC, CBS and NBC, the major newspapers, Wall Street, porn, military subsidies, dual citizenship, etc. And because every president just can’t wait to wear the beanie and genuflect at some wall. Any other questions?

    Read More
    • Replies: @DaveE
    "Any other questions?"

    Yes. My question is why you omitted, in no particular order, control of "academia", control of the judiciary, control of the FED and the banking system, control of the Churches, control of DHS, control of all the "intelligence" agencies, control of things like the SPLC, AIPAC, so many "foundations" and "nonprofits" and last but not least, control of the dog-pound and Humane Society?
  10. Tom Welsh says:

    ” One might well consider that at the time and even to this day Russia was not and is not a declared enemy of the United States and meeting Russians is not a criminal offense”.

    Although in point of fact the USA has committed, and continues to commit, acts of war against Russia.

    Read More
  11. Tom Welsh says:
    @Renoman
    I'll say it again "what has Russia ever done to the USA"? The answer is Nothing!

    “[W]hat has Russia ever done to the USA”?

    Er, supported the US government during the American Civil War? Given it Alaska for a token payment? Won WW2 for it?

    Read More
    • Replies: @alexander
    I think something fascinating is going on, Tom.

    Our leaders made a choice to defraud us into the Iraq war.

    Russia didn't.

    This is a very serious crime for which there has been zero accountability.

    It seems that all the various people who should be in federal prison for having done this, are the
    one's "braying the loudest" about the Russian threat.

    The real crisis in our country is the absence of accountability for the heinous crimes THEY committed, not anything the Russians did.

    If we allow acts of "war fraud" to go unprosecuted, then War Fraud becomes acceptable behavior.

    I do not know of one American, anywhere, who feels this is okay.

    Do you ?
    , @Hibernian
    The first 2 were done by the long gone Czarist regime, which was also friendly at the birth of our nation. The 3rd isn't true. They didn't win it for us and we didn't win it for them. We were the 2 senior partners and the British were the junior partner. The Canadians, Australians, Free French, etc., were very junior partners. Remember Midway, Guadalcanal, Tarawa, etc. The action wasn't all on the plains (and mountains) of Europe.
  12. How many congressmen and other politicians in Washington are already suborned by AIPAC?
    Is that not AIPAC’s raison d’etre?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Monty Ahwazi
    RealAmerican, that's "anti Semitic" and we're NOT allowed to talk about it
    , @truthtellerAryan
    If we dig thru this one, then all branches of government officials will have to spend the rest of their lives in hard labor prisons, or face a firing squad and all their possessions confiscated for treason. They have sold themselves, our people, and the country to Zionist masters. And they proudly admit this, and we, the sheepish masses see it as something to be proud of......
  13. DanCT says:

    “Because of New York City, Hollywood, CNN, Fox, MSNBC, CBS and NBC, the major newspapers, Wall Street, porn, military subsidies, dual citizenship, etc. ”

    Let’s not forget 911 and it’s ongoing coverup, the State Dept’s Bureau of Near Eastern Affairs exemplifying our bestest ally’s parallel command and control apparatus in every federal agency such as the FBI, etc

    Read More
  14. The only problem I have with the article is understanding the vehemence with which Brennan and Morell are denounced for, as I read it, blathering about unwitting agents who might have co-operated without knowing it. I construed the objection to be based on a foreign intelligence service necessarily seeking to “direct” its agents. It would indeed follow that the agents could not help knowing what they were doing. However….
    Is there not a category of people who Brennan and Morell might be referring to who could be sptly described as useful idiots. You meet them at a writer’s festival, invite them to accept your country’s generous and admiring hospitality and soon have them spouting the memes you have made sure they are fed as well inadvertently feeding you useful titbits of information, especially about people.

    Read More
  15. alexander says:
    @Tom Welsh
    “[W]hat has Russia ever done to the USA”?

    Er, supported the US government during the American Civil War? Given it Alaska for a token payment? Won WW2 for it?

    I think something fascinating is going on, Tom.

    Our leaders made a choice to defraud us into the Iraq war.

    Russia didn’t.

    This is a very serious crime for which there has been zero accountability.

    It seems that all the various people who should be in federal prison for having done this, are the
    one’s “braying the loudest” about the Russian threat.

    The real crisis in our country is the absence of accountability for the heinous crimes THEY committed, not anything the Russians did.

    If we allow acts of “war fraud” to go unprosecuted, then War Fraud becomes acceptable behavior.

    I do not know of one American, anywhere, who feels this is okay.

    Do you ?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tom Welsh
    Alexander, I definitely don't think it's OK, but I am not American - I am British (Scottish, to be exact). Although we have exactly the same problem over here - in miniature - with our local pocket Hitlers strutting around in their jackboots just salivating for the blood of foreigners.

    I think the people who are braying about Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, etc. are doing so largely to distract attention from their own crimes. The following celebrated dialogue explains very clearly how it works.

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction.

    "Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

    "There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."

    "Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

    - Conversation with Hermann Goering in prison, reported by Gustave Gilbert

    , @jilles dykstra
    It is.
    After an investigation of some seven years the lies of Tony Blair were exposed, in a report of considerable size.
    What happened ?
    Nothing.
    Instead of being in jail, the man flies aroud in a private jet, with an enormous income, paid by whom for what, I do not have a clue.
  16. Nor has any evidence been produced to support the claim that it was Russia that hacked the Democratic National Committee (DNC) server

    It doesn’t matter. Mr. Brennan finally found the answer to this 1 billion dollar question why US is suffering in his NBC interview–it is because Russians are untermensch. Russian genetics is wrong and we all were so sweating and suffering over this whole mess., while the answer was so close, on the surface.

    “If you put that in context with everything else we knew the Russians were doing to interfere with the election, and just the historical practices of the Russians, who typically, almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique. So we were concerned.”

    http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/james-clapper-trump-russia-ties-my-dashboard-warning-light-was-n765601

    Read More
  17. @Andrei Martyanov

    Nor has any evidence been produced to support the claim that it was Russia that hacked the Democratic National Committee (DNC) server
     
    It doesn't matter. Mr. Brennan finally found the answer to this 1 billion dollar question why US is suffering in his NBC interview--it is because Russians are untermensch. Russian genetics is wrong and we all were so sweating and suffering over this whole mess., while the answer was so close, on the surface.

    "If you put that in context with everything else we knew the Russians were doing to interfere with the election, and just the historical practices of the Russians, who typically, almost genetically driven to co-opt, penetrate, gain favor, whatever, which is a typical Russian technique. So we were concerned."

    http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/james-clapper-trump-russia-ties-my-dashboard-warning-light-was-n765601

    Correction: I mean Clapper, not Brennan.

    Read More
  18. Agent76 says:

    I know some others actually know you cannot believe spies. Some on the other hand so not.

    Mar 22, 2017 How the CIA Plants News Stories in the Media

    It is no longer disputed that the CIA has maintained an extensive and ongoing relationship with news organizations and journalists, and multiple, specific acts of media manipulation have now been documented.

    August 30, 2015 THE CIA AND THE MEDIA: 50 FACTS THE WORLD NEEDS TO KNOW By Prof. James F. Tracy

    Since the end of World War Two the Central Intelligence Agency has been a major force in US and foreign news media, exerting considerable influence over what the public sees, hears and reads on a regular basis.

    https://www.intellihub.com/the-cia-and-the-media-50-facts-the-world-needs-to-know-2/

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    That even Senator Moynihan, of the CIA Oversight Committee, was lied to by the CIA director, about laying mines in Havana harbour, says enough.

    The CIA is not a secret service, it is a secret army.

    This secret army began drugs production in Afghanistan, mainly for the USA market, when funds for the CIA's war in Afghanistan were insufficient.
  19. Tom Welsh says:
    @alexander
    I think something fascinating is going on, Tom.

    Our leaders made a choice to defraud us into the Iraq war.

    Russia didn't.

    This is a very serious crime for which there has been zero accountability.

    It seems that all the various people who should be in federal prison for having done this, are the
    one's "braying the loudest" about the Russian threat.

    The real crisis in our country is the absence of accountability for the heinous crimes THEY committed, not anything the Russians did.

    If we allow acts of "war fraud" to go unprosecuted, then War Fraud becomes acceptable behavior.

    I do not know of one American, anywhere, who feels this is okay.

    Do you ?

    Alexander, I definitely don’t think it’s OK, but I am not American – I am British (Scottish, to be exact). Although we have exactly the same problem over here – in miniature – with our local pocket Hitlers strutting around in their jackboots just salivating for the blood of foreigners.

    I think the people who are braying about Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, etc. are doing so largely to distract attention from their own crimes. The following celebrated dialogue explains very clearly how it works.

    —————————————————————————————————————–
    We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction.

    “Why, of course, the people don’t want war,” Goering shrugged. “Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don’t want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.”

    “There is one difference,” I pointed out. “In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.”

    “Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.”

    - Conversation with Hermann Goering in prison, reported by Gustave Gilbert

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    I suppose the story is meant to show that Goering wanted war.
    The opposite is true, he sent the Swedish negotiator Dahlerus several times to London in his plane, taking himself care, telephoning with the Dutch authorities, that the Junckers could fly safely over the Netherlands.
    What Goering did not know was that Britain had been preparing for war at least since 1936.
    The march 1939 guarantee to Poland was meant to provoke Hitler to attack Poland.
    The trap worked.

    J.M. Spaight, ‘The SKY’S The LIMIT’, London 1941

    C.P.Snow, ´Science and government’, 1961, Cambridge, Massachusetts

    Simon Newman, ´March 1939, The British guarantee to Poland, A study in the continuity of British Foreign Policy’, 1976, Oxford

    Leonard Mosley, ‘The Reich Marshall, A Biography of Hermann Goering’, London 1974

    A. von Ribbentrop, ´Deutsch-Englische Geheimverbindungen, Britische Dokumente der Jahre 1938 und 1939 im Lichte des Kriegsschuldfrage’, Tübingen 1967
    , @alexander
    Excellent quote, Tom.


    ....And so true.
  20. @Tom Welsh
    Alexander, I definitely don't think it's OK, but I am not American - I am British (Scottish, to be exact). Although we have exactly the same problem over here - in miniature - with our local pocket Hitlers strutting around in their jackboots just salivating for the blood of foreigners.

    I think the people who are braying about Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, etc. are doing so largely to distract attention from their own crimes. The following celebrated dialogue explains very clearly how it works.

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction.

    "Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

    "There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."

    "Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

    - Conversation with Hermann Goering in prison, reported by Gustave Gilbert

    I suppose the story is meant to show that Goering wanted war.
    The opposite is true, he sent the Swedish negotiator Dahlerus several times to London in his plane, taking himself care, telephoning with the Dutch authorities, that the Junckers could fly safely over the Netherlands.
    What Goering did not know was that Britain had been preparing for war at least since 1936.
    The march 1939 guarantee to Poland was meant to provoke Hitler to attack Poland.
    The trap worked.

    J.M. Spaight, ‘The SKY’S The LIMIT’, London 1941

    C.P.Snow, ´Science and government’, 1961, Cambridge, Massachusetts

    Simon Newman, ´March 1939, The British guarantee to Poland, A study in the continuity of British Foreign Policy’, 1976, Oxford

    Leonard Mosley, ‘The Reich Marshall, A Biography of Hermann Goering’, London 1974

    A. von Ribbentrop, ´Deutsch-Englische Geheimverbindungen, Britische Dokumente der Jahre 1938 und 1939 im Lichte des Kriegsschuldfrage’, Tübingen 1967

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tom Welsh
    Nothing in the passage I posted says, or even hints, that Goering personally wanted war. To suggest that it does may reveal a desire to change the subject.

    What Goering did say - cogently and precisely - is that, regardless of the form of government, the people can always be quite easily stirred up to want war. The key sentence is this: "All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger". That is exactly what the US, UK and European governments have been doing for years to justify their terrorist scares and their wars of aggression. And Goering was absolutely right to point out that it works just the same in democracies (or "democracies") as under dictatorships.

    As for your point about Britain having deliberately fomented the war, I don't think that holds water. Britain was grossly - almost grotesquely - underarmed in 1939, and came very close indeed to being conquered in 1940. In my view, it was FDR and his friends who assiduously wound up the Nazis and the Poles to fight one another, and then persuaded the British and French to give Poland guarantees. Everyone believed that, if war came, the USA would immediately join Britain and France in fighting Germany. Alas, they were very much mistaken.
  21. @Agent76
    I know some others actually know you cannot believe spies. Some on the other hand so not.

    Mar 22, 2017 How the CIA Plants News Stories in the Media

    It is no longer disputed that the CIA has maintained an extensive and ongoing relationship with news organizations and journalists, and multiple, specific acts of media manipulation have now been documented.

    https://youtu.be/xT4MZ5N8ABQ

    August 30, 2015 THE CIA AND THE MEDIA: 50 FACTS THE WORLD NEEDS TO KNOW By Prof. James F. Tracy

    Since the end of World War Two the Central Intelligence Agency has been a major force in US and foreign news media, exerting considerable influence over what the public sees, hears and reads on a regular basis.

    https://www.intellihub.com/the-cia-and-the-media-50-facts-the-world-needs-to-know-2/

    That even Senator Moynihan, of the CIA Oversight Committee, was lied to by the CIA director, about laying mines in Havana harbour, says enough.

