Guardian Watch, latest, media watch, Propaganda, USA
Comments 41

The CIA’s Absence of Conviction

by Craig Murray

I have watched incredulous as the CIA’s blatant lie has grown and grown as a media story – blatant because the CIA has made no attempt whatsoever to substantiate it. There is no Russian involvement in the leaks of emails showing Clinton’s corruption. Yes this rubbish has been the lead today in the Washington Post in the US and the Guardian here, and was the lead item on the BBC main news. I suspect it is leading the American broadcasts also.

A little simple logic demolishes the CIA’s claims. The CIA claim they “know the individuals” involved. Yet under Obama the USA has been absolutely ruthless in its persecution of whistleblowers, and its pursuit of foreign hackers through extradition. We are supposed to believe that in the most vital instance imaginable, an attempt by a foreign power to destabilise a US election, even though the CIA knows who the individuals are, nobody is going to be arrested or extradited, or (if in Russia) made subject to yet more banking and other restrictions against Russian individuals? Plainly it stinks. The anonymous source claims of “We know who it was, it was the Russians” are beneath contempt.

As Julian Assange has made crystal clear, the leaks did not come from the Russians. As I have explained countless times, they are not hacks, they are insider leaks – there is a major difference between the two. And it should be said again and again, that if Hillary Clinton had not connived with the DNC to fix the primary schedule to disadvantage Bernie, if she had not received advance notice of live debate questions to use against Bernie, if she had not accepted massive donations to the Clinton foundation and family members in return for foreign policy influence, if she had not failed to distance herself from some very weird and troubling people, then none of this would have happened.

The continued ability of the mainstream media to claim the leaks lost Clinton the election because of “Russia”, while still never acknowledging the truths the leaks reveal, is Kafkaesque.

I had a call from a Guardian journalist this afternoon. The astonishing result was that for three hours, an article was accessible through the Guardian front page which actually included the truth among the CIA hype:

The Kremlin has rejected the hacking accusations, while the WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange has previously said the DNC leaks were not linked to Russia. A second senior official cited by the Washington Post conceded that intelligence agencies did not have specific proof that the Kremlin was “directing” the hackers, who were said to be one step removed from the Russian government.
Craig Murray, the former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan, who is a close associate of Assange, called the CIA claims “bullshit”, adding: “They are absolutely making it up.”

“I know who leaked them,” Murray said. “I’ve met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and it’s an insider. It’s a leak, not a hack; the two are different things.

“If what the CIA are saying is true, and the CIA’s statement refers to people who are known to be linked to the Russian state, they would have arrested someone if it was someone inside the United States.
“America has not been shy about arresting whistleblowers and it’s not been shy about extraditing hackers. They plainly have no knowledge whatsoever.”

But only three hours. While the article was not taken down, the home page links to it vanished and it was replaced by a ludicrous one repeating the mad CIA allegations against Russia and now claiming – incredibly – that the CIA believe the FBI is deliberately blocking the information on Russian collusion.  Presumably this totally nutty theory, that Putin is somehow now controlling the FBI, is meant to answer my obvious objection that, if the CIA know who it is, why haven’t they arrested somebody. That bit of course would be the job of the FBI, who those desperate to annul the election now wish us to believe are the KGB.

It is terrible that the prime conduit for this paranoid nonsense is a once great newspaper, the Washington Post, which far from investigating executive power, now is a sounding board for totally evidence free anonymous source briefing of utter bullshit from the executive.

In the UK, one single article sums up the total abnegation of all journalistic standards. The truly execrable Jonathan Freedland of the Guardian writes:

Few credible sources doubt that Russia was behind the hacking of internal Democratic party emails, whose release by Julian Assange was timed to cause maximum pain to Hillary Clinton and pleasure for Trump.”

Does he produce any evidence at all for this assertion? No, none whatsoever. What does a journalist mean by a “credible source”? Well, any journalist worth their salt in considering the credibility of a source will first consider access. Do they credibly have access to the information they claim to have?

Now both Julian Assange and I have stated definitively the leak does not come from Russia. Do we credibly have access? Yes, very obviously. Very, very few people can be said to definitely have access to the source of the leak. The people saying it is not Russia are those who do have access. After access, you consider truthfulness. Do Julian Assange and I have a reputation for truthfulness? Well in 10 years not one of the tens of thousands of documents WikiLeaks has released has had its authenticity successfully challenged. As for me, I have a reputation for inconvenient truth telling.

Contrast this to the “credible sources” Freedland relies on. What access do they have to the whistleblower? Zero. They have not the faintest idea who the whistleblower is. Otherwise they would have arrested them. What reputation do they have for truthfulness? It’s the Clinton gang and the US government, for goodness sake.

