latest, media watch
Comments 116

How to identify CIA limited hangout?


by Webster Tarpley, June 2013

c

This article originally appeared on PressTV.ir in 2013 at this link, which is now inactive (you can see it here on the Wayback machine). There is a shortened version available at Tarpley.net.OffG doesn’t necessarily or wholly endorse Tarpley’s view but, in accordance with our remit, we think it’s one worthy of discussion.

NOTE: we have added links to sources that were not in the original

The operations of secret intelligence agencies aiming at the manipulation of public opinion generally involve a combination of cynical deception with the pathetic gullibility of the targeted populations.

There is ample reason to believe that the case of Edward Joseph Snowden fits into this pattern. We are likely dealing here with a limited hangout operation, in which carefully selected and falsified documents and other materials are deliberately revealed by an insider who pretends to be a fugitive rebelling against the excesses of some oppressive or dangerous government agency.

But the revelations turn out to have been prepared with a view to shaping the public consciousness in a way which is advantageous to the intelligence agency involved. At the same time, gullible young people can be duped into supporting a personality cult of the leaker, more commonly referred to as a “whistleblower.”

A further variation on the theme can be the attempt of the sponsoring intelligence agency to introduce their chosen conduit, now posing as a defector, into the intelligence apparatus of a targeted foreign government [Snowden did not become stranded in Moscow until five days after this article was published – OffG]. In this case, the leaker or whistleblower attains the status of a triple agent.

Any attempt to educate public opinion about the dynamics of limited hangout operations inevitably collides with the residue left in the minds of millions by recent successful examples of this technique. It will be hard for many to understand Snowden, precisely because they will insist on seeing him as the latest courageous example in a line of development still viewed by large swaths of naïve opinion as authentic challengers of oppressive government.

The landmark limited hangout operation at the beginning of the current post-Cold War era was that of Daniel Ellsberg and the Pentagon Papers, which laid the groundwork for the CIA’s Watergate attack on the Nixon administration, and more broadly, on the office of the presidency itself.

More recently, we have had the case of Assange and Wikileaks.

Using these two cases primarily, we can develop a simple typology of the limited hangout operation which can be of significant value to those striving to avoid the role of useful idiots amidst the current cascade of whistleblowers and limited hangout artists.

In this analysis, we should also recall that limited hangouts have been around for a very long time. In 1620 Fra Paolo Sarpi, the dominant figure of the Venetian intelligence establishment of his time, advised the Venetian senate that the best way to defeat anti-Venetian propaganda was indirectly. He recommended the method of saying something good about a person or institution while pretending to say something bad. An example might be criticizing a bloody dictator for beating his dog – the real dimensions of his crimes are thus totally underplayed.

Limited hangout artists are instant media darlings

The most obvious characteristic of the limited hangout operative is that he or she immediately becomes the darling of the controlled corporate media. In the case of Daniel Ellsberg, his doctored set of Pentagon papers were published by the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Boston Globe, and eventually by a consortium totaling seventeen corporate newspapers.

These press organs successfully argued the case for publication all the way to the United States Supreme Court, where they prevailed against the Nixon administration.

Needless to say, surviving critics of the Warren Commission, and more recent veterans of the 9/11 truth movement, and know very well that this is emphatically not the treatment reserved for messengers whose revelations are genuinely unwelcome to the Wall Street centered US ruling class. These latter are more likely to be slandered, vilified and dragged through the mud, or, even more likely, passed over in complete silence and blacked out. In extreme cases, they can be kidnapped, renditioned or liquidated.

Cass Sunstein present at the creation of Wikileaks

As for Assange and Wikileaks, the autumn 2010 document dump was farmed out in advance to five of the most prestigious press organs in the world, including the New York Times, the London Guardian, El Pais of Madrid, Der Spiegel of Hamburg, and Le Monde of Paris.

This was the Assange media cartel, made up of papers previously specialized in discrediting 9/11 critics and doubters. But even before the document dumps had begun, Wikileaks had received a preemptive endorsement from none other than the notorious totalitarian Cass Sunstein, later an official of the Obama White House, and today married to Samantha Power, the author of the military coup that overthrew Mubarak and currently Obama’s pick for US ambassador to the United Nations.

Sunstein is infamous for his thesis that government agencies should conduct covert operations using pseudo-independent agents of influence for the “cognitive infiltration of extremist groups” – meaning of those who reject in the establishment view of history and reality. Sunstein’s article entitled “Brave New WikiWorld” was published in the Washington Post of February 24, 2007, and touted the capabilities of Wikileaks for the destabilization of China.

Perhaps the point of Ed Snowden’s presence in Hong Kong is to begin re-targeting these capabilities back towards the original anti-Chinese plan [see note above – Snowden didn’t arrive in Moscow until five days after this article was published – OffG].

Snowden has already become a media celebrity of the first magnitude. His career was launched by the US left liberal Glenn Greenwald, now writing for the London Guardian, which expresses the viewpoints of the left wing of the British intelligence community. Thus, the current scandal is very much Made in England, and may benefit from inputs from the British GCHQ of Cheltenham, the Siamese twin of the NSA at Fort Meade, Maryland. During the days of his media debut, it was not uncommon to see a controlled press organ like CNN dedicating one third of every broadcast hour of air time to the birth, life, and miracles of Ed Snowden.

Another suspicious and tell-tale endorsement for Snowden comes from the former State Department public diplomacy asset Norman Solomon. Interviewed on RT, Solomon warmly embraced the Snowden Project and assured his viewers that the NSA material dished up by the Hong Kong defector used reliable and authentic.

Solomon was notorious ten years ago as a determined enemy of 9/11 truth, acting as a border guard in favor of the Bush administration/neocon theory of terrorism.

Limited hangouts contain little that is new

Another important feature of the limited hangout operation if that the revelations often contain nothing new, but rather repackage old wine in new bottles. In the case of Ellsberg’s Pentagon Papers, very little was revealed which was not already well known to a reader of Le Monde or the dispatches of Agence France Presse. Only those whose understanding of world affairs had been filtered through the Associated Press, CBS News, the New York Times, and the Washington Post found any of Ellsberg’s material a surprise.

Of course, there was method in Ellsberg’s madness. The Pentagon papers allegedly derived from an internal review of the decision-making processes leading to the Vietnam War, conducted after 1967-68 under the supervision of Morton Halperin and Leslie Gelb. Ellsberg, then a young RAND Corporation analyst and militant warmonger, was associated with this work.

Upon examination, we find that the Pentagon papers tend to cover up such CIA crimes as the mass murder mandated under Operation Phoenix, and the massive CIA drug running associated with the proprietary airline Air America. Rather, when atrocities are in question, the US Army generally receives the blame.

Politicians in general, and President John F. Kennedy in particular, are portrayed in a sinister light – one might say demonized. No insights whatever into the Kennedy assassination are offered. This was a smelly concoction, and it was not altogether excluded that the radicalized elements of the Vietnam era might have carried the day in denouncing the entire package as a rather obvious fabrication.

But a clique around Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn loudly intervened to praise the quality of the exposé and to lionize Ellsberg personally as a new culture hero for the Silent Generation. From that moment on, the careers of Chomsky and Zinn soared. Pentagon papers skeptics, like the satirical comedian Mort Sahl, a supporter of the Jim Garrison investigation in New Orleans and a critic of the Warren Commission, faced the marginalization of their careers.

Notice also that the careers of Morton Halperin and Leslie Gelb positively thrived after they entrusted the Pentagon papers to Ellsberg, who revealed them. Ellsberg was put on trial in 1973, but all charges were dismissed after several months because of prosecutorial misconduct.

Assange lived like a lord for many months in the palatial country house of an admirer in the East of England, and is now holed up in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. He spent about 10 days in jail in December 2010.

Assange first won credibility for Wikileaks with some chum in the form of a shocking film showing a massacre perpetrated by US forces in Iraq with the aid of drones. The massacre itself and the number of victims were already well known, so Assange was adding only the graphic emotional impact of witnessing the atrocity firsthand.

Limited hangouts reveal nothing about big issues like JFK, 9/11

Over the past century, there are certain large-scale covert operations which cast a long historical shadow, determining to some extent the framework in which subsequent events occur. These include the Sarajevo assassinations of 1914, the assassination of Rasputin in late 1916, Mussolini’s 1922 march on Rome, Hitler’s seizure of power in 1933, the assassination of French Foreign Minister Barthou in 1934, the assassination of President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1945, in 1963 Kennedy assassination, and 9/11. A common feature of the limited hangout operations is that they offer almost no insights into these landmark events.

In the Pentagon Papers, the Kennedy assassination is virtually a nonexistent event about which we learn nothing. As already noted, the principal supporters of Ellsberg were figures like Chomsky, whose hostility to JFK and profound disinterest in critiques of the Warren Commission were well-known.

As for Assange, he rejects any further clarification of 9/11. In July 2010, Assange told Matthew Bell of the Belfast Telegraph:

I’m constantly annoyed that people are distracted by false conspiracies such as 9/11, when all around we provide evidence of real conspiracies, for war or mass financial fraud.