    The CIA is not a secret service, it is a secret army.

    This secret army began drugs production in Afghanistan, mainly for the USA market, when funds for the CIA’s war in Afghanistan were insufficient.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Agent76
    Unfortunately for you and myself there are literally millions of people in America who do not think or challenge what they read or view as we do apparently. Thanks, *government schooling*.

    Mar 6, 2017 Drug Boss Escobar Worked for the CIA

    The notorious cocaine kingpin Pablo Escobar worked closely with the CIA, according to his son. In this episode of The Geopolitical Report, we look at the long history of CIA involvement in the international narcotics trade, beginning with its collaboration with the French Mafia to using drug money to illegally fund the Contras and overthrow the Sandinista government in Nicaragua.

    https://youtu.be/3bUN9azbYX8
  22. Agent76 says:

    This CIA director? May 19, 2010 Obama advisor John Brennan speaks about the beauty of Islam

    Read More
    • Replies: @Dan Hayes
    Agent76:

    From this video and other facts I can now appreciate the reasons why some have speculated/concluded that Brennan is a Moslem convert!
  23. @alexander
    I think something fascinating is going on, Tom.

    Our leaders made a choice to defraud us into the Iraq war.

    Russia didn't.

    This is a very serious crime for which there has been zero accountability.

    It seems that all the various people who should be in federal prison for having done this, are the
    one's "braying the loudest" about the Russian threat.

    The real crisis in our country is the absence of accountability for the heinous crimes THEY committed, not anything the Russians did.

    If we allow acts of "war fraud" to go unprosecuted, then War Fraud becomes acceptable behavior.

    I do not know of one American, anywhere, who feels this is okay.

    Do you ?

    It is.
    After an investigation of some seven years the lies of Tony Blair were exposed, in a report of considerable size.
    What happened ?
    Nothing.
    Instead of being in jail, the man flies aroud in a private jet, with an enormous income, paid by whom for what, I do not have a clue.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Alarmist

    "Instead of being in jail, the man flies aroud in a private jet, with an enormous income, paid by whom for what, I do not have a clue."
     
    No surprise that some of his paymasters include middle-east regimes, no doubt those to whom the UK sold many weapons, and who have also richly rewarded the Clintons. Speaking of the Devil, Blair's own finanial structure rivals that of his old friends:

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/dec/01/mystery-tony-blair-finances
  24. Agent76 says:

    Dec 12, 2016 Georgia Official Says Homeland Security Tried To Hack Their State’s Voter Database

    While most of the country frets over Russia’s role in the 2016 election, the state of Georgia has come forward saying that they’ve traced an IP from a hack of their voter database right back to the offices of the Department of Homeland Security. Apparently we need to focus on protecting our vote from our own government.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tom Welsh
    "Apparently we need to focus on protecting our vote from our own government".

    I very much doubt if the Deep State needs to resort to such small-scale and easily-detected trickery to retain control.

    As Philip Berrigan pointed out long ago, "If voting made any difference, it would be illegal".
  25. annamaria says:
    @exiled off mainstreet
    The end result of Brennan's fulminations likely is nuclear war, since he seems to consider even contact with the Russians treasonous. His view is both fascist and nihilist and treasonous to civilization itself and a threat to our survival.

    Brennan is just a regular profiteering opportunist. Someone needs to remind the scoundrel that the civil war in Ukraine (initiated by an illegal Kievan junta sponsored and installed by the US), had started immediately upon Brennan’s arrival to Kiev in 2014. He tried to make the visit secret but this did not work and Brennan’s presence in Ukraine became widely known: https://sputniknews.com/world/20140415189240842-ANALYSIS-CIA-Director-Brennans-Trip-to-Ukraine-Initiates-Use-Of/
    “CIA Director John Brennan visited Ukraine over the weekend, information that was confirmed by White House Press Secretary Jay Carney on Monday, after being reported by media on Sunday.
    Over the same weekend, Kiev authorities cracked down on pro-federalization protests in eastern Ukraine. Regime troops advanced toward a number of cities in eastern Ukraine Tuesday to attack the protesters. “Brennan’s appearance in Kiev just before the announcement of a violent crackdown in eastern Ukraine is just too timely to assume that it is a coincidence,” Turbeville [an American international affairs expert] said.
    “Brennan, who has been actively involved in arming insurgents in Libya, Syria and Venezuela, has a reputation for using thuggish tactics in pursuit of CIA goals,” Wayne Madsen, an American investigative journalist told RIA Novosti.”
    This is a fact showing the US’ direct meddling in the affairs of another state and in creating a war on a border with Russian federation. Brennan has been so much immersed in lies and politicking and war crimes that it is impossible to expect any decent reasoning from this miserable opportunist.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Rurik

    the civil war in Ukraine (initiated by an illegal Kievan junta sponsored and installed by the US), had started immediately upon Brennan’s arrival to Kiev in 2014
     
    I wouldn't so much call it a civil war, as a ZUSA imposed putsch, installing a Zio-bankster-quisling.

    PG:

    the United States routinely interferes in elections worldwide and that the action taken in various places including Ukraine goes far beyond phone conversations.
     
    getting to the crux of the matter

    when Russia released the phone conversation where ZUS State Dept. - Kagan klan / Zio-bitch Nuland was overheard deciding who was going to be the next president of Ukraine (some democracy), it was this breach of global oligarch protocol that has riled the deepstate Zio-war-scum ever since. Hence all the screeching and hysterics about "Russian hacking".

    The thug Brennan, (as you correctly call him [imagine this mug coming into the room as you're about to be 'enhanced interrogated'])

    http://www.frontpagemag.com/sites/default/files/uploads/2015/03/John_Brennan.jpg

    has his fingerprints not just all over the war crimes and atrocities in Ukraine, but Syria and elsewhere too.

    All these war criminals are all scrambling to undermine Trump in the fear that he'll eventually hold some of them accountable for their serial crimes, treasons, and treachery. Which brings us to this curious comment..

    The desire to bring down the buffoonish Donald Trump is understandable,
     
    what the hell does Mr. G think will replace him?!

    So far the "buffoonish Donald Trump" has not declared a no-fly zone in Syria, as we know the war sow would have by now. He's not materially harmed the Assad regime, but only made symbolic attempts to presumably mollify the war pigs like McBloodstain and co in the zio-media/AIPAC/etc..

    His rhetoric notwithstanding, he seems to be making nice with the Russians, to the apoplectic hysteria of people like Brennan and the Stain.

    In fact the more people like Brennan and Bloodstain and the zio-media and others seem on the brink of madness, the better Trump seems to me every day.

    And if it puts a smelly sock in the mouths of the neocons and war pigs to saber rattle at Iran, with no possibility to actually do them any harm, because of the treaty and Europe's need to respect it, then what's the harm of Trump sounding a little buffoonish if it gets them off his back so that he can circle himself with a Pretorian guard of loyalists and get to the bottom of all of this. I suspect that is what terrifies people like Brennan more than anything else.
  26. alexander says:
    @Tom Welsh
    Alexander, I definitely don't think it's OK, but I am not American - I am British (Scottish, to be exact). Although we have exactly the same problem over here - in miniature - with our local pocket Hitlers strutting around in their jackboots just salivating for the blood of foreigners.

    I think the people who are braying about Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, etc. are doing so largely to distract attention from their own crimes. The following celebrated dialogue explains very clearly how it works.

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction.

    "Why, of course, the people don't want war," Goering shrugged. "Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship."

    "There is one difference," I pointed out. "In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars."

    "Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."

    - Conversation with Hermann Goering in prison, reported by Gustave Gilbert

    Excellent quote, Tom.

    ….And so true.

    Read More
  27. Agent76 says:
    @jilles dykstra
    That even Senator Moynihan, of the CIA Oversight Committee, was lied to by the CIA director, about laying mines in Havana harbour, says enough.

    The CIA is not a secret service, it is a secret army.

    This secret army began drugs production in Afghanistan, mainly for the USA market, when funds for the CIA's war in Afghanistan were insufficient.

    Unfortunately for you and myself there are literally millions of people in America who do not think or challenge what they read or view as we do apparently. Thanks, *government schooling*.

    Mar 6, 2017 Drug Boss Escobar Worked for the CIA

    The notorious cocaine kingpin Pablo Escobar worked closely with the CIA, according to his son. In this episode of The Geopolitical Report, we look at the long history of CIA involvement in the international narcotics trade, beginning with its collaboration with the French Mafia to using drug money to illegally fund the Contras and overthrow the Sandinista government in Nicaragua.

    Read More
  28. Tom Welsh says:
    @jilles dykstra
    I suppose the story is meant to show that Goering wanted war.
    The opposite is true, he sent the Swedish negotiator Dahlerus several times to London in his plane, taking himself care, telephoning with the Dutch authorities, that the Junckers could fly safely over the Netherlands.
    What Goering did not know was that Britain had been preparing for war at least since 1936.
    The march 1939 guarantee to Poland was meant to provoke Hitler to attack Poland.
    The trap worked.

    J.M. Spaight, ‘The SKY’S The LIMIT’, London 1941

    C.P.Snow, ´Science and government’, 1961, Cambridge, Massachusetts

    Simon Newman, ´March 1939, The British guarantee to Poland, A study in the continuity of British Foreign Policy’, 1976, Oxford

    Leonard Mosley, ‘The Reich Marshall, A Biography of Hermann Goering’, London 1974

    A. von Ribbentrop, ´Deutsch-Englische Geheimverbindungen, Britische Dokumente der Jahre 1938 und 1939 im Lichte des Kriegsschuldfrage’, Tübingen 1967

    Nothing in the passage I posted says, or even hints, that Goering personally wanted war. To suggest that it does may reveal a desire to change the subject.

    What Goering did say – cogently and precisely – is that, regardless of the form of government, the people can always be quite easily stirred up to want war. The key sentence is this: “All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger”. That is exactly what the US, UK and European governments have been doing for years to justify their terrorist scares and their wars of aggression. And Goering was absolutely right to point out that it works just the same in democracies (or “democracies”) as under dictatorships.

    As for your point about Britain having deliberately fomented the war, I don’t think that holds water. Britain was grossly – almost grotesquely – underarmed in 1939, and came very close indeed to being conquered in 1940. In my view, it was FDR and his friends who assiduously wound up the Nazis and the Poles to fight one another, and then persuaded the British and French to give Poland guarantees. Everyone believed that, if war came, the USA would immediately join Britain and France in fighting Germany. Alas, they were very much mistaken.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    I'm always amazed when, having mentioned a reasonable number of sources, someone just writes 'I do not think it holds water'.
    Where the idea comes from that Britain came close to being conquered, I wonder.
    Conquered how ?; with what ?
    How anyone could believe the USA would immediately join, same question.
    Except for the fleet the USA had nothing, on top of that there was FDR's promise 'not to send boys oversea unless the USA was attacked'.
    , @chris

    ... it was FDR and his friends who assiduously wound up the Nazis and the Poles to fight one another, and then persuaded the British and French to give Poland guarantees.
     
    Yeah, I think Herbert Hoover in his book: "Freedom Betrayed" makes this point as well.
    , @Wally
    Your lack of knowledge about British military strength is laughable.

    Britain, and each of the Allies, had a larger army, larger air force, more tanks, a larger navy ... than Germany.
    And in fact Britain, with France, the USSR, and the US, 'ruled the world'.

    But the indoctrinated like yourself continue the 'Germans wanted to take over the world' grade school nonsense.

    There were the ‘Nazis’ with the mythological '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers' and there were the ‘Nazis’ without the mythological ’6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’.

    The '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers' are scientifically impossible frauds.
    see the 'holocaust' scam debunked here:
    http://codoh.com
    No name calling, level playing field debate here:
    http://forum.codoh.com

    "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize."

    , @Bill Jones
    So why the clownish treaties with the Senile Poles that the British would gurantee that countries security?

    Germany was economically and scientifically outpacing the UK.
    It had to be destroyed before it did so militarily.

    https://www.amazon.com/1939-Countdown-War-Richard-Overy/dp/0143120069
  29. Tom Welsh says:
    @Agent76
    Dec 12, 2016 Georgia Official Says Homeland Security Tried To Hack Their State’s Voter Database

    While most of the country frets over Russia’s role in the 2016 election, the state of Georgia has come forward saying that they’ve traced an IP from a hack of their voter database right back to the offices of the Department of Homeland Security. Apparently we need to focus on protecting our vote from our own government.

    https://youtu.be/o02YPRErF8o

    “Apparently we need to focus on protecting our vote from our own government”.

    I very much doubt if the Deep State needs to resort to such small-scale and easily-detected trickery to retain control.