In fact, the sources any serious journalist would view as “credible” give the opposite answer to the one Freedland wants. But in what passes for Freedland’s mind, “credible” is 100% synonymous with “establishment”. When he says “credible sources” he means “establishment sources”. That is the truth of the “fake news” meme. You are not to read anything unless it is officially approved by the elite and their disgusting, crawling whores of stenographers like Freedland.

The worst thing about all this is that it is aimed at promoting further conflict with Russia. This puts everyone in danger for the sake of more profits for the arms and security industries – including of course bigger budgets for the CIA. As thankfully the four year agony of Aleppo comes swiftly to a close today, the Saudi and US armed and trained ISIS forces counter by moving to retake Palmyra. This game kills people, on a massive scale, and goes on and on.


Advertisements

41 Comments

  1. Julie says

    The leak has been told in Podesta email named Eric Braverman. If you really want the the truth watch the daily webcast Where is Eric Braverman. Former CEO of Clinton foundation realised he was outed as the leak in Podesta email a and said follow the money and disappeared. Now missing 99 days, but someone is following the money and digging the dirt on Clinton foundation supplying Is is with sarin and stingers watch from day 70. Pass on information to everyone

    Like

  2. Mmm123 says

    Those pictures of Trump having sex with prepubescant little girls that the state department lovingly calls “prostitutes” definately came from a russian hack of the CIA, but not sure what you think that has to do with wikileaks? Have they published them?

    Only marginally more shocking than those photos of Princess Margaret taking it up the poo shoot from a big black man back in the day. But just as much distraction.

    Yawn.

    Like

  3. guest says

    “As Julian Assange has made crystal clear, the leaks did not come from the Russians.”

    as if assange is some sort of arbiter of all things truthy? he says that he is annoyed by anyone who questions the official account of 9/11.

    Id tend to believe the russians over the CIA anyday, but the mere mention of assange erodes credibility. could make the same point, better, just by saying there is simply no evidence presented that can withstand the slightest scrutiny that russia was involved.

    Liked by 1 person

    • GTFONWO says

      I could care less what Assange thinks or says. But the FACTS he has the courage to reveal have NEVER be rebutted. The emails are authentic. He’s got a 100% truth rate. Beats the shit out of every other ‘news source.’ No wonder the deep state cabal want him dead dead dead.

      Like

    • JGarbo says

      Wikileaks has long been suspected of being a Mossad op. If so, Assange would be expected be silent on 9/11, since it was a Mossad/CIA op. The main financial beneficiaries of 9/11 were Zionists. He’s also silent on Israeli atrocities in Gaza. 9/11 aside, Assange is doing something unique in journalism – exposing the perfidy of the MSM.

      Liked by 1 person

  4. When the darker aspects of western governments are discussed, invariably focus falls upon a branch of that government. The US government isn’t to blame, rather it’s intelligence branch, the CIA or FBI etc, the UK government isn’t to blame, rather it’s intelligence branch, MI6 or MI5 etc. As though these agencies are some how independent of those they serve. Why isn’t the same logic applied to Russia or China for example? Article after article cites a western buffer agency in context with an eastern nation, not their intelligence agencies. One suspects this logic isn’t applied due to intent to deceive, after all there is no way our democratically elected governments would be so covert, would they?

    Like

  5. What is taking place currently in the USA is a bloodless coup, that involves the CIA–no stranger to bloody coups–taking an active part in trying to disrupt the 2016 election results.

    If that fails, there’s no telling what those psychos might do, since they’re morally corrupt and devoid of ethics.

    Like

  6. If not the ‘Fancy Bears’ or other #FakeRussians, then who lost Clinton the election?
    (This article makes clear it would be ‘childs play’ to determine Russian involvement) http://www.globalresearch.ca/how-to-instantly-tell-if-russia-hacked-the-election/5561817
    If Greg Palast has got his sums right, then it was the GOP that stole the election for Trump – not the Russians. ‘Interstate Crosscheck’ was the mechanism by which they ethnically cleansed the voter list; the recounts (which are actually first time counts) were a sham and it was a modern ‘Jim Crow’ apartheid election.
    The bittersweet irony is that the DNC may well have done enough to cheat the result – but the GOP outdid them – and (at least in part) the Koch brothers funded them to do it. Talk about hedging your bets!

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Well Tubularsock looks at all of this like this ……….. If it takes the Russians, Mongolians or the “Grays” from fucking outer space to expose the truth of the corruption of this country …………. THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU!

    Tubularsock doesn’t care who delivers the TRUTH, bring it on!

    Liked by 1 person

  8. You have to wonder at the kind of paranoid psychology that has seized the US and UK governments, and other governments in the West for that matter, that they, their intelligence and security agencies, and the corporate media establishment that supports them, reject reality and/or truth, and instead dive deeper into lying and obfuscations, and lashing out petulantly in ways that not only end up in more brutality, violence and chaos but also backfire on their perpetrators.