This is on top of Cass Sunstein’s demand for active covert measures to suppress and disrupt inquiries into operations like 9/11. Snowden’s key backers Glenn Greenwald and Norman Solomon have both compiled impressive records of evasion on 9/11 truth, with Greenwald specializing in the blowback theory.

The Damascus road conversions of limited hangout figures

Daniel Ellsberg

Daniel Ellsberg started his career as a nuclear strategist of the Dr. Strangelove type working for the RAND Corporation. He worked in the Pentagon as an aide to US Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara. He then went to Vietnam, where he served as a State Department civilian assistant to CIA General Edward Lansdale.

In 1967, he was back at RAND to begin the preparation of what would come to be known as the Pentagon papers. Ellsberg has claimed that his Damascus Road conversion from warmonger to peace angel occurred when he heard a speech from a prison-bound draft resister at Haverford College in August 1969.

After a mental breakdown, Ellsberg began taking his classified documents to the office of Senator Edward Kennedy and ultimately to the New York Times. Persons who believe this fantastic story may be suffering from terminal gullibility.

Julian Assange

In the case of Assange, it is harder to identify such a moment of conversion. Assange spent his childhood in the coils of MK Ultra, a complex of Anglo-American covert operations designed to investigate and implement mind control through the use of psychopharmaca and other means [note we can so far only find Tarpley himself as a source for this – OffG]. Assange was a denizen of the Ann Hamilton-Byrne cult, in which little children that were subjected to aversive therapy involving LSD and other heavy-duty drugs. Assange spent his formative years as a wandering nomad with his mother incognito because of her involvement in a custody dispute. The deracinated Assange lived in 50 different towns and attended 37 different schools.

By the age of 16, the young nihilist was active as a computer hacker using the screen name “Mendax,” meaning quite simply “The Liar.” (Assange’s clone Snowden uses the more marketable codename of “Verax,” the truth teller.) Some of Assange’s first targets were Nortel and US Air Force offices in the Pentagon. Assange’s chief mentor became John Young of Cryptome, who in 2007 denounced Wikileaks as a CIA front.

Edward Snowden

Snowden’s story, as widely reported, goes like this: he dropped out of high school and also dropped out of a community college, but reportedly was nevertheless later able to command a salary of between $120,000 and $200,000 per year; he claims this is because he is a computer wizard. He enlisted in the US Army in May 2004, and allegedly hoped to join the special forces and contribute to the fight for freedom in Iraq. He then worked as a low-level security guard for the National Security Agency, and then went on to computer security at the CIA, including a posting under diplomatic cover in Switzerland.

He moved on to work as a private contractor for the NSA at a US military base in Japan. His last official job was for the NSA at the Kunia Regional SIGINT Operations Center in Hawaii. In May 2013, he is alleged to have been granted medical leave from the NSA in Hawaii to get treatment for epilepsy. He fled to Hong Kong, and made his revelations with the help of Greenwald and a documentary filmmaker Laura Poitras. Snowden voted for the nominally anti-war, ultra-austerity “libertarian” presidential candidate Ron Paul, and gave several hundred dollars to Paul’s campaign.

Snowden, like Ellsberg, thus started off as a warmonger but later became more concerned with the excesses of the Leviathan state. Like Assange, he was psychologically predisposed to the world of computers and cybernetics. The Damascus Road shift from militarist to civil libertarian remains unexplained and highly suspicious.

Snowden is also remarkable for the precision of his timing. His first revelations, open secrets though they were, came on June 5 [2013], precisely today when the rebel fortress of Qusayr was liberated by the Syrian army and Hezbollah. At this point, the British and French governments were screaming at Obama that it was high time to attack Syria [we can’t currently find any source for this interpretation of events in Syria – OffG].

Glenn Greenwald’s Snowden revelations in the Guardian, June 6 2013

The appearance of Snowden’s somewhat faded material in the London Guardian was the trigger for a firestorm of criticism against the Obama regime by the feckless US left liberals, who were thus unwittingly greasing the skids for a US slide into a general war in the Middle East.

More recently, Snowden came forward with allegations that the US and the British had eavesdropped on participants in the meeting of the G-20 nations held in Britain four years ago. This obviously put Obama on the defensive just as Cameron and Hollande were twisting his arm to start the Syrian adventure [again we currently have no source for this alleged arm-twisting – in fact by the autumn of 2013 the UK had ruled out intervention in Syria – OffG]. By attacking the British GCHQ at Cheltenham, Britain’s equivalent to the NSA, perhaps Snowden was also seeking to obfuscate the obvious British sponsorship of his revelations.

Stories about Anglo Americans spying on high profile guests are as old as the hills, and have included a British frogman who attempted an underwater investigation of the Soviet cruiser that brought party leader N. S. Khrushchev for a visit in the 1950s. Snowden has also accused the NSA of hacking targets in China — again, surely no surprise to experienced observers, but guaranteed to increase Sino-American tensions. As time passes, Snowden may emerge as more and more of a provocateur between Washington and Beijing.

Limited hangouts prepare large covert operations

Although, as we have seen, limited hangouts rarely illuminate the landmark covert operations which attempt to define an age, limited hangouts themselves do represent the preparation for future covert operations.

In the case of the Pentagon papers, this and other leaks during the Indo-Pakistani Tilt crisis were cited by Henry Kissinger in his demand that President Richard Nixon take countermeasures to restore the integrity of state secrets. Nixon foolishly authorized the creation of a White House anti-leak operation known as the Plumbers.

The intelligence community made sure that the Plumbers operation was staffed by their own provocateurs, people who never were loyal to Nixon but rather took their orders from Langley.

Here we find the already infamous CIA agent Howard Hunt, the CIA communications expert James McCord, and the FBI operative G. Gordon Liddy. These provocateurs took special pains to get arrested during an otherwise pointless break-in at the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee in the summer of 1972.

Nixon could easily have disavowed the Plumbers and thrown this gaggle of agent provocateurs to the wolves, but he instead launched a cover up. Bob Woodward of the Washington Post, equipped with a top secret security clearance from the Office of Naval Intelligence, then began publicizing the story. The rest is history, and the lasting heritage has been a permanent weakening of the office of the presidency and the strengthening of the worst oligarchical tendencies.

Assange’s Wikileaks document dump triggered numerous destabilizations and coups d’état across the globe. Not one US, British, or Israeli covert operation or politician was seriously damaged by this material. The list of those impacted instead bears a striking resemblance to the CIA enemies’ list: the largest group of targets were Arab leaders slated for immediate ouster in the wave of “Arab Spring.”

Here we find Ben Ali of Tunisia, Qaddafi of Libya, Mubarak of Egypt, Saleh of Yemen, and Assad of Syria. The US wanted to replace Maliki with Allawi as prime minister of Iraq, so the former was targeted, as was the increasingly independent Karzai of Afghanistan. Perennial targets of the CIA included Rodriguez Kirchner of Argentina, Berlusconi of Italy, and Putin of Russia.

Berlusconi soon fell victim to a coup organized through the European Central Bank, while his friend Putin was able to stave off a feeble attempt at color revolution in early 2012. Mildly satiric jabs at figures like Merkel of Germany and Sarkozy of France were included primarily as camouflage.

Assange thus had a hand in preparing one of the largest destabilization campaigns mounted by Anglo-American intelligence since 1968, or perhaps even 1848.

If the Snowden operation can help coerce the vacillating and reluctant Obama to attack Syria, our new autistic hero may claim credit for starting a general war in the Middle East, and perhaps even more.

If Snowden can further poison relations between United States and China, the world historical significance of his provocations will be doubly assured. But none of this can occur unless he finds vast legions of eager dupes ready to fall for his act. We hope he won’t.


116 Comments

  1. This post is sourced from… PressTV (Iranian propaganda) and Veterans Today, founded by fake news promoter, serial liar, and fraudster Gordon Duff.

    Not only that, but if something like this were published by the Western MSM, about the SVR or GRU, this website and its allies would have a field day crying about “Russophobia”.

    It has been entertaining seeing the so-called alt-left be coopted with fake news and pro-Kremlin disinformation. However, at this point, it is starting to worry me if outlets like off-G republish these sorts of bizarre articles, merely because they say some bad things about the CIA. Like the fact that Snowden is some plant, merely because the MSM portrayed him in good light. The worse logic I’ve ever seen.

    Like

    • This article is not sourced to Veteran’s Today. It is sourced to PressTV and Tarpley.net.

      This site does not endorse dismissal of sources on grounds of race. Iranians are people too. Your continued racist remarks are not appropriate.

      Like

  2. WikiLeaks served the 911 Op by never publishing anything about 911. the only thing related to 911 they did publish were the cell phone files which only helped the fake cell phone narrative.

    Like

  3. I read through this piece because OG and others seemed to think it was worth reading through. Now that I’ve read it, I don’t. It’s all over the place. Here’s a fevered mind just erupting for eruption’s sake, if not for some more nefarious reason. I would never expect anyone to read one of my blog posts if it was that long ‘and’ unsupported. If those are the author’s actual opinions, he’s welcome to them. They don’t interest me. I found the comments that followed to be interesting though.