    As Philip Berrigan pointed out long ago, “If voting made any difference, it would be illegal”.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Agent76
    Well, another ruler also stated this, "Education is a weapon whose effects depend on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed." Joseph Stalin
  30. @RealAmerican
    How many congressmen and other politicians in Washington are already suborned by AIPAC?
    Is that not AIPAC's raison d'etre?

    RealAmerican, that’s “anti Semitic” and we’re NOT allowed to talk about it

    Read More
  31. Agent76 says:
    @Tom Welsh
    "Apparently we need to focus on protecting our vote from our own government".

    I very much doubt if the Deep State needs to resort to such small-scale and easily-detected trickery to retain control.

    As Philip Berrigan pointed out long ago, "If voting made any difference, it would be illegal".

    Well, another ruler also stated this, “Education is a weapon whose effects depend on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed.” Joseph Stalin

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tom Welsh
    And all this leads us to examine the whole issue of how a democracy can be expected to work. The ideal is that all citizens are intelligent, well-educated, and take care to inform themselves on all political matters. Then they should work actively within the political system by all means available.

    In our current "democracies", the form is maintained at the expense of the substance. Indeed, Western "democracy" is a facade put up and maintained to hide the real sources of power. An education system that does not educate is an important element of such a system. An elaborate disinformation network makes sure that citizens are completely misled about all important issues.

    "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be".

    - Thomas Jefferson to Charles Yancey (1816)
  32. Rurik says: • Website
    @annamaria
    Brennan is just a regular profiteering opportunist. Someone needs to remind the scoundrel that the civil war in Ukraine (initiated by an illegal Kievan junta sponsored and installed by the US), had started immediately upon Brennan's arrival to Kiev in 2014. He tried to make the visit secret but this did not work and Brennan's presence in Ukraine became widely known: https://sputniknews.com/world/20140415189240842-ANALYSIS-CIA-Director-Brennans-Trip-to-Ukraine-Initiates-Use-Of/
    "CIA Director John Brennan visited Ukraine over the weekend, information that was confirmed by White House Press Secretary Jay Carney on Monday, after being reported by media on Sunday.
    Over the same weekend, Kiev authorities cracked down on pro-federalization protests in eastern Ukraine. Regime troops advanced toward a number of cities in eastern Ukraine Tuesday to attack the protesters. “Brennan’s appearance in Kiev just before the announcement of a violent crackdown in eastern Ukraine is just too timely to assume that it is a coincidence,” Turbeville [an American international affairs expert] said.
    “Brennan, who has been actively involved in arming insurgents in Libya, Syria and Venezuela, has a reputation for using thuggish tactics in pursuit of CIA goals,” Wayne Madsen, an American investigative journalist told RIA Novosti."
    This is a fact showing the US' direct meddling in the affairs of another state and in creating a war on a border with Russian federation. Brennan has been so much immersed in lies and politicking and war crimes that it is impossible to expect any decent reasoning from this miserable opportunist.

    the civil war in Ukraine (initiated by an illegal Kievan junta sponsored and installed by the US), had started immediately upon Brennan’s arrival to Kiev in 2014

    I wouldn’t so much call it a civil war, as a ZUSA imposed putsch, installing a Zio-bankster-quisling.

    PG:

    the United States routinely interferes in elections worldwide and that the action taken in various places including Ukraine goes far beyond phone conversations.

    getting to the crux of the matter

    when Russia released the phone conversation where ZUS State Dept. – Kagan klan / Zio-bitch Nuland was overheard deciding who was going to be the next president of Ukraine (some democracy), it was this breach of global oligarch protocol that has riled the deepstate Zio-war-scum ever since. Hence all the screeching and hysterics about “Russian hacking”.

    The thug Brennan, (as you correctly call him [imagine this mug coming into the room as you're about to be 'enhanced interrogated'])

    has his fingerprints not just all over the war crimes and atrocities in Ukraine, but Syria and elsewhere too.

    All these war criminals are all scrambling to undermine Trump in the fear that he’ll eventually hold some of them accountable for their serial crimes, treasons, and treachery. Which brings us to this curious comment..

    The desire to bring down the buffoonish Donald Trump is understandable,

    what the hell does Mr. G think will replace him?!

    So far the “buffoonish Donald Trump” has not declared a no-fly zone in Syria, as we know the war sow would have by now. He’s not materially harmed the Assad regime, but only made symbolic attempts to presumably mollify the war pigs like McBloodstain and co in the zio-media/AIPAC/etc..

    His rhetoric notwithstanding, he seems to be making nice with the Russians, to the apoplectic hysteria of people like Brennan and the Stain.

    In fact the more people like Brennan and Bloodstain and the zio-media and others seem on the brink of madness, the better Trump seems to me every day.

    And if it puts a smelly sock in the mouths of the neocons and war pigs to saber rattle at Iran, with no possibility to actually do them any harm, because of the treaty and Europe’s need to respect it, then what’s the harm of Trump sounding a little buffoonish if it gets them off his back so that he can circle himself with a Pretorian guard of loyalists and get to the bottom of all of this. I suspect that is what terrifies people like Brennan more than anything else.

    Read More
  33. Tom Welsh says:
    @Agent76
    Well, another ruler also stated this, "Education is a weapon whose effects depend on who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed." Joseph Stalin

    And all this leads us to examine the whole issue of how a democracy can be expected to work. The ideal is that all citizens are intelligent, well-educated, and take care to inform themselves on all political matters. Then they should work actively within the political system by all means available.

    In our current “democracies”, the form is maintained at the expense of the substance. Indeed, Western “democracy” is a facade put up and maintained to hide the real sources of power. An education system that does not educate is an important element of such a system. An elaborate disinformation network makes sure that citizens are completely misled about all important issues.

    “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be”.

    - Thomas Jefferson to Charles Yancey (1816)

    Read More
    • Replies: @Agent76
    Government will never give anyone the keys to their plans willingly as this explains clearly.

    Jul 29, 2013 The Origins of the American Public Education System Horace Mann & the Prussian Model of Obedience

    In the 1830's, American Lawmaker Horace Mann visited Prussia and researched its education methodology. He was infatuated with the emperor's method of eliminating free thought from his subjects and designed an education system for Massachusetts directly based on these concepts. The movement then quickly spread nationally.

    https://youtu.be/HZp7eVJNJuw
    , @Carroll Price
    The well-worn adage; "the US has the best democracy money can buy" comes to mind.
  34. Che Guava says:

    As always, a very good article, Mr. Giraldi. The Russki connection thing is the lowest grade of cheap sllme propaganda.

    Although.I do find Kuschner’s becoming an item of interest (or whatever the term is) for the FBI a little interesting.

    The world would be a slightly better place if he were ousted. Fat chance, in my opinion.

    If only you and Mr. Buchanan had the ear of Trump. Better still, senior advisors, I would guess that Mr. Buchanan wouldn’t want the role because of age, but he would still be capable of giviog good advice.

    Tonight I saw posters and electronic adverts for Arianna Grande’s shows in Tokyo. It is oddly billed as The Dangerous Woman tour.

    My first thought was bad taste.

    My second was that it was defiance.

    I know nothing of her songs, would guess that a very few are listenable or enjoyable pop,

    Having checked pics on the WWW, as I said in an earlier post, she clearly wears tights from the waist down most of the time.

    So Abedi’s (cognate with Abedin) choice of targets must have had a connection with Grande’s dress sense.

    The label ‘Dangerous Woman’ is a clear reflection of Milo Yiaonapulous’sDangerous Faggot’.

    This interests me on the pop-culture level. Am not thinking of buying tickets to either shnw, but am thinking to bill it as the ‘Dangerous Woman’ tour has to be spectular bad taste,

    . . , or defiant.

    Read More
  35. @Tom Welsh
    Nothing in the passage I posted says, or even hints, that Goering personally wanted war. To suggest that it does may reveal a desire to change the subject.

    What Goering did say - cogently and precisely - is that, regardless of the form of government, the people can always be quite easily stirred up to want war. The key sentence is this: "All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger". That is exactly what the US, UK and European governments have been doing for years to justify their terrorist scares and their wars of aggression. And Goering was absolutely right to point out that it works just the same in democracies (or "democracies") as under dictatorships.

    As for your point about Britain having deliberately fomented the war, I don't think that holds water. Britain was grossly - almost grotesquely - underarmed in 1939, and came very close indeed to being conquered in 1940. In my view, it was FDR and his friends who assiduously wound up the Nazis and the Poles to fight one another, and then persuaded the British and French to give Poland guarantees. Everyone believed that, if war came, the USA would immediately join Britain and France in fighting Germany. Alas, they were very much mistaken.

    I’m always amazed when, having mentioned a reasonable number of sources, someone just writes ‘I do not think it holds water’.
    Where the idea comes from that Britain came close to being conquered, I wonder.
    Conquered how ?; with what ?
    How anyone could believe the USA would immediately join, same question.
    Except for the fleet the USA had nothing, on top of that there was FDR’s promise ‘not to send boys oversea unless the USA was attacked’.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tom Welsh
    Just to refresh our memories, here is what I wrote:

    "As for your point about Britain having deliberately fomented the war, I don’t think that holds water. Britain was grossly – almost grotesquely – underarmed in 1939, and came very close indeed to being conquered in 1940".

    The people who were running the British government in the late 1930s would barely have been capable of boiling an egg, let alone planning a world war. Their main problem was believing that, because the Great War to End All Wars had been so frightful, it could not happen again. Life doesn't work that way. And how do you fit Mr Chamberlain's performance at Munich with the idea that he was deliberately planning the war that ensued?

    You ask "Where the idea comes from that Britain came close to being conquered, I wonder. Conquered how ?; with what ?"

    That almost made me give up in disgust. You don't need to know much history to have learned about the Battle of France, the Battle of Britain, and the Blitz. All the Germans needed to do was to establish air superiority over the English Channel and some of the South Coast of England for a few days, and they could have landed several divisions. At that point the war would have been over - see Len Deighton's superb novel "SS-GB" for a fictional impression of what might have followed. My parents lived through that, which is one reason I understand it quite well.

    The USA was not very much worse armed than Britain in 1939 - and besides, there was no way that Germany could have reached it other than with U-boats. A declaration of war would not have risked much, but would have had a huge moral and economic impact.

  36. Flavius says:

    The net net for any serious person interested in unvarnished truth is that Comey and Brennan have disgraced themselves and their former organizations, as has the MSM disgraced itself. The formers’ reputations today are or should be at post Church committee lows, without the corresponding prospects for reform. You can stick a fork in the old media drivers of Watergate, the NYT and the WP: they are done, fully occupied by political partisans in every section and on every page which leaves them both cripples with no hope for recovery. If this had been the results of a Russian Intel operation, which it wasn’t, assuming Russia wished us the worst, which it doesn’t, it would be one of the most successful intelligence operations ever conducted. The only question is whether there are enough serious people interested in the truth left in this country to make any of it matter.

    Read More
  37. Tom Welsh says:
    @jilles dykstra
    I'm always amazed when, having mentioned a reasonable number of sources, someone just writes 'I do not think it holds water'.
    Where the idea comes from that Britain came close to being conquered, I wonder.
    Conquered how ?; with what ?
    How anyone could believe the USA would immediately join, same question.
    Except for the fleet the USA had nothing, on top of that there was FDR's promise 'not to send boys oversea unless the USA was attacked'.

    Just to refresh our memories, here is what I wrote:

    “As for your point about Britain having deliberately fomented the war, I don’t think that holds water. Britain was grossly – almost grotesquely – underarmed in 1939, and came very close indeed to being conquered in 1940″.

    The people who were running the British government in the late 1930s would barely have been capable of boiling an egg, let alone planning a world war. Their main problem was believing that, because the Great War to End All Wars had been so frightful, it could not happen again. Life doesn’t work that way. And how do you fit Mr Chamberlain’s performance at Munich with the idea that he was deliberately planning the war that ensued?

    You ask “Where the idea comes from that Britain came close to being conquered, I wonder. Conquered how ?; with what ?”

    That almost made me give up in disgust. You don’t need to know much history to have learned about the Battle of France, the Battle of Britain, and the Blitz. All the Germans needed to do was to establish air superiority over the English Channel and some of the South Coast of England for a few days, and they could have landed several divisions. At that point the war would have been over – see Len Deighton’s superb novel “SS-GB” for a fictional impression of what might have followed. My parents lived through that, which is one reason I understand it quite well.

    The USA was not very much worse armed than Britain in 1939 – and besides, there was no way that Germany could have reached it other than with U-boats. A declaration of war would not have risked much, but would have had a huge moral and economic impact.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    Yes, if the USA had to get involved at all, it should have taken the side of Germany, even just for the symbolic and maybe economic impact.
    , @RadicalCenter
    Do you prefer the African / Muslim future that awaits Britons quite shortly, or is that worse than being conquered by Germans?