    There is also a sense from what Craig Murray says that the CIA is in full-blown panic mode to justify its continued existence at US taxpayer expense, now that the incoming Trump administration is bound to be examining government expenditures and taking the axe to money-wasting projects and agencies of which the CIA is surely one.

    Similar could be said, mutatis mutandis, for The Guardian, put on notice to start generating profits, no more losses, and that newspaper in panic mode as well as it keeps losing readers and advertisers.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Brian Harry says

      “the CIA is in full-blown panic mode to justify its continued existence at US taxpayer expense,”
      And isn’t it wonderful to able to sit on the side lines and hopefully, enjoy the bloodletting, when Trump is inaugurated………

      Like

    • Darkness is it’s own reward. You may cleverly choose darkness for gain in the beginning (of your new journey on the path to destruction), but lying is essentially the same as denying reality, which you will get good at the longer you do it. So the cleverness that is in evidence in whatever evil schemes you first dreamed up and followed, to ‘success’, lead to stupidity that outshines your cleverness, if any cleverness remains at that point. And those who are dumb as posts are too dumb to see that the dumb things they do and say are… dumb.

      Like

  9. Brian Harry says

    Apparently Donald Trump made an appearance some time ago at a World Wrestling Entertainment ‘tournament’ and apparently gave Vince McMahon a good beating.
    I’m wondering if Mr McMahon has made a successful takeover bid for the American government?
    It’s the only explanation I can come up with, for the current ‘Lunacy’ on display as the World watches on in dumbfounded amazement…….

    Like

  10. Quizzical says

    What is at issue is whether the American people have a right to know what was leaked, which for the most part was that Clinton (or her Foundation) was taking large sums of money from foreign governments for favours and that the DNC was engaged in dirty tricks to prevent Sanders getting the nomination. It’s like saying that the American people did not have the right to know that Nixon was involved in dirty tricks against the Democrats in the 1972 election. But back then the American media had real journalists. If it was the Russians, which given the evidence (and its sources) presented and the statement by the FBI Director, I doubt, they did Americans a favour.

    Liked by 1 person

    • The leak-revelation that the Clinton Foundation received massive funding from the same sources funding “ISIS”… what an amazingly chilling and powerful propaganda field the culture must be submerged in, if this isn’t about the biggest bombshell since Watergate? When I first read that I couldn’t stop laughing (“The jig is up!”)… and… yet… crickets….

      Like

  11. Zoharariel Underscore Obatala says

    “I know who leaked them,” Murray said. “I’ve met the person who leaked them, and they are certainly not Russian and it’s an insider. It’s a leak, not a hack; the two are different things”.

    I just hope the CIA, MI6 & Mossad will not kidnap “Craig Murray” and torture him until he reveals the insider who leaked the emails?

    Like

    • They are a macho, unprincipled bunch and such a brazen thing (as if they haven’t done such things already) would not be beyond them. People like that tend to push until things break. They are, however, usually smart enough to have back up plans for when they can’t escape the consequences of their criminality. Banksters simply have (paid for) politicians in power, for example. I think maybe one has gone to jail. The establishment and political class simply give immunity to it’s murderous assassination and regime change machine.

      Like

    • chrisb says

      The identity of the leaker is probably known. Charging that individual does not serve the interests of the CIA or the military-industrial complex who would benefit financially from war with Russia.

      Like

  12. rtj1211 says

    Well Mr Murray

    I am afraid that the aim is to ensure that the majority have no skills in interrogating evidence whilst bombarding them with propaganda.

    If as well as that you inculcate in children the authority of those senior in rank and years, you create a passive audience capable of being duped by this nonsense.

    Let us be clear the IPCC climate change nonsense is a perfect cover for US military HAARP programmes, destroying the earth’s ionosphere in calculated ways, quite possibly triggering volcanoes and tsunamis and controlling extreme rainfall events for geopolitical advantage. Yes, there may be human induced climate change, but those inducing it are the military, Raytheon etc and ethically deficient scientists, not people burning oil. Not to mention those who exploded nuclear devices in the atmosphere years ago……

    Then we have the nonsense of the US and UK supporting radical Islam and destroying secular Islam, from Libya to Iraq and Syria. The lies since 2001 are beyond non-criminal explanations. It is simply organised death squads on manoevrues.

    It really is a nonsense talking about Western Values any longer, without enunciating what 21st century western values actually are.