    Like

  4. just an addendum about Veterans Today being disinfo media. when Gordon Duff explains that 40% is disinfo, he certainly thinks about that kind of paper: https://www.veteranstoday.com/2017/06/11/were-ets-involved-in-911/

    ‘There have been reports from low to mid level insiders that ETs (LOL) may have been involved in the attack on America on 9-11-01. But no concrete smoking gun admissions with teeth or any serious credible evidence has been presented to back this up.’

    no shit Sherlock! 🙂

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Seamus Padraig says

    Although I don’t resent Off-G for publishing this, I, too, find Tarpley’s thesis a little hard to swallow. For one thing: if Snowden is a tool (or dupe) of the US deep-state, why did the Russians give him asylum? Why would they decide to actively assist Washington in pulling off a psy-op? As a former KGB man, Putin would definitely be in a position to know/understand what is going on here.

    Also, as other commenters here have pointed out, Veterans Today has openly admitted publishing disinfo in the past. This, then, raises the question as to whether VT itself is actually a ‘limited hangout’.

    … the assassination of President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1945 …

    FDR was assassinated? That’s a new one on me!

    Like

    • Catte says

      Yes the alleged FDR assassination was new on us too 😉 . Tarpley does produce a lot of quite poorly-supported and speculative ideas on the whole, and his ideology leads him where cooler heads might be reluctant to follow , but his points about the amount of MSM exposure given Snowden are well made (it’s worth contrasting for example with the treatment given to the late Udo Ulfkotte, who has been consistently and violently abused in the media and whose book seems to have been disappeared in its English language version).

      Theoretically, of course there could be many reasons for keeping Snowden in Moscow. A chance to look tolerant in the face of Washington’s alleged persecution of one man. Just to see what the next play will be. A chance to turn him or trick him into revelations. And even the old adage about keeping your friends close and your enemies closer.

      But that is just a theory, and we’d never allege it as a fact. Snowden – and even more Assange – has provided valuable focus on issues that affect us all. They deserve acknowledgement for that whatever else can be speculated upon.

      Like

      • Seamus Padraig says

        Yes, Catte. That’s why I’m a huge fan–and a very infrequent contributor–to this site. I admire your stand against group-think and epistemic closure. I believe Tarpley makes some good points about limited hangouts generally, and I also believe he raises some good points about Snowden/Assange specifically. However, a limited hangout is better than no hangout at all. As long as I think their basic narrative makes sense, I’m going to continue to follow them. But I appreciate the counterpoint. Thanks for your hard work,

        Like

    • first, bring the evidence that edward snowden (greenberg?) got asylum from Russia. he’s just an illegal alien with no motive to stay in Russia.
      John A Robles got political asylum from Russia.

      secondly, VeteransToday/Gordon Duff explained why they purposely have been publishing stories about Little Greys: in order to stay alive!

      VeteransToday has been smeared by neocons lately. https://journal-neo.org/2017/10/21/oxford-propaganda-front-attacks-veterans-today-the-neocon-witch-hunt-begins/

      thirdly, VeteransToday publishes the truth about the nuclear attack on 9/11 false flag and about what actually happened in the german concentration camps in 1933-1945!
      is there any other Internet media (denouncing the wars, 9/11 false flag, Syria proxy war) which have crossed those 2 ultimate rubicon!!!

      Like

  6. rtj1211 says

    At the end of the day, all the top players use every strategy in the book to inform, misinform, direct, misdirect, smear, laud, defend and attack.

    A particular strategy in no way badges someone to one side per se.

    Like

    • Joerg says

      Relax, relax!
      I think it was inapropriate to publish Tarpley article. This is all!
      A bad choice, that’s it!
      I didn’t mean to attack Off-Guardian. I love this site. This is why I comment here.
      Maybe in the heat I overheard this “Luke, Luuuuke!” Or this “No patience the little Skywalker has!”

      Like

      • Carrie says

        No offence but I think it’s you who needs to relax, you have been pretty intense and full on

        Like

        • Joerg says

          @Carrie January 5, 2018
          Carrie, Carrie!
          Don’t you think it is “pretty intense” to denounce and fall into the back of Julian Assange. A man who is refused liberty and whose life is reduced to some sqarefeet in an old house?
          Why did You not call this unjustified attack, supported not by facts, but only by some vage contamplations, against this most meritorious man “pretty intense” ??

          Also Edward Snowden paid and paiys a high price for his graet and courageous attitute and he is in fact ‘expartiated’ against his will – probably for lifetime. Don’t you think it is “pretty intense” to denounce and fall into the back of Edward Snowden??

          WE profit from those brave men – and when I oppose these “pretty intense” slander against those (suffering) heros – that’s what they are – You, Carrie scold me and put shame on me? Whats wrong with You, Carrie?

          Like

    • can we have a counter-narrative? some facts that reply?

      from Webster Tarpley published in Veterans Today.
      https://www.veteranstodayarchives.com/2011/01/23/webster-tarpley-wikileaks-a-cognitive-infiltration-operation-video/

      https://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/07/08/fake-and-faker-assange-and-snowden/
      https://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/06/18/snowden-cia-shill/

      i quote the article you have published above.
      ‘LIMITED HANGOUTS REVEAL NOTHING ABOUT BIG ISSUES LIKE JFK and */**

      by any chance, would you happen to dislike VeteransToday? They published Gilad Atzmon among many others..

      Like

      • Joerg says

        @la Cariatide
        If Off-guardian made a mistake (that’s what I think) – why not “Veterans Today”?
        Is remains a fact, that if we could prosecute Assange and/or Snowden for treason, we couldn’t on the grounds that Tarpley only puts forward assumptions and conclusions, that in my opinion are not even able to raise suspicion, not to speak of convicting them. To every of Tarpley’ reproaches Assange/Snowden could give a reasonable answer.

        Your argument that “Veterans today” has and had good articles is also true for WaPo and NYT. Bernstein, Woodward, Seymour Hersh worked for them.
        But I don’t trust WaPo and NYT.

        By the way: “Veterans Today” is and must be by nature always ‘in the nearby of the DoD.
        Here is a critical article to Veterans Today: “MASS DEFECTION OF WRITERS FROM VETERANS TODAY. ALTERNATIVE RADIO HOSTS IN SUSPICIOUS CAR ACCIDENTS” – https://fellowshipoftheminds.com/2015/05/03/mass-defection-of-writers-from-veterans-today-alternative-radio-hosts-in-suspicious-car-accidents/ with the citation of this interesting comment:
        Add Veterans Today to the CIA-run web sites for sure. All board members are ex-spooks who aside from running Veterans Today run something called “Adamus Defense Group” which boasts about owning and operating Pentagon flying defense surveillance platforms (allegedly to watch wildlife in Africa and elsewhere) with USAID, US gov and UN contracts. The information is on their own web site, their Youtube channel and in other legitimate sources. Veterans Today should really finish coming out of the closet and rename itself to Spooks Today.”.

        Also You should take notice of the two links I cited in one of my comments under the headline “To Assange see:” https://off-guardian.org/2018/01/04/how-to-identify-cia-limited-hangout/#comment-98936

        Like

        • about assange and snowden, is there a smocking-gun evidence that both are limited-hangouts? who knows? but we must grind and sharp our minds even about/against the people we believe are legit.
          about/against veteranstoday also, i agree with you. and it is not the first time someone replied to my links from veteranstoday that Gordon Duff is a shill.

          perhaps John A Roble is the least shill still alive. many whistleblowers (who were killed were not shills. probably.
          i think about Philipp Marshall killed with his children and his dog. he wrote the Big Bamboozle.
          and to Bill Cooper who said in june 2001 what would happen,it happened, ad he was killed in november 2001.

          are off-guardian limite-hangout? 🙃 sorry, not sorry

          if I trust VeteransToday that’s because it confirms what others ‘beliefs’ I have from other sources. I guess every ‘conscious’ citizen has his own referential, media he likes and dislikes.

          what matters are facts. ultimately only truth prevails 😉

          Like

        • thanks for the links about veteranstoday.

          here mine: http://jar2.com/1/Archive/2014/August/911_Nukes.html

          Duff himself admitted to publishing 40 percent disinfo to “stay alive” and not get censored too much.

          confirmed by that article published on New Eastern Outlook. sorry not sorry i did my homeworks 🙂

          https://journal-neo.org/2017/10/21/oxford-propaganda-front-attacks-veterans-today-the-neocon-witch-hunt-begins/

          As Duff has said in interviews, “without the conspiracy nuts, we wouldn’t have any readership numbers, it is our way of honoring Fox News and the new tabloids, after all doesn’t everyone love reading about two-headed alien babies from time to time?”
          = that’s Gordon Duff’ way to stay alive! he right, who doesn’t like ufo stuff? one wouldn’t be a good conspiracy stuff without liking that kind of inter-galactic stories! 🙂

          Like

    • I for one am grateful the article was posted. Just look at the debate it has stimulated!
      I have several times indulged too much store in individuals I later came to distrust. My own musings here and elsewhere are limited to what I have absorbed, understood and misunderstood. I hope I always manage to maintain the degree of salience required to reject what I had thought true in light of new evidence. Science often gets a bad rap these days but the scientific method itself is a good place to start for any truthseeker.