    Second question: why should Americans have died to favor Britain (and then the Soviet Union) over Germany in WW1 or WW2?
    , @jilles dykstra
    Chamberlain was a Thirtyniner, the British politicians who believed that Britain was ready for war in 1939.
    Munich 1938 was just show, buying time.
    There was no possibility of German air superiority, Germany had no idea of the British radar system.
    Germany had no heavy long range bombers.
    How would Germany have landed several divisions ?
    With what ?
    Where did you get your knowledge about WWII ?
  38. iffen says:

    Anyone who states that they are “mildly nauseous” at the idea that their actions affected the Presidential election is either a dimwit or a fraud or both.

    Read More
  39. Too funny. It’s okay to spout racial-genetic theories about Russians, but never say anything about Jewish genetics or black IQ being lower.

    Read More
  40. @LauraMR
    Is he an Anglo-Zionist?

    I kind of missed a reference to the true puppet-masters in the article...

    “Is he an Anglo-Zionist?”

    Scuttlebutt has it he is a closeted-Muslim. The most Snopes will say on this is that it is unproven.

    http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/brennan.asp

    Read More
  41. @jilles dykstra
    It is.
    After an investigation of some seven years the lies of Tony Blair were exposed, in a report of considerable size.
    What happened ?
    Nothing.
    Instead of being in jail, the man flies aroud in a private jet, with an enormous income, paid by whom for what, I do not have a clue.

    “Instead of being in jail, the man flies aroud in a private jet, with an enormous income, paid by whom for what, I do not have a clue.”

    No surprise that some of his paymasters include middle-east regimes, no doubt those to whom the UK sold many weapons, and who have also richly rewarded the Clintons. Speaking of the Devil, Blair’s own finanial structure rivals that of his old friends:

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/dec/01/mystery-tony-blair-finances

    Read More
  42. Agent76 says:
    @Tom Welsh
    And all this leads us to examine the whole issue of how a democracy can be expected to work. The ideal is that all citizens are intelligent, well-educated, and take care to inform themselves on all political matters. Then they should work actively within the political system by all means available.

    In our current "democracies", the form is maintained at the expense of the substance. Indeed, Western "democracy" is a facade put up and maintained to hide the real sources of power. An education system that does not educate is an important element of such a system. An elaborate disinformation network makes sure that citizens are completely misled about all important issues.

    "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be".

    - Thomas Jefferson to Charles Yancey (1816)

    Government will never give anyone the keys to their plans willingly as this explains clearly.

    Jul 29, 2013 The Origins of the American Public Education System Horace Mann & the Prussian Model of Obedience

    In the 1830′s, American Lawmaker Horace Mann visited Prussia and researched its education methodology. He was infatuated with the emperor’s method of eliminating free thought from his subjects and designed an education system for Massachusetts directly based on these concepts. The movement then quickly spread nationally.

    https://youtu.be/HZp7eVJNJuw

    Read More
  43. @Tom Welsh
    Just to refresh our memories, here is what I wrote:

    "As for your point about Britain having deliberately fomented the war, I don’t think that holds water. Britain was grossly – almost grotesquely – underarmed in 1939, and came very close indeed to being conquered in 1940".

    The people who were running the British government in the late 1930s would barely have been capable of boiling an egg, let alone planning a world war. Their main problem was believing that, because the Great War to End All Wars had been so frightful, it could not happen again. Life doesn't work that way. And how do you fit Mr Chamberlain's performance at Munich with the idea that he was deliberately planning the war that ensued?

    You ask "Where the idea comes from that Britain came close to being conquered, I wonder. Conquered how ?; with what ?"

    That almost made me give up in disgust. You don't need to know much history to have learned about the Battle of France, the Battle of Britain, and the Blitz. All the Germans needed to do was to establish air superiority over the English Channel and some of the South Coast of England for a few days, and they could have landed several divisions. At that point the war would have been over - see Len Deighton's superb novel "SS-GB" for a fictional impression of what might have followed. My parents lived through that, which is one reason I understand it quite well.

    The USA was not very much worse armed than Britain in 1939 - and besides, there was no way that Germany could have reached it other than with U-boats. A declaration of war would not have risked much, but would have had a huge moral and economic impact.

    Yes, if the USA had to get involved at all, it should have taken the side of Germany, even just for the symbolic and maybe economic impact.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Carroll Price
    Except for the fact that by the late 1930s, Zionist already had full control of US foreign policy, the US very well may have sided with Germany against Communist-run Russia.
  44. @Tom Welsh
    Just to refresh our memories, here is what I wrote:

    "As for your point about Britain having deliberately fomented the war, I don’t think that holds water. Britain was grossly – almost grotesquely – underarmed in 1939, and came very close indeed to being conquered in 1940".

    The people who were running the British government in the late 1930s would barely have been capable of boiling an egg, let alone planning a world war. Their main problem was believing that, because the Great War to End All Wars had been so frightful, it could not happen again. Life doesn't work that way. And how do you fit Mr Chamberlain's performance at Munich with the idea that he was deliberately planning the war that ensued?

    You ask "Where the idea comes from that Britain came close to being conquered, I wonder. Conquered how ?; with what ?"

    That almost made me give up in disgust. You don't need to know much history to have learned about the Battle of France, the Battle of Britain, and the Blitz. All the Germans needed to do was to establish air superiority over the English Channel and some of the South Coast of England for a few days, and they could have landed several divisions. At that point the war would have been over - see Len Deighton's superb novel "SS-GB" for a fictional impression of what might have followed. My parents lived through that, which is one reason I understand it quite well.

    The USA was not very much worse armed than Britain in 1939 - and besides, there was no way that Germany could have reached it other than with U-boats. A declaration of war would not have risked much, but would have had a huge moral and economic impact.

    Do you prefer the African / Muslim future that awaits Britons quite shortly, or is that worse than being conquered by Germans?

    Second question: why should Americans have died to favor Britain (and then the Soviet Union) over Germany in WW1 or WW2?

    Read More
  45. @Tom Welsh
    Just to refresh our memories, here is what I wrote:

    "As for your point about Britain having deliberately fomented the war, I don’t think that holds water. Britain was grossly – almost grotesquely – underarmed in 1939, and came very close indeed to being conquered in 1940".

    The people who were running the British government in the late 1930s would barely have been capable of boiling an egg, let alone planning a world war. Their main problem was believing that, because the Great War to End All Wars had been so frightful, it could not happen again. Life doesn't work that way. And how do you fit Mr Chamberlain's performance at Munich with the idea that he was deliberately planning the war that ensued?

    You ask "Where the idea comes from that Britain came close to being conquered, I wonder. Conquered how ?; with what ?"

    That almost made me give up in disgust. You don't need to know much history to have learned about the Battle of France, the Battle of Britain, and the Blitz. All the Germans needed to do was to establish air superiority over the English Channel and some of the South Coast of England for a few days, and they could have landed several divisions. At that point the war would have been over - see Len Deighton's superb novel "SS-GB" for a fictional impression of what might have followed. My parents lived through that, which is one reason I understand it quite well.

    The USA was not very much worse armed than Britain in 1939 - and besides, there was no way that Germany could have reached it other than with U-boats. A declaration of war would not have risked much, but would have had a huge moral and economic impact.

    Chamberlain was a Thirtyniner, the British politicians who believed that Britain was ready for war in 1939.
    Munich 1938 was just show, buying time.
    There was no possibility of German air superiority, Germany had no idea of the British radar system.
    Germany had no heavy long range bombers.
    How would Germany have landed several divisions ?
    With what ?
    Where did you get your knowledge about WWII ?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Sparkon
    You wrote:

    There was no possibility of German air superiority, Germany had no idea of the British radar system.
     
    From the BBC:

    In August, they launched Eagle Attack (Adlerangriff) and began to target RAF airfields and infrastructure in order to control the skies over South-East England.

    After some preliminary raids on radar stations on the 12th, Tuesday 13 August was designated 'Eagle Day'. The Luftwaffe set about destroying the RAF in earnest with raids on nine airfields.
    [...]
    RAF losses were now becoming unsustainable. In the last week of August and first week of September, 112 RAF pilots died and 256 planes were lost. Ground crews also suffered heavy casualties and many maintenance facilities were wiped out. The massive damage to the stations meant, in some cases, small civilian airfields were being used.

    However, Goering did not seem to realise the Luftwaffe was so close to overpowering the RAF. Frustrated by the seemingly endless numbers of British fighter planes, he changed his tactics again. This time he switched to the sustained bombing of London, although this was partly due to Hitler's order of retaliation for the attacks on Berlin.
     

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/events/germany_attacks_raf_fighter_command

    So, the story is not so simple. If the BBC's account is accurate, it would seem that the Luftwaffe could have gained air superiority over England if it had continued its attacks on the RAF and its facilities. With air superiority over an island nation, even Germany's tactical air force could have reduced--if not eliminated--England's ability and desire to wage war.

    There is no way any Allied forces are able to form up in England for a cross-channel invasion with the Luftwaffe in control of the overhead airspace, or with England out of the war entirely, so failure to prosecute the air campaign against Fighter Command was a major war-losing move for the 3rd Reich.

    But already Germans in high places knew that England would win the war. I think Churchill called this "the worm in the apple."

    Did the worm hack the apple? Did Churchill collude with the worm?

    More to the off-topic point, did Churchill really say this to American General Robert E. Wood, in November 1936?


    “Germany is becoming too strong. We must crush her.”
     
    And of course, if you're going to crush Germany, so much the better if Germany can't crush back. This is the arrangement Winston had with his younger brother Jack when they played toy soldiers. Only Winston's forces could have cannon.

    Amazingly, even the Italians had a heavy bomber, the Piaggio P.108, and the Japanese had several, but alone among the major combatants of WWII, Germany's Luftwaffe did not field a heavy bomber during the war.

    So everybody else has heavy bombers, but the Germans have none. We know how that worked out, which echoes the wise advice against showing up for a gunfight armed only with a knife.

  46. chris says:
    @Tom Welsh
    Nothing in the passage I posted says, or even hints, that Goering personally wanted war. To suggest that it does may reveal a desire to change the subject.

    What Goering did say - cogently and precisely - is that, regardless of the form of government, the people can always be quite easily stirred up to want war. The key sentence is this: "All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger". That is exactly what the US, UK and European governments have been doing for years to justify their terrorist scares and their wars of aggression. And Goering was absolutely right to point out that it works just the same in democracies (or "democracies") as under dictatorships.

    As for your point about Britain having deliberately fomented the war, I don't think that holds water. Britain was grossly - almost grotesquely - underarmed in 1939, and came very close indeed to being conquered in 1940. In my view, it was FDR and his friends who assiduously wound up the Nazis and the Poles to fight one another, and then persuaded the British and French to give Poland guarantees. Everyone believed that, if war came, the USA would immediately join Britain and France in fighting Germany. Alas, they were very much mistaken.

    … it was FDR and his friends who assiduously wound up the Nazis and the Poles to fight one another, and then persuaded the British and French to give Poland guarantees.

    Yeah, I think Herbert Hoover in his book: “Freedom Betrayed” makes this point as well.

    Read More
  47. Avery says:

    {Second question: why should Americans have died to favor Britain (and then the Soviet Union) over Germany in WW1 or WW2?}

    As to Britain and Nazi Germany:

    Hitler _declared_ war on US, No? Yes.
    When a country declares war on you, what are you supposed to do?
    Say “No Thanks”?

    As to SU: percentage wise very few Americans, quote, ‘…died to favour Soviet Union….’.
    Despite the Hollywood propaganda such as “Battle of the Bulge”, and “Saving Private Ryan”, and “Where Eagles Dare” and……the Red Army and people of Soviet Union did the Lion’s share of the ‘died’ to crush the Nazi war machine: ~80% of Wehrmacht, their toughest and best divisions – were crushed and destroyed on the Eastern Front.
    At the cost of about 10+ million Red Army troops.

    Read More
    • Replies: @jilles dykstra
    Very early after GB declared war on Germany FDR ordered the USA navy to escort convoys to GB.
    The USA navy deliberately tried to provoke the German navy, but Hitler had ordered his navy to avoid hostile action at any cost.
    But indeed, when FDR's oil boycott of Japan was a success, the USA was attacked, so FDR could wage war, Hiter declared war on the USA.
    His reason was simple, he thought the German people would prefer war declared by them to war war declared on them.
  48. Avery says:
    @RadicalCenter
    Do you prefer the African / Muslim future that awaits Britons quite shortly, or is that worse than being conquered by Germans?

    Second question: why should Americans have died to favor Britain (and then the Soviet Union) over Germany in WW1 or WW2?

    #48 Reply to #47

    Read More
  49. @LauraMR
    Is he an Anglo-Zionist?

    I kind of missed a reference to the true puppet-masters in the article...

    Who in our government, in the last seventy some years hasn’t been a stooge of the Zionists? Even our great “White hope”, DJT, is circling in the same orbit, and trying very hard to keep in step with the dance…….

    Read More
  50. @RealAmerican
    How many congressmen and other politicians in Washington are already suborned by AIPAC?
    Is that not AIPAC's raison d'etre?