    They are not anything worth keeping in my view……

    Like

      • Stop trying to shame posters into only expressing views you already hold merely because you assume your views to be infallible. The people reading comments here are capable of deciding which views they agree with. No one needs you patrolling the aisles with your billy club of Accepted Norms. And oh, hey, where did you get that catchy “climate denialist” riff? From the same neat Gov Box with “conspiracy theorist” and “troll” in it?

        Like

    • Quizzical says

      This comment is stereotypical trolling. We are having a discussion about the CIA and the leaks/hacks of the DNC and Podesta emails. It is not about climate change, HAARP, radical Islam or 911. Please do not conflate them.

      Like

  13. As Murray frames it — because “we” as members of the public being at ten thousand removes from the source of the leaks — what it comes down to is: “who are you going to believe? People with a ‘proven’ track record for telling the truth, or people with a ‘proven’ track record for telling lies?”

    Personally, I’ll opt for Murray and Assange while acknowledging that until the source is publicly revealed, I don’t and can’t really ‘know’ whether it’s the Russians that did it or an insider acting on his or her own, and then I’d have to establish to my satisfaction the worthiness of the source, too — wouldn’t I?

    On the other hand, what’s the real issue at hand?

    Is it the motivation and the identity of the person who ‘leaked’ what may be incriminating information, or is it not rather whether the information is both reliable and incriminating? Isn’t the real issue whether there is probable ground for indicting Hillary Clinton?

    Talk about deflecting attention, eh?

    Amerika: where bullshit has ever trumped honesty at the highest levels of governance.

    “Oh, sure, the leaks are authentic and are incriminating. But it’s the Russians that are behind the leaks, see. So forget about the leaks, we gotta nail the Russians, who have thereby threatened “our” democracy, indeed, committed an act of war against us!”

    Why not just come right out and say it: it’s not the Russians but truth itself that threatens to undermine “your” democracy (sic), and besides, “you” are hell bent on going to war with Russia.

    Liked by 2 people

    • “Amerika: where bullshit has ever trumped honesty at the highest levels of governance.”

      Think about it: if they can convince you to believe in a Bearded, Vaguely-Levantine, Anus-Free Sky Giant (who’ll toss you in a lake of fire for coveting your neighbor’s goat and/your spilling your seed), they can get you to believe anything. Facts are meaningless in America (and by “America” I mean, of course, The Murkkan Empire: aka: wherever the Kardashians are famous). What was that poll-result, not long ago, indicating that a certain percentage (c. 20%?) of Americans are under the impression that the Sun orbits the Earth? Funny, sure. But not really.

      Like

    • justsayin says

      assange says anyone who questions the lies of the official account of 9/11, “annoys him”
      he wouldnt know truth if it jumped up and bit him.

      Like

      • Yes. . . well. . .unfortunately, no one is impervious to all of the propaganda all of the time.

        Even William Blum, a former CIA analyst who quit the company in disgust and became a historian of “false flags” doesn’t have anything remotely “critical” or incisive to say about the ‘official account’ of 9/11.

        That doesn’t make him either unreliable as analyst on the issues he does take on or an apologist for the mafia on high. He just hasn’t taken the time, nor does he have the inclination, to investigate the matter.

        Blum isn’t the only one. There is Michael Parenti as well as others.

        These otherwise exemplary analysts and researchers do, however, have the sense to refrain from making sweeping statements on the issue à la Chomsky, first admitting his scientific incompetence to judge the matter while at the same time conveying the impressing that after carefully weighing all of the competing viewpoints on 9/11, he can confidently assert that anyone who questions the “official account” is simply stupid or, worse, a ‘conspiracy’ nutter — and then anyway, what does it matter who ‘dun it,’ eh?

        No one is an ‘expert’ on every instance of corporate or elite malfeasance, nor can anyone be so, and in such instances , one’s thinking is likely to incline in the direction of what one perceives to be most reasonable consensus, which for obvious reasons will tend mirror that of the establishment, since it does in fact control the main channels of information distribution . . .

        In this respect, we are all a bit fucked, eh.

        Like

  14. oliver williams says

    “The people saying it is not Russia are those who do have access.”
    Should read : The people saying it is Russia are those who do have access.
    ?

    Like

    • Quizzical says

      No – what Murray is saying is that he and Assange do have access to the leaker. If CIA had access there would be arrests.

      Like

  15. Fabulous article! Since at least 2014 the U.S. mainstream media has been diligent in resurrecting the Cold War and “informing” citizens how evil Putin is and the dangers he poses to “freedom.” The claims (even the most outlandish) that Clinton’s loss in the recent election was due to Russian interference has been enthusiastically embraced by a staggering number of citizens, including elected officials, with no credible evidence to date. Whatever or whoever is behind the agenda to solidify popular support for some sort of action against Russia looks like the real winner. So what’s the plan? I don’t think I’m going to like it….

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s