      Liked by 2 people

    • “Admin

      January 8, 2018 "
      

      Its January 5th 2018, and you didn’t post my comment. It was the first time, I have ever tried to post here, thoug I read you a lot.

      Tony

      Like

      • we futured the admin post to keep it at the op for a while. There is no comment in pending from you so if it hasn’t appeared I’m afraid it must have vanished into cyberspace. This happens a lot here and we advise people to keep a copy of any long comments they make before hitting “post”

        Just to remind everyone – we don’t pre-moderate so unless your comment has three or more links (when it will be held back by the spam software) it should appear immediately. If it doesn’t appear immediately and you didn’t have more than three links then it’s probably lost in transit and you may as well post it again.

        Like

  7. uncle tungsten says

    Thanks for publishing this offG. My view is that Tarpley is BS. There are a few serious errors in the piece especially the reference to the drone killing citizens. That was a total blooper and demonstrated Tarpley to be a hopeless researcher/communicator. I really enjoyed/groaned the comments and got heaps from the crits of VT and Sibel who has a certain unbelievability about her and the publication.

    Like

  8. has anyone something against Howard Zinn? tarpley writes about Howard Zinn who endorsed ellsberg’s limited hangout. perhaps Howard Zinn truly believed in the Pentagon Papers and other kind, perhaps Zinn had only been fooled by cointelpro-like.

    Like

  9. tony0pmoc says

    Admin, Please correct your date. Writing in the future causes all sorts of problems. This is what I tried to write a few hours ago. My computer has problems too.

    OffGuardian to my surprise seem to now have their doubts about both Julian Assange, and Ed Snowden. I have never posted there, but I do read it. Sometime within the last year, I think, there was a new, unpredicted news event, which almost demanded an almost immediate response from Julian Assange. I don’t remember the details, but all the news crews and TV cameras were waiting outside the Ecuadarian Embassy, waiting for Julian to come outside to speak…

    About 3-4 hours later, Julian appeared, still wearing his motor cycle jacket.

    I thought that was pretty cool.

    I did mention it on here. His friend Craig Murray did not disagree, nor even delete my comment, so far as I remember.

    No heating in the Ecuadorian Embassy?

    Or could there be another explanation?

    Like he had just arrived there on a motor bike, and been sneaked in through the back door?

    Tony

    Like

  10. John A Robles is a political refugee in Russia. he says he has been a CIA target since 1995 has been in exile since then. John A Robles received political asylum from Russia in 2007.

    he was a former journalist at Voice of Russia which became Sputnik.

    he has a lot of files about many, many topics. many official documents.

    http://jar2.com/index.html

    do not hesitate to download and share the books he has gathered. http://jar2.com/Topics/Books.html

    his son was put in jail years ago without any reasons. http://jar2.com/Blog/Nutshell.html

    his file about snowden. http://www.jar2.com/Topics/Snowden.html

    Like

  11. John A Robles is a political refugee in Russia. he says he has been a CIA target since 1995 has been in exile since then. John A Robles received political asylum from Russia in 2007.

    he was a former journalist at Voice of Russia which became Sputnik.

    he has a lot of files about many, many topics. many official documents.

    http://jar2.com/index.html

    do not hesitate to download and share the books he has gathered.

    his son was put in jail years ago without any reasons. http://jar2.com/Blog/Nutshell.html

    his file about snowden. http://www.jar2.com/Topics/Snowden.html

    Like

  12. The Left blogger ‘Tarzie’ wrote a lot of critical posts about the whole Snowden/ Greenwald affair. Worth reading IMO.
    On Poitras:
    ‘As dissident artists hounded by state authorities go, Poitras seems unusually well-connected to the people and institutions that could make a crucial phone call on her behalf. Her parents are multimillionaires who, in 2007, donated $20 million to MIT (Jennings 2007). She is a recipient of MacArthur Foundation and Ford Foundation grants. Her patrons include Pierre Omidyar—who funds The Intercept, an online newsmagazine Poitras co-cofounded with Glenn Greenwald and Jeremy Scahill—and Jeffrey Skoll, whose Participant Media produced Citizenfour. Omidyar and Skoll seem particularly odd partners in fighting state power, given that they both have very close relationships with USAID (2012a, 2012b, 2014), which for decades has been linked to the CIA as a front for covert operations (Ames 2014a). The Omidyar Network has been linked to both the Maidan uprising in Ukraine and the ascent of ultra-nationalist Narendra Modi in India (Ames 2014b, 2014c). Skoll’s Participant Media produced Charlie Wilson’s War, a film that enjoyed official assistance from the CIA (Alford and Graham 2008). Spy Culture’s Tom Secker placed it among “the most overt and obvious propaganda efforts” he had ever studied (Redmond and Secker 2015).’
    https://ohtarzie.wordpress.com/2017/03/15/professor-tarzie-if-youre-nasty/

    Like

    • This concerns me: “She is a recipient of MacArthur Foundation and Ford Foundation grants. Her patrons include Pierre Omidyar…” Then again, I already no longer respect the celeb lefties willing to work with Nazi-enabler Omidyar. Folks can read the Pando Daily articles about Omidyar et al to get a good idea what he is all about. And the back and forth between Greenwald and Pando writers (Mark Ames and Paul Carr) is priceless.

      Like

  13. Frank Poster says

    This article reads like it’s part of a carefully constructed disinfo campaign. It’s perhaps intended to even turn their supporters against them for when in 2018/19 the Ecuadoran embassy is stormed by May’s Ministry of Truth, or when Putin decides to exchange Snowden for a more valuable Russian rotting in a US jail.

    Like

  14. Carrie says

    This is the video in which Sibel Edmonds and James Corbett Putin-bash as if they were on CNN or FOX. Sibel then goes on to say she personally is aware of Putin’s billions. Are we supposed to buy that? How is Sibel getting more info than the NSA? They would love to be able to locate Putin’s stash and prove he’s corrupt (not saying he isn’t corrupt, just saying they have never been able to prove it). Sibel just can’t have this info as she claims. And why are she and Corbett doing the MSM’s work? She even calls Putin a ’scumbag’, yeah maybe he is but has she ever used that word for Obama or Trump or Mutti Merkel or Blair? It’s surreal to see them go full russophobe. Starts at 19m25s:

    Like

    • I remember this well and the backlash on Corbett’ s site was immediate and unrestrained. What especially surprised me was that they had collectively taken the decision in advance of the hangout. Neither again referred to that episode nor maintained an anti-Putin stance, but neither did they retract.

      Like

    • MoriartysLeftSock says

      Wow, this is quite a shocking video.

      I understand Corbett is hooked on his libertarian ideals and is driven by those to refuse to endorse any power structure (I think this seriously compromises his otherwise considerable abilities as an analyst), but what is Edmonds doing exactly?

      Under a thin guise of being ‘balanced’ she is absolutely selling the same slanted narrative we get from the MSM.

      1) As the OP says she calls Putin a ‘scumbag’. I don’t recall her ever using this kind of language for Obama or Bush or ay other world leader, can anyone else?

      2) She (and Corbett) both make the bizarre claim they are ‘boycotting’ RT because of its ‘warmongering’ and ‘bias.’ My first question about that is – have they or are they boycotting any major western media for the same reason?

      3. They both seem either clueless or deliberately misinformative about the nature of the conflict in Syria. They conflate the actions of Russia and the US as being comparable if not identical. They elide the fact Russian forces were in Syria legitimately and legally while the western ‘coalition’ was not. They are apparently aware that the US has sponsored ISIS and is trying to use proxies to destroy the country and make it another Libya, yet they apparently disapprove of Russia’s attempt to stop this happening! In fact they don’t even acknowledge this is what is going on.

      Do they not understand or are they deliberately misrepresenting? Do they really think things in Syria would have been better if Russia had stood back and let the US proxies take over?

      What is there reason for taking this stance?

      As I said, with Corbett it’s possible his ideology is leading him away from dealing with the hard realities here. He believes all forms of authority are wrong. He’s a purist and absolutist on this point. It may well simply not occur to him that Russia may be the lesser of two evils at the moment. or that offering them conditional support might be both pragmatic and morally sound. Like anyone adhering too closely to a belief system he is partially blinded by it – perhaps.

      But Edmonds is not – so far as I know – an anarchist or voluntarist. And it’s she, more than Corbett, who seems to be cheerleading this bout of Russia-hate. When you watch you very much get the impression Corbett is following her lead, and possibly even being a little manipulated into the stance he is taking.

      So, why did Sibel Edmonds, alleged whistleblower who has never seen jail time or the kind of persecution doled out to Manning or even Snowden, suddenly taking against Russia just months after they moved on Syria?

      She has, as someone said, walked back from this position now, as has Corbett, perhaps because of the shock and dismay it caused amongst their following. But the question still stands does it not.