    If we dig thru this one, then all branches of government officials will have to spend the rest of their lives in hard labor prisons, or face a firing squad and all their possessions confiscated for treason. They have sold themselves, our people, and the country to Zionist masters. And they proudly admit this, and we, the sheepish masses see it as something to be proud of……

    Read More
  51. Dan Hayes says:
    @Agent76
    This CIA director? May 19, 2010 Obama advisor John Brennan speaks about the beauty of Islam

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7VQbAhqHoAo

    Agent76:

    From this video and other facts I can now appreciate the reasons why some have speculated/concluded that Brennan is a Moslem convert!

    Read More
    • Replies: @Agent76
    This is why I work diligently to seek and verify allot of what I read and view now for well over 20 years as a former web site administrator. Thank you, for your time and comment and please share if you would like as well.
  52. Our service men take an oath to preserve, protect and defend the constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. John Brennan is a domestic enemy. He should be apprehended, tried for treason, convicted and hung by the neck until dead, preferably in public by the military. Add Comey and Clapper to that fate as well. And there are some many more.

    Read More
  53. Svigor says:

    When the Cold War was at its peak, and World War 3 was far more likely, “American” lefties (Big Media, academia, Democrats, etc.) ran interference for actual commie spies. Now that the Cold War is over, lefties are using any association with Russians at all to smear Trump (but not Hussein, who also opened secret back channel communications with the Russians).

    The Washington Post and a number of other mainstream media outlets are sensing blood in the water in the wake of former CIA Director John Brennan’s public testimony before the House Intelligence Committee.

    It’s impossible to know what these idiots “sense,” given that they’ve cranked the dial up to “all lies and bullshit, all the time.”

    They can prove nothing of substance, and they will prove nothing of substance. That’s pretty much 99% clear by now.

    They’re like the Germans in the thirties; they figure “everyone was doing it!” will be their defense.

    Read More
  54. Svigor says:

    And who gives a fuck what anonymous sources said? Their credibility is shit now. Zero. Zero divided by infinity.

    I wipe my ass with these people.

    he precise money quote by Brennan that the two articles chiefly rely on is “I encountered and am aware of information and intelligence that revealed contacts and interactions between Russian officials and US persons involved in the Trump campaign that I was concerned about because of known Russian efforts to suborn such individuals. It raised questions in my mind whether or not Russia was able to gain the co-operation of those individuals.”

    100% nothingburger. There isn’t even probable cause there, much less actual evidence of guilt.

    Somebody with a radio show needs to cue up the “you got-a-sheeitaaa!” quote from Tommy Lee Jones in Natural Born Killers and play it over and over for these idiots.

    It’s an exaggeration to say they got shit, though. They have zero, which is less than shit.

    Their shit is so far below shit that there isn’t even any TRUMPED UP evidence.

    been sought or possibly inspired by Brennan unofficially in the first place. But whatever the provenance of the intelligence, it is clear that Brennan then used that information to request an FBI investigation into a possible Russian operation directed against potential key advisers if Trump were to somehow get nominated and elected, which admittedly was a longshot at the time. That is how Russiagate began.

    Hell, could the Russians have come up with a better plot to delegitimize the democratically elected gov’t of the United States than the media has been carrying out against this administration? Why would they need to undermine our gov’t? (((Big Media))) is more than happy to do it for them, and much more capable.

    Note that Brennan, presumably deliberately, did not say “suborn those individuals.” Sure, Russian intelligence (and CIA, MI-6, and Mossad as well as a host of others) seek to recruit people with access to politically useful information. That is what they do for a living, but Brennan is not saying that he has or saw any evidence that that was the case with the Trump associates. He is speaking generically of “such individuals” because he knows that spies, inter alia, recruit politicians and the Russians presumably, like the Americans and British, do so aggressively.

    Well said, but I submit that anyone who needs this explained to him (that piece of shit Brennan’s shyster language included) should just back the Hell away from politics; he doesn’t have the mental tools to form an intelligent opinion.

    P.S., Seth Rich is the source of the leaked DNC documents, not Russian Hackers.

    If Trump shot someone in the middle of 5th Avenue, I would cheer…if it was the likes of Brennan (a known partisan hack) & co.

    Read More
  55. Svigor says:

    You know, I’m starting to understand the Konspiracy Kooks. The gov’t and Big Media have gone so far over to lying as a way of life, that I’m starting to understand the instinct to just throw BS back at them.

    E.g., I’m not really sure if Seth Rich was the source of the leaks. But I’ve now taken to asserting it as irrefutable fact, simply because it puts a thumb in the shitbirds’ eye.

    Fight fire with fire, fight disinfo with disinfo.

    Read More
    • Replies: @RobinG

    E.g., I’m not really sure if Seth Rich was the source of the leaks. But I’ve now taken to asserting it as irrefutable fact, simply because it puts a thumb in the shitbirds’ eye.


     
    Excellent.
    , @utu
    If Russia's media (RT and Sputnik) were on par with Western MSM propaganda machine they would have been pumping Seth Rich story already in August 2016 right after they got call from CIA boss (August 4) telling them to stop meddling in US election. But they did not do it because they suck.
  56. Svigor says:

    Trump has turned over the rock, and every worm and nasty thing in the Republic is wriggling out. And that wriggling, squirming, writhing mess is what runs the country.

    Read More
  57. wootendw says:

    This is all an obvious coup attempt. If ‘successful’, there are many forms it could take, both ‘legal’ or extralegal such as an election do-over. Would Trump cooperate in an illegal coup? Hopefully not.
    Perhaps ‘our’ government will disintegrate into violent factions, at war with each other before finally destroying itself while leaving the rest of US largely untouched. This would be the best outcome. After all, look what happened to Japan and Germany after their governments were destroyed in the second WW.

    Read More
  58. Svigor says:

    The MSM tells us that 17 intelligence agencies agree that the Russians hacked the election and thereby influenced it, but when you dig a little you find that NSA, for example, did not express a high degree of confidence that this might have actually been the case.

    And only 3 of the agencies were actually involved (FBI, NSA, CIA), and the data was massaged by political hacks after it left the agencies’ hands, and it wasn’t produced by legitimate, established intelligence procedures (all of this, even if you ignore their 3=17 “math”).

    Er, supported the US government during the American Civil War?

    K, yeah, that’s pretty bad. Makes me want to punch a random Russian in the mouth, actually.

    How many congressmen and other politicians in Washington are already suborned by AIPAC?
    Is that not AIPAC’s raison d’etre?

    Treason doth never prosper: what’s the reason? Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason.

    As for your point about Britain having deliberately fomented the war, I don’t think that holds water. Britain was grossly – almost grotesquely – underarmed in 1939, and came very close indeed to being conquered in 1940.

    What do you have to snort to believe that Germany would have been able to successfully invade Britain in 1940? It would have taken years for them to get their Navy in sufficient shape, even had they won the war on the continent. The British Navy crapped bigger than the German Navy.

    Read More
  59. DaveE says:
    @mp
    Is someone going to look in to how the Izzys influence our politicians and elections? No. Why? Because Russia is the "enemy" and Israel is our "ally." Can someone explain in simple terms why Russia is the enemy? Yes. Because Jews don't like them very much. Can someone explain in simple terms why Israel is our ally? Because of New York City, Hollywood, CNN, Fox, MSNBC, CBS and NBC, the major newspapers, Wall Street, porn, military subsidies, dual citizenship, etc. And because every president just can't wait to wear the beanie and genuflect at some wall. Any other questions?

    “Any other questions?”

    Yes. My question is why you omitted, in no particular order, control of “academia”, control of the judiciary, control of the FED and the banking system, control of the Churches, control of DHS, control of all the “intelligence” agencies, control of things like the SPLC, AIPAC, so many “foundations” and “nonprofits” and last but not least, control of the dog-pound and Humane Society?

    Read More
  60. Svigor says:

    And only 3 of the agencies were actually involved (FBI, NSA, CIA), and the data was massaged by political hacks after it left the agencies’ hands, and it wasn’t produced by legitimate, established intelligence procedures (all of this, even if you ignore their 3=17 “math”).

    Oh, and I forgot to mention, the authors were cherry-picked by partisan hacks, in contravention of proper intelligence procedures. That report is 100% baloney.

    This is all according to an Unz.com contributor’s assessment. It may even have been Giraldi’s, I can’t recall.

    Read More
  61. Wally says: • Website
    @Tom Welsh
    Nothing in the passage I posted says, or even hints, that Goering personally wanted war. To suggest that it does may reveal a desire to change the subject.

    What Goering did say - cogently and precisely - is that, regardless of the form of government, the people can always be quite easily stirred up to want war. The key sentence is this: "All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger". That is exactly what the US, UK and European governments have been doing for years to justify their terrorist scares and their wars of aggression. And Goering was absolutely right to point out that it works just the same in democracies (or "democracies") as under dictatorships.

    As for your point about Britain having deliberately fomented the war, I don't think that holds water. Britain was grossly - almost grotesquely - underarmed in 1939, and came very close indeed to being conquered in 1940. In my view, it was FDR and his friends who assiduously wound up the Nazis and the Poles to fight one another, and then persuaded the British and French to give Poland guarantees. Everyone believed that, if war came, the USA would immediately join Britain and France in fighting Germany. Alas, they were very much mistaken.

    Your lack of knowledge about British military strength is laughable.

    Britain, and each of the Allies, had a larger army, larger air force, more tanks, a larger navy … than Germany.
    And in fact Britain, with France, the USSR, and the US, ‘ruled the world’.

    But the indoctrinated like yourself continue the ‘Germans wanted to take over the world’ grade school nonsense.

    There were the ‘Nazis’ with the mythological ’6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’ and there were the ‘Nazis’ without the mythological ’6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’.

    The ’6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’ are scientifically impossible frauds.
    see the ‘holocaust’ scam debunked here:

    http://codoh.com

    No name calling, level playing field debate here:

    http://forum.codoh.com

    “To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.”

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anon
    I don't think you read his post. He didn't say any of those things.
  62. RobinG says:
    @Svigor
    You know, I'm starting to understand the Konspiracy Kooks. The gov't and Big Media have gone so far over to lying as a way of life, that I'm starting to understand the instinct to just throw BS back at them.

    E.g., I'm not really sure if Seth Rich was the source of the leaks. But I've now taken to asserting it as irrefutable fact, simply because it puts a thumb in the shitbirds' eye.

    Fight fire with fire, fight disinfo with disinfo.

    E.g., I’m not really sure if Seth Rich was the source of the leaks. But I’ve now taken to asserting it as irrefutable fact, simply because it puts a thumb in the shitbirds’ eye.

    Excellent.

    Read More
  63. Art says:

    Clearly Brennan is out to change the course of history – he is deliberately causing trouble for our democracy – he is a bad guy.

    For the reason of personal revenge, he is willfully and recklessly playing with America’s future.

    Trump challenged the CIA while Brennan was in charge – therefor Brennan is getting even by attacking our election. Brennan is shamelessly killing a no-nothing problem with a political nuke.

    He is the Deep State working against democracy. Brennan is the evil face of power.

    p.s. How many innocent people did this bastard kill with drones, in countries without a declaration of war?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Priss Factor
    He is the Deep State working against democracy. Brennan is the evil face of power.

    Deepocracy
  64. Anon says: • Disclaimer
    @Wally
    Your lack of knowledge about British military strength is laughable.

    Britain, and each of the Allies, had a larger army, larger air force, more tanks, a larger navy ... than Germany.
    And in fact Britain, with France, the USSR, and the US, 'ruled the world'.

    But the indoctrinated like yourself continue the 'Germans wanted to take over the world' grade school nonsense.

    There were the ‘Nazis’ with the mythological '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers' and there were the ‘Nazis’ without the mythological ’6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers’.

    The '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers' are scientifically impossible frauds.
    see the 'holocaust' scam debunked here:
    http://codoh.com
    No name calling, level playing field debate here:
    http://forum.codoh.com

    "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize."

    I don’t think you read his post. He didn’t say any of those things.

    Read More
  65. Read More
    • Replies: @geokat62

    How times have changed.
     
    How they have, indeed.

    Here's the title and subtitle of the article that Priss linked to:


    Trump wants to sell lots of weapons to Riyadh. Why are Israel (and its friends) staying mum?AIPAC sounded the alarm when a popular president wanted to sell arms to the Saudis in 1981; now an unpopular president is doing the same, with little resistance
     
    Here are a few of the more pertinent excerpts:

    The ancient rivalry between Sunni Islam, centered in Saudi Arabia, and Shia Islam, predominant in Iran, took on a political hue almost as soon as the new Iranian regime was installed. Ayatollahs in Iran delivered broadsides against Saudis from the outset, and complained about Saudi treatment of Iranian pilgrims during the annual hajj to Mecca.

    Saudi Arabia and the United States – already close – shared a new interest in keeping Iran from expanding its influence in the region.

    That calculus remains in place nearly 40 years later. The difference is that Iran has sought to become a nuclear power, and one, moreover, with tens of thousands of troops battle hardened by the country’s seemingly endless engagements in the region. Whereas Israel in the 1980s saw Saudi Arabia mostly as a troublemaker with plenty of oil money, it now sees it as a partner with a vital interest in stopping Iran.
     

    Oddly enough, I had recently posted a comment on another thread noting the difference in The Lobby's position this time around vs in the 80s:

    Just came across this interesting headline in the Forward:

    How Jared Kushner Sealed The $110 Billion Saudi Arms Deal

    Does anyone else recall the big shitstorm that ensued after the Reagan administration announced it was considering selling AWACS worth $8.5 billion to the Saudis?

    This time around, instead of the expected condemnation, the deal maker is showered with praise:


    Kushner reportedly played host to a top Saudi delegation on May 1, trying to finalize a $100 billion arms deal. When the going got tough and the price tag seemed a bit high even for the wealthy oil kingdom, Kushner picked up the phone in front of the Saudis, called Lockheed Martin CEO Marillyn A. Hewson, and got her to cut the price.

    Officials speaking to the Times described Kushner’s phone call as “unorthodox” but made clear that there was no legal problem with it. The gesture, which reportedly impressed the Saudi guests, demonstrates how Kushner, like his father-in-law President Trump, has brought the real estate world’s dealmaking practices into high-level White House diplomacy.

    http://forward.com/fast-forward/372499/how-jared-kushner-sealed-the-110-billion-saudi-arms-deal/
     

    Anyone like to hazard a guess as to why the sale of arms to the Saudis is regarded a little differently this time around?

    My guess is, back in the 80s, The Lobby was convinced the arms would be used against the villa. Whereas this time around, they’re convinced they’ll be used against the Iranians.

    It’s all part of The Lobby’s grand strategy:

    Act I – get the dumb clod to attack the Sunnis
    Act II – get the dumb clod to take a Sunni turn
    Act III – get the dumb clod to get the Sunnis (led by KSA) and the Shia (les by IRI) to slaughter each other in a 100 year war (preferably longer) while the villa inexorably expands in the jungle

    http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/are-they-really-out-to-get-trump/#comment-1878843
     

  66. @Art
    Clearly Brennan is out to change the course of history – he is deliberately causing trouble for our democracy - he is a bad guy.

    For the reason of personal revenge, he is willfully and recklessly playing with America’s future.

    Trump challenged the CIA while Brennan was in charge – therefor Brennan is getting even by attacking our election. Brennan is shamelessly killing a no-nothing problem with a political nuke.

    He is the Deep State working against democracy. Brennan is the evil face of power.

    p.s. How many innocent people did this bastard kill with drones, in countries without a declaration of war?

    He is the Deep State working against democracy. Brennan is the evil face of power.

    Deepocracy

    Read More
  67. utu says:
    @Svigor
    You know, I'm starting to understand the Konspiracy Kooks. The gov't and Big Media have gone so far over to lying as a way of life, that I'm starting to understand the instinct to just throw BS back at them.

    E.g., I'm not really sure if Seth Rich was the source of the leaks. But I've now taken to asserting it as irrefutable fact, simply because it puts a thumb in the shitbirds' eye.

    Fight fire with fire, fight disinfo with disinfo.

    If Russia’s media (RT and Sputnik) were on par with Western MSM propaganda machine they would have been pumping Seth Rich story already in August 2016 right after they got call from CIA boss (August 4) telling them to stop meddling in US election. But they did not do it because they suck.

    Read More
  68. @Avery
    {Second question: why should Americans have died to favor Britain (and then the Soviet Union) over Germany in WW1 or WW2?}

    As to Britain and Nazi Germany:

    Hitler _declared_ war on US, No? Yes.
    When a country declares war on you, what are you supposed to do?
    Say "No Thanks"?

    As to SU: percentage wise very few Americans, quote, '...died to favour Soviet Union....'.
    Despite the Hollywood propaganda such as "Battle of the Bulge", and "Saving Private Ryan", and "Where Eagles Dare" and......the Red Army and people of Soviet Union did the Lion's share of the 'died' to crush the Nazi war machine: ~80% of Wehrmacht, their toughest and best divisions - were crushed and destroyed on the Eastern Front.
    At the cost of about 10+ million Red Army troops.

    Very early after GB declared war on Germany FDR ordered the USA navy to escort convoys to GB.
    The USA navy deliberately tried to provoke the German navy, but Hitler had ordered his navy to avoid hostile action at any cost.
    But indeed, when FDR’s oil boycott of Japan was a success, the USA was attacked, so FDR could wage war, Hiter declared war on the USA.
    His reason was simple, he thought the German people would prefer war declared by them to war war declared on them.

    Read More
  69. “Professional standards require intelligence professionals to lie, hide information, or use covert tactics to protect their “cover,” access, sources, and responsibilities. The Central Intelligence Agency expects, teaches, encourages, and controls these tactics so that the lies are consistent and supported (“backstopped”). The CIA expects intelligence officers to teach others to lie, deceive, steal, launder money, and perform a variety of other activities that would certainly be illegal if practiced in the United States. They call these tactics “tradecraft,” and intelligence officers practice them in all the world’s intelligence services” -Hulnick & Mattausch, “Ethics and Morality in U.S. Secret Intelligence”

    I’d simply observe personalities like John Brennan and Michael Morell (we could toss in the likes of Steve Kappes & Cofer Black) apparently suborn themselves to and/or become immersed in the deception aspect to point they likely don’t entirely distinguish fact from fiction. This is certainly an ancient behavior; about the time ‘democracy’ collapsed in ancient Athens, Thucydides had observed:

    “Their judgment was based more upon blind wishing than upon any sound pre-vision; for it is a habit of mankind to entrust to careless hope what they long for, and to use sovereign reason to thrust aside what they do not fancy”

    Read More
  70. geokat62 says:
    @Priss Factor
    How times have changed.

    http://www.timesofisrael.com/trump-wants-to-sell-lots-of-weapons-to-riyadh-why-are-israel-and-its-friends-staying-mum/?utm

    How times have changed.

    How they have, indeed.

    Here’s the title and subtitle of the article that Priss linked to:

    Trump wants to sell lots of weapons to Riyadh. Why are Israel (and its friends) staying mum?AIPAC sounded the alarm when a popular president wanted to sell arms to the Saudis in 1981; now an unpopular president is doing the same, with little resistance

    Here are a few of the more pertinent excerpts:

    The ancient rivalry between Sunni Islam, centered in Saudi Arabia, and Shia Islam, predominant in Iran, took on a political hue almost as soon as the new Iranian regime was installed. Ayatollahs in Iran delivered broadsides against Saudis from the outset, and complained about Saudi treatment of Iranian pilgrims during the annual hajj to Mecca.

    Saudi Arabia and the United States – already close – shared a new interest in keeping Iran from expanding its influence in the region.

    That calculus remains in place nearly 40 years later. The difference is that Iran has sought to become a nuclear power, and one, moreover, with tens of thousands of troops battle hardened by the country’s seemingly endless engagements in the region. Whereas Israel in the 1980s saw Saudi Arabia mostly as a troublemaker with plenty of oil money, it now sees it as a partner with a vital interest in stopping Iran.

    Oddly enough, I had recently posted a comment on another thread noting the difference in The Lobby’s position this time around vs in the 80s:

    Just came across this interesting headline in the Forward:

    How Jared Kushner Sealed The $110 Billion Saudi Arms Deal

    Does anyone else recall the big shitstorm that ensued after the Reagan administration announced it was considering selling AWACS worth $8.5 billion to the Saudis?

    This time around, instead of the expected condemnation, the deal maker is showered with praise:

    Kushner reportedly played host to a top Saudi delegation on May 1, trying to finalize a $100 billion arms deal. When the going got tough and the price tag seemed a bit high even for the wealthy oil kingdom, Kushner picked up the phone in front of the Saudis, called Lockheed Martin CEO Marillyn A. Hewson, and got her to cut the price.

    Officials speaking to the Times described Kushner’s phone call as “unorthodox” but made clear that there was no legal problem with it. The gesture, which reportedly impressed the Saudi guests, demonstrates how Kushner, like his father-in-law President Trump, has brought the real estate world’s dealmaking practices into high-level White House diplomacy.

    http://forward.com/fast-forward/372499/how-jared-kushner-sealed-the-110-billion-saudi-arms-deal/

    Anyone like to hazard a guess as to why the sale of arms to the Saudis is regarded a little differently this time around?

    My guess is, back in the 80s, The Lobby was convinced the arms would be used against the villa. Whereas this time around, they’re convinced they’ll be used against the Iranians.

    It’s all part of The Lobby’s grand strategy:

    Act I – get the dumb clod to attack the Sunnis
    Act II – get the dumb clod to take a Sunni turn
    Act III – get the dumb clod to get the Sunnis (led by KSA) and the Shia (les by IRI) to slaughter each other in a 100 year war (preferably longer) while the villa inexorably expands in the jungle

    http://www.unz.com/pgiraldi/are-they-really-out-to-get-trump/#comment-1878843

    Read More
  71. mcohen says:

    when is red herring kosher.when it has no Marx.

    my joke of the week sums the trump Russian thing up.when all is said and done the “news” will come out looking like a dog pissed on its front page…yellow and soggy.
    I read comey was employed by Lockheed martin but was clintonized.he backed the wrong horse.landed up being trumped.

    Read More
  72. So conjecture is great news. I might add so its bad to have contacts with any foreign entity. The supposition of their argument is that any political or elected official does not or will not have any association with any foreigner. I would like any one please explain to me discerning old fart like myself then why not the same rage or anger is not beholden to any politician or member of congress or the senate that has colluded or have any ties to AIPAC or any other Israeli/zionist organisation. Or why we have no rage against the recent arms sale deal to the House of Saudi.
    Refresh my memory weren’t their collusion with members of the Saudi elites with regards to 9/11.
    Were their numerous reports of vans being found with explosive devices and explosive material residue which happened to be related to the Isreali Secret Intelligence Service ( Mossad) . Havent the Israelis been attending to wounded Takfiri’s from Syria.
    Gee stupid me the Russians are coming. Boy Putin has to be the devil incarnate.
    How Orwellian the times we are living . The dystopia , gas lighting and blatant lies that are being passed as relevant and informative news these days makes me wonder if Cracked and Mad Magazines have become the bearers of truth thru their humouristic sarcasm.

    Read More
    • Replies: @mcohen
    I agree.mad magazine at least was funny.the internet has given power to those that do not rule.the only way to counter that is disinformation.wikileaks is a prime example.previously you had to be wealthy to own a newspaper but today any blogger can say whatever he deems newsworthy and still have an impact.sites like unz regulate the infomation for big news by moderating what is newsworthy
    Comment sections of news organizations are regulated by competing narratives.millions of views are steadily shaped at ground level.interstingly trunp listed those internet news sites in his 200 sites tweet and labeled them fake news.
    What would be good would be a software program that could track on a hourly basis the shaping of consensus.that way the flow of information can be controlled in both directions as this is what changes facts on the ground.online incitement is deadly as manchester like attacks have proven.what we are now seeing is the internet driving radicalism.in fact if one carefully monitors certain patterns of the flow of daily infomation on the internet coupled with real time physical developments not only does one catch a glimpse of the future but it becomes pissible to change the future in the future.
    A good example is trumps refusal to move the us embassy to jerusalem.
    Hohoho and away we go
  73. DES says:

    JFK had secret “back channel” communications with Khrushchev and Brezhnev before he was inaugurated. https://1997-2001.state.gov/www/about_state/history/volume_vi/exchanges.html

    And afterward.

    Heavens! If only we’d known. We could have impeached him!

    Read More
  74. https://kenfm.de/nach-g7-ist-vor-g20/

    Beim G7-Treffen und beim NATO-Gipfel rüttelte niemand am Ziel, die Militärausgaben auf zwei Prozent der Wirtschaftsleistung zu begrenzen. Alle vergiften die Bewusstseinslage der Bevölkerung im Westen mit der Meinung, das Ziel mag vielleicht im Moment noch nicht umzusetzen sein, es ist aber berechtigt. Die Begründung, Russlands Militärpolitik erzwinge diese Last, hält den Fakten nicht Stand. Russland gibt nach dem renommierten Friedensforschungs-Institut SIPRI weniger für Rüstung aus, als der NATO-Partner Saudi-Arabien.

    What one reads on a German site, but not in the USA.
    How the population is poisoned with the idea that two percent of national income should be spent on the military, because Russia makes it necessary.
    In fact, SIPRI states, Russia spends less on ‘defence’ than NATO partner Saudi Arabia.