      Like

      • It is possible, likely even, that Sibel wished to distance herself from any percieved allignment with Russia or its information channels at the time she was launching Newsbud? Perhaps her vanity, she effervesces orgasmically when referred to as important, led her to think that just being the principle player of Newsbud would see her name propel Newsbud to the preeminent spot in the independent news scene? If Newsbud was going to be big, she may have mused, it needed to distance itself from any accusation of Russian influence. That would be a simple explanation for her stance without invoking deeper, darker intents.
        As for Corbett he has enjoyed a large degree of credibility in his associations with Sibel over the years and did not want to jeopardise that relationship and its future potential. Corbett was asked to be a part of the Newsbud team but declined the invitation electing to be an occasional contributor/collaborator and doing all he could to support the launch of Newsbud on his site. Like you I have a lot of respect for Corbetts abilities as an analyst and contemporary historian but he has several weaknesses too some of which you spelled out.
        Newsbud at the moment seems very focussed on exploring the Gulan movement which has long been seen as a CIA backed operation and principle player in Gladio operations in Turkey. Along with the other reporters on Newsbud and what they write I do not get the feeling they have any hidden agenda at all. But I am only an occasional reader now.

        Like

        • MoriartysLeftSock says

          Interesting idea. So, Edmonds may have been imagining Newsbud as taking RT’s place as a go-to resource for non-mainstream news. I don’t see that happening. I think too many people have been put off by the way its primary focus from day one was raising money.

          I don’t like the vibe there at all. I find it chilling and a bit soulless. It’s completely monetised to the point you need to subscribe to access any articles or videos at all, yet they also, according to another commenter here, ask for donations and they have a kickstarter too! I can only assume all or some of the large staff are taking salaries as there isn’t much else on the site to justify hundreds of thousands of dollars in income. They aren’t exactly fielding reporters all over the world, so what else can the money be gong on?

          I’m happier supporting less narcissistic projects like Corbett himself or this site.

          Like

          • MoriartysLeftSock says

            Afterthought @candideschmyles – not sure your idea is a complete explanation. She could have distanced herself from Russia and RT without doing the MSM’s work for them, or turning on poor old PCR. That was nasty. The more I watch that segment of the video the more disturbing I find it.

            Like

            • I am certain of nothing. It is just the simplest explanation I can see as reasonable that provides a motivation for the content of that anomalous roundtable.
              I totally agree with you that the constant in your face monetization is nauseating in the extreme and wholly unjustified given the enormous sums already raised on Kickstarter.
              I too thought back to not long before Newsbud was announced and Sibel going AWOL in Turkey for about 6 weeks with next to no output produced subsequently. Then she announces Newsbud. Now she does Erdogans bidding in his fight with Gulan. Curious.

              Like

          • “So, Edmonds may have been imagining Newsbud as taking RT’s place as a go-to resource for non-mainstream news.” More power to her, but that doesn’t seem to be the case. (I have my issues with RT, and they are the same as Sibel’s, but so far, I still like it better than major media elsewhere.) As well, “may” is nothing, Isn’t it?

            I found the reportage in the video to be a bit shrill. I think Sibel would have been more convincing had she been more balanced. I don’t want to see balance if it’s at the expense of truth, but in this case I think that more balance would have been closer to truth rather than further from it. She could have helped rather than simply punished RT with her criticisms. For example, Something I complain about when I see it is bravado. It’s understandable that the rest of the world, including Russia, would feel like giving some nastiness back to the ultra nasty US by hyping up its militaries and perceived military superiority in this or that area. But it’s unwise in my view. The thing with bravado is that pumping your fist in the air and promising that “We will defeat any attackers” or any specific attacker, is nothing more than a prediction that may or may not come true. And when it does not come true, all those progressives who you got all excited become demoralized. Is that what we need? Predict, if you must, but in a responsible manner, acknowledging that it’s not prophecy. If Sibel could take that tone, she’d win people over, I think. But shrillness, that gets reinforced by her employees/partners, puts people off.

            Like

    • This is the first time I saw this. I find it more plausible than not. I had already concluded the same thing. And I frequently bring up the missing discussion, by those who want to idolize Putin, of victims of Putin’s pipeline projects. I’m met with only crickets. Obama was evil for many reasons, including his single-handedly reviving nuclear everything. Putin is doing the same thing and because it doesn’t help with leftwing narratives that pit righteous Putin against evil Trump (or whoever), it’s ignored. And here’s Putin selling weapons to ANYONE who will buy them, including fascist Modi Narendra.

      What Sibel needs to do is support her accusations. I don’t have too much trouble with them because she’s never given me any reason to distrust her. Still, There’s a way to proceed and a way to not proceed. If she’s going to make controversial statements, that’s fine. But there’s something unfair about it when you can’t do any back and forth with her unless you sign up and fork over.

      Like

    • Admin says

      please stop trying to turn this into a witch hunt against anyone who has a shade of opinion in any way divergent from your own. This site is not interested in playing those games. If it’s all you have to contribute consider going elsewhere.

      Liked by 1 person

      • uh.. asking to you directly: do you still think in 2018 that database did 9/11? oh my..
        how ridiculous to pretend to be able to identify cia limited hangout while being unable to speak about 9/11 false flag that let the usofa government to launch perpetual war bases on the non-existent ‘war on terror’!

        Like

        • There are multiple threads in which 9/11 is discussed. You are free to comment on them, but this is not the place for an analysis of that event. Please don’t attempt to extend this any further.

          Like

  15. Joerg says

    PART 2
    3) Also Tarpley’s third argument, that we must be warned of Assange/Snowden because the MSM (those disgusting NYT, WaPo, Spiegel and others) picked up some revelations of them leads to nowhere!
    a) First of all: This the strategy of “limited hangout”, that Tarpley tries to convince us to fix it to Assange and Snowden, is the main MSM strategy: The strategy of lying to the people – but at the same time keeping them buying/seeing their articles/reports. And if something can not more be hidden successfully, the MSM will jump forward to publish this fact – or evidence – in order to prevent damage to their reputation. To this see: “MY LIFE AS A NEW YORK TIMES REPORTER IN THE SHADOW OF THE WAR ON TERROR” – https://theintercept.com/2018/01/03/my-life-as-a-new-york-times-reporter-in-the-shadow-of-the-war-on-terror/ .

    b) Also Tarpley thesis that you either work for the spying security community or you are a wistleblower- but you can’t be both, is totally absurd and misleads us to what a 2whistleblower” is. The contrary is true: A “whistleblower” always has to come from inside of an organisation. That’s the definition of a whistleblower! If an outsider researched and comes forward with evidence to the JFK-, Robert Kennedy-, M. L. King-murder or to 9/11 or to the “Boston Bombing “or to “Sandy Hook” he/she wouldn’t be a “whistleblower”.

    Like

    • Joerg says

      Last word:
      I wish the British citizens would do more to free the brave Assange! Where are the massive demonstrations??!!
      Instead of supporting Assange Off-Guardian prefers to smear him with this Tarpley article. Tarpley is a John McCain man! It is only, may be, two months ago that Tarpley praised John McCain. In three consecutive weekend audios on his blog. It is about, may be, two years ago that Tarpley praised himself as a well trained specialist in “COINTELPRO”!
      So, now, where do you get this training in COINTELPRO?? This Tarpley article is nothing but a cointelpro piece!

      To Assange see:
      https://www.rt.com/uk/414442-assange-files-tribunal-maurizi/
      https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/feb/04/julian-assange-wikileaks-arrest-friday-un-investigation

      Like

      • Hey hey – steady on. We have done many articles in support of Assange and Wikileaks over the two years an ten months we have been in existence. But we aren’t about being partisan at the expense of the pursuit of truth, and we have always allowed contrary or contrasting opinions on here. Because narrow complacency is never good, no matter what ‘side’ it supports. That’s why we started this site.

        And – by the way – we took the time (a lot of time) to check out Tarpley’s numerous claims and add sources for them where we could. We also make it clear when we can’t find any sources. This is the kind of work you should be encouraging. It’ about looking for truth not easy or reassuring answers.

        And look – we can’t be aware of how controlled and helpless the MSM is and not wonder how or why they felt able to feature these alleged whistleblowers so prominently. Why is Cass Sunstein suddenly a fan of the anti-establishment? It’s rational to be aware this is an anomaly and irrational to simply deny it. Whistleblowing is by its nature a liminal and tricksterish entity where bluffs and double bluffs are the norm and where agents can become patsies can become real truth-tellers and back again. We all have to be vigilant and honest within ourselves. And we have to evaluate the information we are receiving as objectively as possible. Calls to loyalty toward unknown and unquantifiable people or entities is not good. Loyalty always diminishes rationality. But this last para is just my view, not OffG’s.

        Liked by 1 person

  16. Joerg says

    PART 1
    This Tarpley article above is itself a “limited hangout”! And I am shocked that it was published here.

    1) When Tarpley cites Assange with these words: “I’m constantly annoyed that people are distracted by false conspiracies such as 9/11, when all around we provide evidence of real conspiracies, for war or mass financial fraud“, Assange was nothing but perfectly right!
    What is this “false conspiracies“? It is the one and only ‘conspiracy-theory’ that exists to 9/11: It is that George W. Bush-Conspiracy-Theory (some Arabs meet in an Afghan Cave and conspire to bring down the US with kidnapped passenger planes) that was immediately blown out by the then US President and picked up immediately by all MSM outlets. And that was the only “conspiracy theory” that exists to 9/11. And that what our MSM permanently call (and attack as) “conspiracy theories” are only ‘debunking’ theories that – most often effectively – prove that the G.W.Bush-MSM-conspiracy-theory is nothing but bullshit. So these ‘theories’ of the 9/11 truthers are in fact “Anti-Conspiracy-Theories”!