    How a country as Russia, with an economy comparable to Spain, could threaten Europe, or even the USA, incomprehensible.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Agent76
    Here are two solid reports. June 28, 2016 US-NATO Prepares for War against Russia. Washington’s Objective: Create Divisions between Europe and Russia

    The NATO has increased its presence in Eastern Europe 13 times for the latest years. In order to stop Russia’s revival, the US unwinds military conflicts plots at every possible way.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-nato-prepares-for-war-against-russia-washingtons-objective-create-divisions-between-europe-and-russia/5533377

    Nov 29, 2016 The Map That Shows Why Russia Fears War With USA

    https://youtu.be/L6hIlfHWaGU
  75. Agent76 says:
    @Dan Hayes
    Agent76:

    From this video and other facts I can now appreciate the reasons why some have speculated/concluded that Brennan is a Moslem convert!

    This is why I work diligently to seek and verify allot of what I read and view now for well over 20 years as a former web site administrator. Thank you, for your time and comment and please share if you would like as well.

    Read More
  76. Agent76 says:
    @jilles dykstra
    https://kenfm.de/nach-g7-ist-vor-g20/

    Beim G7-Treffen und beim NATO-Gipfel rüttelte niemand am Ziel, die Militärausgaben auf zwei Prozent der Wirtschaftsleistung zu begrenzen. Alle vergiften die Bewusstseinslage der Bevölkerung im Westen mit der Meinung, das Ziel mag vielleicht im Moment noch nicht umzusetzen sein, es ist aber berechtigt. Die Begründung, Russlands Militärpolitik erzwinge diese Last, hält den Fakten nicht Stand. Russland gibt nach dem renommierten Friedensforschungs-Institut SIPRI weniger für Rüstung aus, als der NATO-Partner Saudi-Arabien.

    What one reads on a German site, but not in the USA.
    How the population is poisoned with the idea that two percent of national income should be spent on the military, because Russia makes it necessary.
    In fact, SIPRI states, Russia spends less on 'defence' than NATO partner Saudi Arabia.

    How a country as Russia, with an economy comparable to Spain, could threaten Europe, or even the USA, incomprehensible.

    Here are two solid reports. June 28, 2016 US-NATO Prepares for War against Russia. Washington’s Objective: Create Divisions between Europe and Russia

    The NATO has increased its presence in Eastern Europe 13 times for the latest years. In order to stop Russia’s revival, the US unwinds military conflicts plots at every possible way.

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/us-nato-prepares-for-war-against-russia-washingtons-objective-create-divisions-between-europe-and-russia/5533377

    Nov 29, 2016 The Map That Shows Why Russia Fears War With USA

    https://youtu.be/L6hIlfHWaGU

    Read More
  77. As I have said before, the people at the top, know the least and know only what they want to believe. It is apparent that Brennan and Morell know little to nothing about street work. The Russians would not interfere in an election for the obvious reason, they may back the loser so it is better to keep off the grass. There is no doubt that Russia was more than willing to negotiate business options with the Trump team- so what? I attempted the same. So what? These so called meetings between two countries are like pocker games. Each stares at each other and gives away nothing. Each tries to read in between the lines, the smiles, the handshake, the grimace, the laugh, the comportment, etc. If anything is said, it is most probably bait and few are dumb enough to bite. So to think that anything revealing or sensitive was said or discussed at these meetings or conversations is absurd. Anyway, that is what MY anonymous source tells me and he is never wrong. Can’t say much more- all classified.

    Read More
  78. mcohen says:
    @falcemartello
    So conjecture is great news. I might add so its bad to have contacts with any foreign entity. The supposition of their argument is that any political or elected official does not or will not have any association with any foreigner. I would like any one please explain to me discerning old fart like myself then why not the same rage or anger is not beholden to any politician or member of congress or the senate that has colluded or have any ties to AIPAC or any other Israeli/zionist organisation. Or why we have no rage against the recent arms sale deal to the House of Saudi.
    Refresh my memory weren't their collusion with members of the Saudi elites with regards to 9/11.
    Were their numerous reports of vans being found with explosive devices and explosive material residue which happened to be related to the Isreali Secret Intelligence Service ( Mossad) . Havent the Israelis been attending to wounded Takfiri's from Syria.
    Gee stupid me the Russians are coming. Boy Putin has to be the devil incarnate.
    How Orwellian the times we are living . The dystopia , gas lighting and blatant lies that are being passed as relevant and informative news these days makes me wonder if Cracked and Mad Magazines have become the bearers of truth thru their humouristic sarcasm.

    I agree.mad magazine at least was funny.the internet has given power to those that do not rule.the only way to counter that is disinformation.wikileaks is a prime example.previously you had to be wealthy to own a newspaper but today any blogger can say whatever he deems newsworthy and still have an impact.sites like unz regulate the infomation for big news by moderating what is newsworthy
    Comment sections of news organizations are regulated by competing narratives.millions of views are steadily shaped at ground level.interstingly trunp listed those internet news sites in his 200 sites tweet and labeled them fake news.
    What would be good would be a software program that could track on a hourly basis the shaping of consensus.that way the flow of information can be controlled in both directions as this is what changes facts on the ground.online incitement is deadly as manchester like attacks have proven.what we are now seeing is the internet driving radicalism.in fact if one carefully monitors certain patterns of the flow of daily infomation on the internet coupled with real time physical developments not only does one catch a glimpse of the future but it becomes pissible to change the future in the future.
    A good example is trumps refusal to move the us embassy to jerusalem.
    Hohoho and away we go

    Read More
  79. […] The Unz Review: What Did John Brennan and Anonymous Sources Really Say? Speaking to a Russian becom… […]

    Read More
  80. Svigor says:

    This time around, instead of the expected condemnation, the deal maker is showered with praise:

    It’s funny how often those two things go together: an unexpected silence or approval from Big Media, and an unexpected silence or approval from the Israel Lobby.

    globalresearch.ca as “solid” = funny.

    P.S., crackpot globalresearch.ca guy, yes, you’re still a crackpot.

    Read More
  81. The defensive tone and the violent language tell us just how dangerous all this is to Trump (and Putin!). What’s very clear from the last paragraph is that Mr Giraldi isn’t defending Trump, he’s defending Putin. The problem is that MacronLeaks proves Russiagate. It is established that at least one named Russian citizen and two named Americans, one of whom worked for the Trump campaign, attempted to plant false and falsified documents in e-mail accounts belonging to members of Macron’s campaign staff, without realising that some of the accounts were fakes set up by Macron himself to trap hackers and that some of the documents were also fakes planted by Macron himself. Further names will probably come out in a few months’ time as the French criminal investigation advances. The similarity with events in the US is striking: a populist, a moderate candidate who is being discredited and an outsider, whose voters were to be persuaded to stay at home, thereby turning the populist’s minority support into a majority of the votes cast. That indicates a single perpetrator and, in the US, Wikileaks was also involved. In addition, Putin received Marine Le Pen in Moscow in the run-up to the election, which indicates Russian government involvement in the manipulation. That two so similar events could be mere coincidence is not credible. With a bit of luck (and probably a lot of money), Putin can be persuaded to step down when his term ends in May 2018 (he’s 65 in October and Europe doesn’t “do” gerontocracy) but having chosen to pick a fight with the US, NATO and the EU, first in Ukraine and later also in Syria, Putin (but not Russia) can legitimately be regarded as an “enemy” at long as he remains in power.

    Read More
  82. Aubrey says:

    So. The campaign is in full swing. Russia wants Trump, the long shot. There are phone calls and meetings to those around Trump.
    Where is Hillary on this large international stage? No attempt to connect with the clear winner of the election, the next and first woman president?
    If Russia was not trying to do to Hillary what you claim they were doing to Trump it brings up a big “Why”.
    It can mean only one thing. Russia had already given Bill Clinton hundreds of thousands of dollars. Hillary, by signing one document as secretary of state, had blessed Russia with twenty percent of the USA’s uranium. Russia paid up promptly to Hillary for services rendered- $125 million to the Clinton foundation.
    If Russia was not trying to influence Hillary it can mean only one thing- Hillary was already in the Russian bag.
    Help me to understand. Why would Russia try to help Trump the Unknown or Trump the No-Chance-of-Winning defeat the candidate that they had already bought and paid for?

    Read More
  83. The desire to bring down the buffoonish Donald Trump is understandable, but buying into government and media lies will only lead to more lies that have real consequences, up to and including the impending wars against North Korea and Iran.

    Since sanctions imposed by the US on Iran and N. Korea have obviously failed to reduce the military readiness of those countries to the level of Boy Scout troops, you can forget about the US attacking those countries in the foreseeable future.

    Read More
  84. Perhaps if Russia floated around as much money in Washington and elsewhere, they could catch a break. The fact that they are so universally reviled by the people with their hands continuously out to grab any cash floating around tells me that they don’t have much influence at all in Washington or with our media around the country.

    The nations who do in fact influence our politicians and the media of course lay out a ton of money. Something tells me that if Russia did the same they would have a lot less trouble. Of course we would need a new boogyman after that, to spend trillions “defending” ourselves from.

    Not that I would agree that pissing away trillions on mythical enemies is a good idea but it would be better if they were not located on this planet. I would suggest that we take a page from the much loved Krugman and wage a defensive war against aliens. Same lousy waste of money but at least it wouldn’t be likely to end with WWIII.

    Read More
  85. @The Alarmist
    It's like climate change: The MSM tells us that 17 intelligence agencies agree that the Russians hacked the election and thereby influenced it, but when you dig a little you find that NSA, for example, did not express a high degree of confidence that this might have actually been the case. Nevertheless, the case is settled. Pravda and Izvestia should have been so convinced in their day.

    “The MSM tells us that 17 intelligence agencies agree that the Russians hacked the election…”

    But if you stayed alert and continued to watch carefully, you found out that — Whoops! — it wasn’t 17 intel agencies that agreed to this assessment. The “all 17 intelligence agencies agree” statement was a baldfaced lie, told from the start to give the lie-within-the-lie more impact, make it more unassailably convincing. But that’s to be expected because the CIA are top-tier professionals of the lying business. Thus the big important lie was greased up for frictionless penetration by the credibility enhancing “everybody, all 17, unanimously declare it’s true” sales pitch.

    Only later, well after the lie had been sold, absorbed, and achieved the status of “established fact” — mission accomplished — do we find out that the “assessment” came from just three: the CIA and FBI, both committed to taking Trump down, and the NSA under Adm. Rogers, who refused to assert confidence in the assessment. So the lie got “half-way round the world” to become the accepted truth by the mind-raped viewers of the Deep State-obsequious MSM, and the truth, for all intents and purposes never “got its boots on” at all.

    I have to add that, from all I see, the Deep State is committed to at least “owning” Trump if not removing him, and that their arrogance after years of virtual control of the state, is such that they feel safe and confident in this plan, and are completely free of any fear of consequences, even any notion of the possibility of consequences. All of which is based on the idea that Trump will lie down for them, that Trump will just suck it up without complaint. Maybe they’re right. But I continue to believe that they are blindly overconfident. That Trump is not just a fighter, but a monster of a bad boy who, when has gotten all his pieces in place for the battle, will drop down on them like the wrath of god, and with the full power of the executive. Thus I await the coming infamous Battle of the DC Swamp.

    Given that reality rarely plays out according to one’s hopes or plans, nevertheless consider these factors:

    (1) the Deep State anti-Trump effort is evidence free. It’s impact is purely political, and works through the flimsy case made with the propagandized public that Trump has done something wrong, and it only works for as long as the “smoke” blinds everyone to truth. Impeachment — which is the only means of removing Trump (other than assassination or forcing his resignation by threatening his family) — requires the capture of both the House & Senate both Republican. If and when the smoke clears, Trump will be safe and the “smoke generators” will be in trouble. So Trump can just wait it out. If he stays frosty, and patient, and just waits it out, the smoke will clear and he will have won this first and most crucial battle,…. by doing nothing at all. (Sun Tzu would approve.)

    But the Deep State — CIA, Neocons, et al — are not going to give up. They will continue to obstruct and conspire — it’s what they do — and I expect that Trump knows this. So after that first crucial battle is won, and he consolidates his power, he will be compelled to move against them if he expects to move forward and effectively implement his policies.

    At which point he can:

    (2) Neuter the upper levels of the IC Community, by releasing to the public the entire un-redacted 6700 page torture report, and indicting for war crimes everyone at CIA who were involved in torture. Command authority goes all the way to the top.

    (3) Rip the Congress a new one by indicting everyone who initiated and engaged in the Iraq war through the AUMF for Iraq or follow-on funding. Plus all those Neocons who are up to their eyeballs in culpability — not to mention treason — for conspiracy to commit war crimes in Iraq by providing the phony intel used by Bush/Cheney to take the US into that illegal war.

    (My wife is calling me to go shopping with her, so you guys will have to take it from there.)

    Read More
  86. Sparkon says:
    @jilles dykstra
    Chamberlain was a Thirtyniner, the British politicians who believed that Britain was ready for war in 1939.
    Munich 1938 was just show, buying time.
    There was no possibility of German air superiority, Germany had no idea of the British radar system.
    Germany had no heavy long range bombers.
    How would Germany have landed several divisions ?
    With what ?
    Where did you get your knowledge about WWII ?