    2) Tarpley blames Assange and Snowden for (allegedly) not/seldom presenting new Information. So Tarpley tells us, that Assange/Snowden can’t be “whistleblowers”. But that Tarpley attack goes nowhere. Tarpley tries to manipulate us to the idea that only those are “whistleblowers”, who come up with a brand new information. But “whistleblower” usually never come up with ‘new’ information! Their invaluable work is usually to make facts that everybody knows (except for the sheeple) provable– and often even judiciable!
    Let’s take the case, which Tarpley present’s us with the words: “Assange first won credibility for Wikileaks with some chum in the form of a shocking film showing a massacre perpetrated by US forces in Iraq with the aid of drones“.
    Well, first of all Tarpley tries to confuse us: Because Assange didn’t uncover something with “drones”. Instead, he published a video that shows an US helicopter crew shooting down with machine guns on unarmed Iraqi civilians! See here: “WIKILEAKS REVEALS VIDEO SHOWING US AIR CREW SHOOTING DOWN IRAQI CIVILIANS” – https://www.theguardian.com/world/2010/apr/05/wikileaks-us-army-iraq-attack

    And some of us will still remember that it later was known that it was the wistleblower Chelsea Manning, who gave his information to Assange/Wikileaks. I am happy that Tarpley does not attack Manning, too!
    And, yes, there was something with Assange and “drones” – see here: https://www.rt.com/usa/361641-clinton-denies-drone-assange/ – but that had nothing to do with that Chelsea Manning leak! Tarpley tries to confuse us!

    And now to my argument, that the great merits of whistle blowing Assange/Snowden is not that they let us know brand new facts, but that they enable us to prove the breach of law/constitution or cruelties our governments commit.
    In case of the US helicopter massacre in Iraq nobody (except for the stupid sheeple) with a clear mind was surprised to learn that the US military committed massacres against civilians on a day to day basis. The point was to prove it, to supply us with evidence, so we were able to throw back the reproach of being a ‘conspiracy theorist’ – as soon as we pointed to that crime.
    The same with Snowden’s brave and most meritorious revelation that the NSA was illegally spying on US citizens. Also this fact was not a ‘new’ information or even surprising for anyone – except for those majority of stupid sheeple and those sweet followers of the official “narrative”. But now we could lay the finger on it and demand that state attorneys had to go into action.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Admin says

      @joerg We’d like to invite you to turn this comment into a rebuttal of the Tarpley article, which we’d be more than happy to host here.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Joerg says

        @admin
        Please do so (I woundn’t know how). and please add my following anwer to @writerroddis, too.
        @@writerroddis
        Yes, this is an excellent site. And this is why I like to comment here.

        But the editors of this site made a mistake to publish Tarpley’s article here. Why didn’t they inform themselves about Tarpley before? You can easily listen to his weekend-audios on his site (tarpley.net). If You roll back to 2017 You will find his absurd hate speeches against Trump. Nobody likes Trump, who has a disgusting character and is indeed “a moron”. But Tarpley’s permanent prediction (in several of his audios of 2017) a president Trump would instantly become an American “Mussolini” is and was totally absurd!
        In his hate (behind which, I think, is possibly John McCain) Tarpley even slandered Melania Trump as a high-prized hooker. She sued him and before he lost the trial he pulled back. See: https://www.washingtonian.com/2017/02/07/melania-trump-settles-lawsuit-maryland-blogger/ .
        Obama’s “Asian Pivot”, which had the only goal to raise tension and encircle China (and North Korea) was all Tarpley’s thing! The war against Syria produced by invading armies of foreigners, trained and equipped in foreign countries, to Tarpley was the “Syrian civil war” (like the Poland invading Nazi armies had been the ‘Polish Civil War’).
        He is a fan of the war monger Bismarck, he is an agile propagandist of this absurd “Russiagate” – and so on and on.

        I once was a fan of Tarpley after hearing (on youtube) his really excellent speech “BERTRAND RUSSELL: THE GOLEM OF VENICE” – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEfX-Pmrr94 .

        The US secret service community is not a block, but has different wings. Just some days ago I read of a retired former high ranked CIA man (don’t have the link anymore) . And he told us of the enormous frictions that appear now between the Obama-Hillary-wing and the – no, not Trump-wing, but what you could call ‘the anti-Obama-Hillary-wing’. And with his superficial and, yes, primitive hate speeches Tarpley belongs definitely to the first wing, and, as I think, to some John McCain faction.
        And if you like Trump or not: A real democrat would never do the work of the deep state. And Tarpley does that permanently.

        And he does it also with his article above. His original article is from June 18, 2013. And I read it then (3 ½ years ago!!). And I wonder why Off-Guardian decided to publish this article now.
        One word to Snowden. When the Bolivian President EVO Morales flew home from Moscow he had to cross the Austrian sky. And then the Austrian Air Force threatened Morales to murder him, his accompanist and the two pilots, if he, President Morales didn’t land immediately on Austrian ground. They then search his plane for Snowden!
        If Snowden had been “a limited hangout” why would they (the Austrians and the regime in Washington) breach so massively those international conventions? The only thing that I can remember and that compares to the brutal knocking Evo Morales out of the Austrian skies is the kidnapping of Richard Lionheart several hundred years ago!
        Of course Tarpley doesn’t mention this brutal interception of Evo Morales – which contradicts Tarpley’s “limited hangout”. But Why didn’t the editorial office of Off-Guardian mention this scandalous and dangerous interception, which clearly shows that Snowdon is definitely not a puppet of the NSA?

        Like

    • writerroddis says

      I share your doubts and concerns, Joerg, but am not shocked that Tarpley’s piece is reproduced here. It comes accompanied with health warnings and I do not expect to agree with everything I read on this (still!) excellent site.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Carrie says

      Assange endorses the official explanation for 9/11. If you think he’s a truther you’re kidding yourself. He’s not. Ask him. Read everything he’s ever said about 9/11. You’re in denial.

      Like

    • Edward Snowden only began to get politicized after his conscience moved him to leak info, which could also explain his willingness to allow the smooth Glenn Greenwald to manage everything the way they have. Nazi-enabler Omidyar was smart to corral celeb lefties like Greenwald. I am late coming to this and am reading it in a coffee shop, so will return to it later. I have my own issues with Newsbud (and they are sometimes those of others commenting here) and Corbett, whose smear job of Chomsky I have blogged about. (I do ‘not’ worship Chomsky and actually welcomed Corbett’s close look, but was appalled by it.) I think Edmonds makes good points about First Look’s control over the naive Snowden’s leaked files. And I’m alarmed by something I just read by Martin Edwards. In “Mark of the Beast: Digital Identity and the Cashless Cartel,” we learn a little about what Snowden’s up to these days. And the crowd he’s running with (if that’s a fair way to put it; It may not be) is scary:

      == =
      Keynote and other speakers in May 2017 included:- Edward Snowden, Former Intelligence Officer & Whistleblower; Carmi Gillon, Former Head of the Israeli “Shin Bet” Security Service and a leading cyber-security expert; Serge Llorente, Director of Mobile Connect of Orange; Susan Joseph, Advisor at One World Identity; Anand Menon, Director, New Customers at Mastercard; Don Thibeau, Chairman and President of the Open Identity Exchange; Matt Miller, VP Conversational Commerce and Remote IoT at Mastercard; Matthew Thompson, Director of Business Development at Capital One; Laura Hunter, Principal Program Manager at Microsoft; Adam Madlin, Business Development Director at Symantec; Tom Purves, VP Digital Products – Visa Checkout at Visa Inc.; Toby Rush, CEO of EyeVerify; Alex Ketter, Head of US Compliance at Google Payment Corp; Greg Kidd, CEO at Global iD; Juan Llanos, Senior Advisor of One World Identity; Alka Gupta, Co-Founder global iD.

      We also noted the presence of Niall McCann, Lead Electoral Advisor at UN Development Programme; Adam Cooper, Lead Technical Architect at UK Cabinet Office, and, Stephen Stuut, CEO of Jumio.
      = ==

      The linked-to article will explain why this crowd and what it’s up to is scary. Jumio is nasty.

      Like

  17. BigB says

    Meanwhile, over at the Intercept: one point of interest about Snowden’s alleged 1.7mn files : virtually none of them have been published. The Guardian published around 1% of what they had: Greenwald is still writing his book: and the $250mn media venture with Laura Poitras, Jeremy Scahill, and Greenwald – looks for all the world to be a bribe paid by Pierre Omidyar for him to sit on the files? Seems like an awful lot to suppress a limited hangout? Aren’t hangouts meant to be hungout???

    https://www.corbettreport.com/secrets-for-sale-the-greenwaldomidyarnsa-connection/?

    Liked by 3 people

  18. Carrie says

    Does anyone else wonder about Sibel Edmonds? If she was a whistleblower why was she not jailed and why is she allowed to live in the US and even run alternative news outlets? It doesn’t sit right for me.

    Like

    • Boiling Frogs Post and it’s transition to Newsbud has provided quite a lot of information that though rarely unique has occasionally been valuable for context and insight on certain topics. But I do sometimes get the feeling Sibels heart is not in it so much as her need to capitalise on her name. We all have bills to pay so that is not actually much of a criticism. Yet I am disappointed with the volume and quality of output considering the level of crowd funding pledged, there seems to be a disconnect there. Almost every “EXCLUSIVE” on the site is but a commentary on popular stories of the day and I got so tired of the dozens of emails a day linking to other outlets that I stopped receiving emails from Newsbud.
      All that said I do not get the niggling suspicion that she is anything other than who we can see.

      Like

      • Carrie says

        God yes I just checked – $28,000 raised through donations! WTF?
        https://www.newsbud.com
        AND their content is pretty much all subscription only!
        https://www.newsbud.com/subscribe/

        They must be making a lot of money. What are their overheads? Do all the contributors get a salary? How does it compare with, say, this site?

        I agree she seems really pecuniary. I don’t watch or read them any more since it’s all behind paywalls. And her voice drives me nuts.

        Like

      • Carrie says

        AND – Sibel apparently has claimed she has seen evidence Putin really does have billions offshore, which sounds really suspicious to me. I mean if that evidence existed where Sibel could find it you can bet the MSM would be publishing it, because they have been searching for any tiny tidbit about Putin being corrupt for ages. How come Sibel can find his stash but the CIA or the NSA or Mi6 can’t? That really sends up flares to me. What kind of alternative news site joins in bashing Putin with made up claims about knowing he is a multi-billionaire?

        Here’s where I got the info, a comment on Russia Insider with a lot of links and background info in it. Really worth reading.

        http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/dear-russia-insiders-time-hit-newsbud-groove/ri13454#comment-2578442201

        Like

        • Admin says

          Can we clarify here. You’re saying Sibel Edmonds claims to have personal proof of Putin’s alleged billions? That seems inherently improbable.

          Like

          • writerroddis says

            If there’s any specific point, in the texts whose link Carrie supplies, where Edmonds is shown to claim evidence of Putin’s stashed ill-gottens it’s a needle in a haystack. Plenty of claims of claims though. I can’t help but wonder where all of this is going. Would a powerful and practised ruling class with vast experience and near infinite resources use smoke ‘n mirror feints and triple feints to sow discord and confound its critics? Of course. But that’s a reason for demanding high standards of evidence and integrity. Tarpley may or may not be right but there’s too little of those qualities – and rather too much adjectival sneering – in his piece for my tastes. Shall we all end up at one another’s throats?

            Like

              • that would be another hard evidence that everyone who is said to tackle the fascist usofa are not automatically legit.. that would be beyond disappointment!

                who ‘the people’ can actually trust if even the anti-mainstream journalists/activists are limited hangouts, shills or just plain stupid?

                is ryan dawson another shill? he denies the nuclear attack on 9/11 false flag! awful from someone who presents himself are truthers or any other BS!

                Like

                • Rhisiart Gwilym says

                  @la Cariatide: 11/9 (I’m British…) was certainly a false flag. The accumulated hard evidence for that is about as conclusive as anything can be in an imperfect world. But I never saw any convincing evidence for a nuclear component. I class that red-herring-seeming story – tentatively – as a deliberately-sown obfuscation; part of the continuing cover-up of the real story; such extended cover-up work being an essential part of the whole plot, whilst the (real) perpetrators are still alive. Chris Bollyn elucidates this continuing work by the real conspirators and their retainers well, on his 11/9 blog: http://www.bollyn.com

                  Like

                    • Rhisiart Gwilym says

                      Chris B. underlines repeatedly the importance of the continuing cover-up by the real perpetrators’ supporters, an essential part of the whole scam, which is why I cite him. I take no firm stance about his insistence that the whole false-flag was an Israeli scam from first to last. It seems to me that it involved powerful USAmericans (probably as the ultimate decision-and-control masters), plus Israelis, dual citizens, and – yes, emphatically – Saudis; all of them contributing useful input to the scam.

                      But it seems likely that, when things get really hairy, the zionist tail doesn’t wag the gentile US deep-state dog; nor does the al-Saud gang; though there can be no argument about the degree of general penetration into US power-formations of the zionists, and the crippling – to democracy – influence that they wield. Who exactly amongst these factions is in control, if indeed it’s meaningful to say that any one of them is in total control, matters less than who exactly were the individual perpetrators. They need to be brought to justice before they die, if that can be managed, and the whole vile scam needs to be blown wide open, and to be admitted on the general public record of history for the false flag that it undoubtedly was.

                      And, btw: I’ve still seen no persuasive, credible-physics-based evidence that nuclear devices were used. OTOH, unoxidised nano-thermite particles were sprayed all over Lower Manhattan, and were recovered from various dust samples and identified unmistakably. That strikes me as firm evidence for all the explosives/incendiaries that are needed to explain the controlled demolitions. The nuclear-devices story feels like a red-herring to me; exactly the sort of trick that the trail-coverers would throw out to muddy up the clarity of evidence; and quite likely to be taken up as pet hypotheses by innocent promoters, just because they like the feel of the story. It happens; not everyone pushing a particular hypothesis is necessarily a knowing participant in the cover-up. Some will be just handy volunteers for the cover-up operators’ purposes.

                      Like

                    • you have evidence gathered and explained by Heinz Pommer. after reading his work, you just have to look at the pictures gathered by Dimitri Khalezov. what happened at Manhattan that day looked like exactly underground nukes.

                      now it’s up to you to believe or not what Veterans Today reports:

                      ‘Here is what is now added to the narrative, not the official narrative, but the one based on the 2003 investigation. The following information is from the US Department of Energy Preliminary Report on the Events of September 11, 2001:
                      – The buildings destroyed at the World Trade Center were demolished using nuclear devices brought into the US through Teterboro Airport, according to the DOE report. Investigator’s statements say that “there were no customs-only passport forms to be filled out by the flight crews. There was never any physical inspection of baggage or aircraft. “
                      – Able Danger investigators tracked the devices through the airport and maintained surveillance of all involved until the records were seized by orders of Michael Chertoff.
                      – When the nuclear investigation moved to Fort Lee, there had been in place a federal multi-agency task force probe into Mafia gambling operations there. It was this investigation that Mike Dick and Jeff Smith took over, surveillance on Atta, on the airport nearby and on the Israeli teams.
                      – The destruction of Building 7 was the result of nuclear devices installed in 100 gallon Halon fire extinguishing tanks placed throughout the complex under a fire prevention equipment upgrade program, according to the US Department of Energy report.
                      – The Teterboro airport’s security company, as of 9/11/2001, waived through illicit cargoes of all kinds.’

                      https://www.veteranstoday.com/2016/10/05/911-filling-in-the-map-tracing-the-nukes/

                      and last but not least, you have that. of course you have to read between the lines. why would Sandia’s security expertise tapped hours after 9/11 attacks? they are specialized in nuclear events!
                      http://www.sandia.gov/LabNews/ln09-09-11/labnews09-09-11.pdf

                      Like

                    • i agree with you: israel, the mossad could not have done all the false flag by themselves.

                      about who actually controls the usofa deepstate, who knows?
                      but ‘we’ know that zionists have been mostly in charge of the US foreign policy since the 1990s:
                      Doz Zakheim : http://www.voltairenet.org/article14781.html
                      paul wolfowits : http://www.voltairenet.org/article30099.html

                      otherwise, do you know the Family, a prayer group that all US Chief of Military Staff have belonged to and do belong to since the Second World War? here its history. http://www.voltairenet.org/article15182.html

                      https://web.archive.org/web/20030412221248/http://www.counterpunch.org/cajee04112003.html

                      the International Christian Embassy http://www.voltairenet.org/article150747.html

                      are they the infamous christian zionists?

                      don’t worry, us military are not the only ones who have to comply with lunatics.
                      http://www.voltairenet.org/article174054.html

                      as for 9/11 issue, up to you to believe or not. https://journal-neo.org/2014/07/07/so-you-want-to-know-the-truth-about-9-11/

                      there are not 10 hypothesis about how the towers were taken down:
                      1. jetfuel: nah
                      2. thermite and explosives: not enough
                      3. star wars directed-energy weapons: none evidence
                      4. nukes. and we have evidences.

                      atta was under surveillance by a team tasked with investigating nuclear terrorism against the US.

                      This team, originally headed by FBI special agent John O’Neill and later by FBI special agent Mike Dick, which was to include nuclear weapons specialist Jeff Smith, was centered in Fort Lee, New Jersey, not just to watch Atta but to watch Atta and his accomplices, which included Israeli teams who used a safehouse only blocks away.

                      John Wheeler was found in a Delaware trash dump and John O’Neill died on 9/11. you can check the facts.

                      Like

          • Carrie says

            Yes! She says she personally knows that Putin has billions stashed away in Cyprus! Are we supposed to believe this is info available to Sibel-nobody-Edmonds but not available to the NSA? If they had real evidence for his corruption it’d be in the NYT. They have been trying to push the idea he is corrupt and just can’t find any proof. They wouldn’t sit on this info if they had it. So she has to be lying. This is where I just have to start thinking she is a limited hangout. She and Corbett are basically spreading the same anti-Russian propaganda in a different wrapper.