    You wrote:

    There was no possibility of German air superiority, Germany had no idea of the British radar system.

    From the BBC:

    In August, they launched Eagle Attack (Adlerangriff) and began to target RAF airfields and infrastructure in order to control the skies over South-East England.

    After some preliminary raids on radar stations on the 12th, Tuesday 13 August was designated ‘Eagle Day’. The Luftwaffe set about destroying the RAF in earnest with raids on nine airfields.
    [...]
    RAF losses were now becoming unsustainable. In the last week of August and first week of September, 112 RAF pilots died and 256 planes were lost. Ground crews also suffered heavy casualties and many maintenance facilities were wiped out. The massive damage to the stations meant, in some cases, small civilian airfields were being used.

    However, Goering did not seem to realise the Luftwaffe was so close to overpowering the RAF. Frustrated by the seemingly endless numbers of British fighter planes, he changed his tactics again. This time he switched to the sustained bombing of London, although this was partly due to Hitler’s order of retaliation for the attacks on Berlin.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/events/germany_attacks_raf_fighter_command

    So, the story is not so simple. If the BBC’s account is accurate, it would seem that the Luftwaffe could have gained air superiority over England if it had continued its attacks on the RAF and its facilities. With air superiority over an island nation, even Germany’s tactical air force could have reduced–if not eliminated–England’s ability and desire to wage war.

    There is no way any Allied forces are able to form up in England for a cross-channel invasion with the Luftwaffe in control of the overhead airspace, or with England out of the war entirely, so failure to prosecute the air campaign against Fighter Command was a major war-losing move for the 3rd Reich.

    But already Germans in high places knew that England would win the war. I think Churchill called this “the worm in the apple.”

    Did the worm hack the apple? Did Churchill collude with the worm?

    More to the off-topic point, did Churchill really say this to American General Robert E. Wood, in November 1936?

    “Germany is becoming too strong. We must crush her.”

    And of course, if you’re going to crush Germany, so much the better if Germany can’t crush back. This is the arrangement Winston had with his younger brother Jack when they played toy soldiers. Only Winston’s forces could have cannon.

    Amazingly, even the Italians had a heavy bomber, the Piaggio P.108, and the Japanese had several, but alone among the major combatants of WWII, Germany’s Luftwaffe did not field a heavy bomber during the war.

    So everybody else has heavy bombers, but the Germans have none. We know how that worked out, which echoes the wise advice against showing up for a gunfight armed only with a knife.

    Read More
  87. @Tom Welsh
    And all this leads us to examine the whole issue of how a democracy can be expected to work. The ideal is that all citizens are intelligent, well-educated, and take care to inform themselves on all political matters. Then they should work actively within the political system by all means available.

    In our current "democracies", the form is maintained at the expense of the substance. Indeed, Western "democracy" is a facade put up and maintained to hide the real sources of power. An education system that does not educate is an important element of such a system. An elaborate disinformation network makes sure that citizens are completely misled about all important issues.

    "If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be".

    - Thomas Jefferson to Charles Yancey (1816)

    The well-worn adage; “the US has the best democracy money can buy” comes to mind.

    Read More
  88. @RadicalCenter
    Yes, if the USA had to get involved at all, it should have taken the side of Germany, even just for the symbolic and maybe economic impact.

    Except for the fact that by the late 1930s, Zionist already had full control of US foreign policy, the US very well may have sided with Germany against Communist-run Russia.

    Read More
  89. […] The Unz Review: What Did John Brennan and Anonymous Sources Really Say? Speaking to a Russian becom… […]

    Read More
  90. @Jeff Davis
    "The MSM tells us that 17 intelligence agencies agree that the Russians hacked the election..."

    But if you stayed alert and continued to watch carefully, you found out that -- Whoops! -- it wasn't 17 intel agencies that agreed to this assessment. The "all 17 intelligence agencies agree" statement was a baldfaced lie, told from the start to give the lie-within-the-lie more impact, make it more unassailably convincing. But that's to be expected because the CIA are top-tier professionals of the lying business. Thus the big important lie was greased up for frictionless penetration by the credibility enhancing "everybody, all 17, unanimously declare it's true" sales pitch.

    Only later, well after the lie had been sold, absorbed, and achieved the status of "established fact" -- mission accomplished -- do we find out that the "assessment" came from just three: the CIA and FBI, both committed to taking Trump down, and the NSA under Adm. Rogers, who refused to assert confidence in the assessment. So the lie got "half-way round the world" to become the accepted truth by the mind-raped viewers of the Deep State-obsequious MSM, and the truth, for all intents and purposes never "got its boots on" at all.

    I have to add that, from all I see, the Deep State is committed to at least "owning" Trump if not removing him, and that their arrogance after years of virtual control of the state, is such that they feel safe and confident in this plan, and are completely free of any fear of consequences, even any notion of the possibility of consequences. All of which is based on the idea that Trump will lie down for them, that Trump will just suck it up without complaint. Maybe they're right. But I continue to believe that they are blindly overconfident. That Trump is not just a fighter, but a monster of a bad boy who, when has gotten all his pieces in place for the battle, will drop down on them like the wrath of god, and with the full power of the executive. Thus I await the coming infamous Battle of the DC Swamp.

    Given that reality rarely plays out according to one's hopes or plans, nevertheless consider these factors:

    (1) the Deep State anti-Trump effort is evidence free. It's impact is purely political, and works through the flimsy case made with the propagandized public that Trump has done something wrong, and it only works for as long as the "smoke" blinds everyone to truth. Impeachment -- which is the only means of removing Trump (other than assassination or forcing his resignation by threatening his family) -- requires the capture of both the House & Senate both Republican. If and when the smoke clears, Trump will be safe and the "smoke generators" will be in trouble. So Trump can just wait it out. If he stays frosty, and patient, and just waits it out, the smoke will clear and he will have won this first and most crucial battle,.... by doing nothing at all. (Sun Tzu would approve.)

    But the Deep State -- CIA, Neocons, et al -- are not going to give up. They will continue to obstruct and conspire -- it's what they do -- and I expect that Trump knows this. So after that first crucial battle is won, and he consolidates his power, he will be compelled to move against them if he expects to move forward and effectively implement his policies.

    At which point he can:

    (2) Neuter the upper levels of the IC Community, by releasing to the public the entire un-redacted 6700 page torture report, and indicting for war crimes everyone at CIA who were involved in torture. Command authority goes all the way to the top.

    (3) Rip the Congress a new one by indicting everyone who initiated and engaged in the Iraq war through the AUMF for Iraq or follow-on funding. Plus all those Neocons who are up to their eyeballs in culpability -- not to mention treason -- for conspiracy to commit war crimes in Iraq by providing the phony intel used by Bush/Cheney to take the US into that illegal war.

    (My wife is calling me to go shopping with her, so you guys will have to take it from there.)

    It doesn’t have to be true, merely believed.

    Read More
  91. Hi PG, great analysis. What we have here is Bolshevik state being reinstated. Talking to Russians, Palestinians, Iranians etc… is high treason. Patriots converse with AIPAC, JDL, praise Jews who are serving in the IDF as true heroes, and look to Israel as our guide, thus most of our elected officials have to make that pilgrimage to Israel to show their loyalty. The dumb masses just have to hear and believe whatever they are told from MSM. Orders are executed by those closest to the Zionists. If you veer off this path they’ll finish you. The power of the cabal. Israel first , slaves (disposable), second, and America, well as long as it produces the milk for the MASTER RACE
    DJT came up with America First baggage, but as he got crowned, someone opened the bag and put in Israel first goods. Now the Izzies have overwhelmed the Americans. The Zionists are winning this hands down, they are much closer to the POTUS, they’re family…. Israel will remain FIRST!!!!!!!

    Read More
  92. woodNfish says:
    @The Alarmist

    "Is he an Anglo-Zionist?"
     
    Scuttlebutt has it he is a closeted-Muslim. The most Snopes will say on this is that it is unproven.

    http://www.snopes.com/politics/religion/brennan.asp

    Snopes is a leftist propaganda site.

    Read More
    • Replies: @The Alarmist
    Yep ... point being, even Snopes can't reject the assertion.
  93. @woodNfish
    Snopes is a leftist propaganda site.

    Yep … point being, even Snopes can’t reject the assertion.

    Read More
  94. chris says:
    @RobinG
    Thanks for the reassurance, Phil. It's lonely standing against the tide, and many are trying to fabricate excuses for the lack of evidence.

    Take Melvin Goodman, author of Whistleblower at the CIA, for instance. (I realize CIA is a big place, but did you know him?) I've met Mr. Goodman, and he struck me as thoughtful, rational and capable of objective discussion. However, in his talk at the Gaithersburg Book Festival, he seemed a rather different person. At the end of Q&A, he said that he was trying to figure out how the Russians had laundered the "hacked" DNC emails to make it look like they were leaked by an insider. He's sure the Russians did it. With such creative speculation, who needs facts?

    The book, though, is probably pretty good. Which makes it that much stranger that he's taking the political line on the DNC emails!
    https://www.c-span.org/video/?427995-3/whistleblower-cia
    Melvin A. Goodman talked about his book, Whistleblower at the CIA: An Insider’s Account of the Politics of Intelligence.

    He seems to be trying to ingratiate himself with his old bosses, in the hope that if he jumps on the anti-Trump project with them, they’ll let bygones be bygones. His desperate virtue signaling has the advantage of polishing his bonafide Democratic party ideology credentials for all to see. Notice, in what regards the Trump-Russian connection allegations, his starting point is the MSM-Intel presumption of guilt – where’s he getting the Intel from when the Intel agencies haven’t provided one spec of evidence so far?

    His analysis of leaks, is better and better the further he goes back in time, but as he approaches the present, it seems to converge perfectly with the current MSM-Intel establishment line regarding Manning, Snowden and Assange, to the point of laughably calling the NYT, WaPo, WSJ the preeminent newspapers for Intel analysts ! If that’s not sycophantic behavior, I don’t know what is.

    Read More
  95. Hibernian says:
    @Renoman
    I'll say it again "what has Russia ever done to the USA"? The answer is Nothing!

    Internal subversion. Not so much by the nation Russia as by those who ruled it 1917-1991.

    Read More
  96. Hibernian says:
    @Tom Welsh
    “[W]hat has Russia ever done to the USA”?

    Er, supported the US government during the American Civil War? Given it Alaska for a token payment? Won WW2 for it?

    The first 2 were done by the long gone Czarist regime, which was also friendly at the birth of our nation. The 3rd isn’t true. They didn’t win it for us and we didn’t win it for them. We were the 2 senior partners and the British were the junior partner. The Canadians, Australians, Free French, etc., were very junior partners. Remember Midway, Guadalcanal, Tarawa, etc. The action wasn’t all on the plains (and mountains) of Europe.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Bill Jones
    The Russians destroyed some 85% of the Wehrmacht Divisions.
    You could, of course, make the case that Herr schicklegruber did so by invading Russia.
  97. @Tom Welsh
    Nothing in the passage I posted says, or even hints, that Goering personally wanted war. To suggest that it does may reveal a desire to change the subject.

    What Goering did say - cogently and precisely - is that, regardless of the form of government, the people can always be quite easily stirred up to want war. The key sentence is this: "All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger". That is exactly what the US, UK and European governments have been doing for years to justify their terrorist scares and their wars of aggression. And Goering was absolutely right to point out that it works just the same in democracies (or "democracies") as under dictatorships.

    As for your point about Britain having deliberately fomented the war, I don't think that holds water. Britain was grossly - almost grotesquely - underarmed in 1939, and came very close indeed to being conquered in 1940. In my view, it was FDR and his friends who assiduously wound up the Nazis and the Poles to fight one another, and then persuaded the British and French to give Poland guarantees. Everyone believed that, if war came, the USA would immediately join Britain and France in fighting Germany. Alas, they were very much mistaken.

    So why the clownish treaties with the Senile Poles that the British would gurantee that countries security?

    Germany was economically and scientifically outpacing the UK.
    It had to be destroyed before it did so militarily.

    https://www.amazon.com/1939-Countdown-War-Richard-Overy/dp/0143120069

    Read More
  98. @Hibernian
    The first 2 were done by the long gone Czarist regime, which was also friendly at the birth of our nation. The 3rd isn't true. They didn't win it for us and we didn't win it for them. We were the 2 senior partners and the British were the junior partner. The Canadians, Australians, Free French, etc., were very junior partners. Remember Midway, Guadalcanal, Tarawa, etc. The action wasn't all on the plains (and mountains) of Europe.

    The Russians destroyed some 85% of the Wehrmacht Divisions.
    You could, of course, make the case that Herr schicklegruber did so by invading Russia.

    Read More
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Philip Giraldi Comments via RSS
Personal Classics
A Modern Guernica Enabled by Washington
Pressuring Candidates Even Before They Are Nominated
But is it even a friend?
The gagged whistleblower goes on the record.
Today’s CIA serves contractors and bureaucrats—not the nation.
Pay no mind to the Mossad agent on the line.