            Like

            • As a whistleblower, Sibel is sensitive to the dangers to other whistleblowers. She’s had bad experiences sending whistleblowers to people who she thought she could trust and who ‘we’ thought were trustworthy. Like Amy Goodman. So, She very well may be protecting informers. We might like her to simply say so, but perhaps even her saying so would alert those with power to carefully check out all those around them, putting the informer in danger, although it’s hard to see how alerting us to the fact that she’s protecting an informer could add to his (or…) danger after she’s already blurted that she knows that Putin has a fortune. The idea that Putin has a fortune doesn’t surprise me, by the way. Do you suppose that he would be so willing to facilitate Russia’s weapons makers business and nuclear industry business and gas and oil business if those powerful, capitalist special interests just ignored him?

              Like

    • I find her solid, so far. But people here have made points, and accusations, that I will consider. The lack of accessibility for those who don’t cough up the dough keeps me away from Newsbud. I don’t judge her for it. My issue, in fact, is with the way that are not clear with people about how subscriptions work. Apparently, You have to hit a certain amount. So, If I start payments but don’t shovel out the max, will I find that I’m still not able to access the site?

      I miss professor Kovacevic’s Russian newspaper monitor.

      Like

  19. Fair dinkum says

    Celebrity is an addiction.
    Whether one is famous or infamous the adoration and/or attention is the recipients substitute for love, or more accurately, the Mothering or Fathering they missed out on in childhood.
    The author of this piece is not immune to the addiction.
    Beliefs and opinions are fallible and unreliable.
    Knowledge is immediate and incontrovertible.

    Like

  20. The leaps of faith in his own self important infallible ability to assess motivations actions and events leaves Tarpley open, as Bevan suggests, to himself being cast as a befuddler. I have seen many attempts to call Assange and Wilileaks limited hangouts but in every case the evidence for such accusations is as tenuous a stretch of the imagination as a Bigfoot sighting. The appeal to the emotional angst of his target audience in repeatedly invoking the lack of support for 9/11 and the JFK assassination is disingenuous to say the least. Everybody chooses their battles as limited time and energy are real constraints. Going down the 9/11 rabbit hole would not only be a one way ticket away from everything else it would alienate many and marginalize support to those who have taken that red pill. The Podesta emails destroyed the Clinton campaign and trying to say the footage from the helicopter gunship was Wikileaks only contribution to the library of truth is simply not true. What is true is that far too few “alternative” researchers and journalists spend any time whatsoever researching the millions of files available on Wikileaks. Perhaps if they did they would write something worth reading.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Catte says

      The fact both Wikileaks and Snowden were featured so heavily in the mainstream press and ‘endorsed’ by Cass Sunstein is not a tenuous or irrelevant factor though is it? When Tarpley points out this is not the way the mainstream usually treats anti-establishment figures he is absolutely correct. This doesn’t mean either Assange or Snowden are limited hangouts of course, but then there are probably many shades between being a straight-up whistleblower and an out and out CIA stooge.

      Like

      • Sunstein may of had motivations other than those painted here. I do not know. A pet theory of mine is that a primary target of Snowden was actually Wikileaks. It is plausible he was tasked to infiltrate and learn exactly how Wikileaks operates. But it’s just a pet theory with nothing other than my own vivid imagination to support it. There in lays the problem. Like the article it relies on imagination and not much else.

        Like

    • George says

      Ah but it’s one thing to show “lack of support” for 9/11 skepticism and quite another to positively rubbish the skeptics.

      Like

  21. Kerry says

    This is a poorlyl written article full of inaccuracies and the conclusions drawn are not supported by fact or even logic.

    Snowden is a whistleblower and Assange is a journalist/publisher never claiming to be a whistleblower.

    “Assange’s Wikileaks document dump triggered numerous destabilizations and coups d’état across the globe”. Really? Please elaborate as I am not aware of a single one.

    I have no idea if these individuals are CIA or not and reading this article sheds no light on the subject.

    And since when does the inaction of corrupt governments like the US indicate that the source of “news” is a fake ? Does that mean that all your stories are “limited hangouts” because nothing ever changes in your government as a result?

    What on earth you were you thinking publishing such journalistic rubbish?

    Liked by 1 person

    • Richard Wicks says

      Which one of us hasn’t suspected that Assange or Snowden aren’t, exactly, what they seem to be?

      Always be suspicious, don’t draw absolute conclusions, and just take in the information and don’t deify anybody.

      Who funds wikileaks BTW?

      How does Snowden make a living in Russia?

      I’m just saying, funny we don’t know this.

      Like

      • Beliefs should be founded on what you do know, not what you don’t. I agree it is very wise to believe nothing, but that does not mean you should believe nothing but idle and spurious nothing. I try to keep the following quote in mind,
        “Everything is Propaganda ” Julian Assange
        ( I am a zero hrs wage slave who helps fund Wikileaks).

        Liked by 2 people

      • Kerry says

        I think that its far more productive to be suspicious of people who clearly are criminal like our politicians and corporations. I am not a “believer” and I don’t have Assange or Snowdon on a pedestal but as far as I am concerned they have been pointing to issues that we the people need to address. It is not up to them as whistleblowers and journalists to also make sure the perps are prosecuted. They are only human.
        Targeting people like this just muddies the waters. As far as I’m concerned if they are pointing the finger at the same people that my own judgment tells me are crooked and that most of the alternative media is saying are crooked, then they are ok by me. I think Americans are so paranoid that you are very easily turned against each other and against real truth tellers. Everyone becomes a “Shill” Oh how i hate that term! This makes it that much easier to control you because you can’t trust anyone.
        It isn’t about being naive, it is simply reading widely and using your own judgement. We don’t need to get on here and be condescending to each other, I’m assuming that everyone who reads this publication already is a much more aware than the average person.

        Liked by 2 people

        • Carrie says

          There’s no limit on scepticism!Nothing should be trusted beyond question. If there are things that don’t look right we should call them out.

          Like

          • George Cornell says

            I thought there were no limits as well. Until the M$M , after that Croat general had died at The Hague, reported that he “claimed” to have taken poison. Now that was skepticism.

            Like

        • BigB says

          “Targeting people like this just muddies the waters”

          …Pehaps I could expand that to “muddies the waters around Tarpley?” Another way of reading this piece is as self-aggrandisement: establishing a single verifiable source – Tarpley? He may no longer be (publicly) Lyndon LaRouche’s right hand man: but I would still consider him agenda driven? He has an anti-elitist historocity (driven by the desire to replace the elite with LaRouche? ) – which suits me fine, as I am anti-elitist to …but when it comes to matters environmental – his writing veers into fantasy. He may claim to have severed ties with LaRouche, but he still talks the talk, IMHO.

          Like

  22. Edwige says

    The Pentagon Papers appeared in the papers about two months after COINTELPRO became public and completely overshadowed that story which may have been part of the point.

    Richard D. Hall’s investigation ‘Wikileaks and Assange: Made by the NSA’ is worth watching.

    Like

    • No, Halls collection of straws grasped in a series of absolutely ridiculous stretches of credulity is definitely not worth watching. But don’t take my word for it. Go find out for yourselves.

      Like

  23. seems to me by the fruit ye shall know them. earth shattering revelations followed by no change and even ratification of the offenses revealed. remember all the changes brought about by snowdens revelation of nsa spying? me either.

    Like

    • eddie says

      Changes brought about by who, exactly? The citizens who don’t seem to mind that they pay for 17 spy agencies to spy on themselves?
      Or the Corporate media which shapes the citizens’ short attention span, and like the Congress, is up to its eyeballs in Deep State duplicity?
      Far too much oxygen is wasted on that dysfunctional country, when there are 195 others to consider; minus the Five-Eyes + Israel..

      Like

  24. George says

    I thought there was something dodgy about Assange when his story was the very first item on the BBC 6 O’Clock News. The following rape claims threw on more fuel for argument and outrage. Nice one. And the beauty is that even if he is revealed as a total fraud, that will only lead to the assumption that there’s nothing to see here at all. Move along folks.

    Like

  25. bevin says

    So-‘believe nothing from anyone advertised as a ‘whistleblower.’
    Who is the CIA agent here? Ellsberg or Tarpley?

    Liked by 2 people

    • In fairness he doesn’t say anything like the words you suggest – and he does adduce evidence for why Ellsberg and the others should be treated with scepticism. I can’t speak for him but implicit in his point seems to be that if a whistleblower were to produce valuable information Tarpley would not allege he was a limited hangout.

      This is not to rule out your interpretation of course.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Hugh O’Neill says

      Like Tarpley, I too am not totally convinced by Ellsberg. Prouty pointed out the elision of the JFK assassination. Apparently, the change of presidents did not affect Vietnam strategy….yeah, right. Ellsberg’s latest appearance on Democracy Now likewise tells us nothing new, only confirming the amorality of MAD doctrine. However, the fact that Ellsberg’s son Robert, as CEO of Orbis Books, published James Douglass “JFK & The Unspeakable” is worth considering. Will the real Daniel please stand up?

      Liked by 1 person

.....................

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )

w

Connecting to %s