Tag Archives: John Brennan

CNN Fake News: U.S. intelligence memo says Russia has ‘compromising’ information on Trump

This is breaking news, for which there’s no verification other than what CNN claims to be true. Bear in mind that CNN is totally biased in favor of Hillary Clinton. See:

If this is true, the implications are very serious. It will give the Democrats the weapon for which they’ve been desperately searching to scuttle Trump’s presidency before he’s even inaugurated. What will happen after that is anyone’s guess because the resulting Constitutional crisis will be something America has never encountered.

Here’s the story.

This afternoon, a CNN report by Evan Perez, Jim Sciutto, Jake Tapper and Carl Bernstein alleges that last week when Trump met with U.S. intelligence chiefs* for a briefing on Russia’s hacking and intervention in the November 8 presidential election, among the classified documents presented to Trump was a hitherto-undisclosed 2-page memo that the Russian government has compromising information of a personal and financial nature on Trump.

*The intelligence chiefs who briefed Trump are Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, FBI Director James Comey, CIA Director John Brennan, and NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers.

While the CNN report does not say it, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to draw out the implications of this bombshell if it is true — which is that Moscow can use the compromising information to blackmail a President Trump. In fact, CNN claims that Russia has damaging information on both Hillary Clinton and the Democrats, and on Trump and the GOP, but chose to reveal only the information on Hillary & Dems while withholding Trump’s because Moscow meant to harm Hillary’s candidacy and help Trump’s.

The 2-page memo is a synopsis of 35 pages of memos that “originated as opposition research, first commissioned by anti-Trump Republicans, and later by Democrats.”

How does CNN know this? —

  1. CNN was told this by unnamed “multiple high ranking intelligence, administration, congressional and law enforcement officials, as well as foreign officials and others in the private sector with direct knowledge of the memos.”
  2. CNN claims to have actually “reviewed” the 35-page compilation of memos from which the 2-page synopsis was drawn. Paraodoxically, despite having “reviewed” the memos, CNN does not disclose what is contained in those memos.

Here is what CNN says about the synopsis and the source memos:

  • The 2-page synopsis was not an “official part” of the intelligence report about Russian hacks because it “was considered so sensitive,” but was “only shared at the most senior levels of the government” — President Obama, President-elect Trump, and eight Congressional leaders, including Harry Reid and John McCain.
  • At the same time, just about anyone of importance in D.C. already knows “some of the allegations” that “are circulating among intelligence agencies, senior members of Congress and other government officials in Washington“.
  • In addition to compromising information on Trump, the synopsis also includes “allegations that there was a continuing exchange of information during the campaign between Trump surrogates and intermediaries for the Russian government.”
  • Some of the allegations made in the source memos are from an unnamed “former British intelligence operative” — “a former MI6 agent, who was posted in Russia in the 1990s and now runs a private intelligence gathering firm.” The man and “his vast [intelligence] network throughout Europe” were checked out by US intelligence agencies and found “to be credible enough”. Initially, the British spook’s investigations related to Trump were funded by groups and donors supporting Trump’s GOP primary campaign opponents. Once Trump became the nominee, the spook’s further investigation was funded by groups and donors supporting Hillary Clinton.
  • Some of the allegations were first reported publicly in Mother Jones one week before the election.

So what did Mother Jones report one week before the election?

From Mother Jones, January 10, 2017:

“In late October, Mother Jones’ David Corn first reported that a former Western counterintelligence official [who asked not to be identified] with nearly two decades of experience on ‘Russian intelligence matters’ had been assigned the task of looking into Trump’s dealings with Russia as part of an opposition research effort initially funded by a Republican donor. This official was so alarmed by what he discovered that he passed the intelligence to the FBI.”

What did this unnamed “former Western counterintelligence official” discover which he judged to be “sufficiently serious” to share with the FBI?–

  • The Russian government “has been cultivating, supporting and assisting Trump for at least 5 years,” all “endorsed by Putin,” in order “to encourage splits and divisions in western alliance.”
  • Trump “and his inner circle have accepted a regular flow of intelligence from the Kremlin, including on his Democratic and other political rivals.”
  • Russian intelligence “compromised” Trump during his visits to Moscow and could “blackmail him.”
  • Russian intelligence had also compiled a dossier on Hillary Clinton based on “bugged conversations she had on various visits to Russia and intercepted phone calls.”

According to a HuffingonPost reporter named Andrea Chalupa in a tweet on Oct. 31, 2016, intelligence circles say Russia’s FSB (Federal Security Service) “filmed Trump in an orgy” when he was in Russia.

andrea-chalupa-tweet

Calling Trump and the Republican Party traitors to Russia, Colin Taylor of the rabid Occupy Democrats blog gets on his moral high horse and hysterically declares:

“Trump is unqualified to lead this nation and has done nothing since his victory to show us otherwise, or to even indicate that he intends to govern at all. Now that we know he has been compromised by a foreign government, we cannot allow him to be sworn in.”

Here are my observations:

  1. CNN says that the Trump transition team, FBI spokespeople, and the Director of National Intelligence all declined to comment. Furthermore, the officials who spoke to CNN “declined to do so on the record,” i.e., reveal their names, because of “the classified nature of the material.” All of which means that unless the parties who have direct knowledge of the memos talk, at this point we only have CNN’s word — and we all know how reliable and believable CNN is. [sarc]
  2. Why is the information contained in the 2-page synopsis so much more “sensitive” and “classified” that the synopsis was not an “official part” of the intelligence reports that have been published and publicized, and must remain so secret that the “multiple intelligence officials” who spoke about this to CNN refuse to be named?
  3. Since the information about Trump had been discovered months ago by the unnamed former British spook, and conveyed to Trump’s GOP primary opponents, Hillary Clinton and her campaign officials, the FBI, and even Mother Jones, and given how “compromising” and “damaging” the information is to Trump, why didn’t all those people, especially Hillary, reveal the information to the public?
  4. Since the allegations contained in the damning memos are “widely circulated” in D.C. and known to Obama and Congressional leaders including Harry Reid, why did they wait till now to “leak” the memos to CNN?
  5. If the “compromising information of a personal nature” about Trump is a sex tape of him in an orgy, why would this disqualify him from the presidency when President Bill Clinton’s oral sex with and shoving a cigar up the anus of a White House intern in the Oval Office didn’t disqualify him?

When I began writing this post hours ago, there was nothing about this on Trump’s Twitter feed. I just checked it again. Trump is calling the CNN report “unverifiable” “fake news” and “a total political witch hunt”.

trump-tweet-on-cnn-report-1-10-2017trump-tweet-on-cnn-report-1-10-2017a

Until we are shown the actual 2-page synopsis as well as the 35 pages of source memos, I call this B.S. — yet another desperate ploy of the Obama administration and the complicit “fake news” MSM to subvert the 2016 election.

In addition to CNN’s obvious partisan bias, the network also has a track record of deception and fake news.

See also:

UPDATE (Jan. 11, 2017):

H/t FOTM‘s Anon, Will Shanley, and Artist.

Here’s a link to the 35-page dossier from which the 2-page synopsis was generated, which BuzzFeed irresponsibly published even though the document is totally unverified. WikiLeaks observes that it “is not an intelligence report. Style, facts & dates show no credibility”.

A poster on the online chat forum 4Chan, which deletes the chatter after a day, claims that the infamous “golden showers” scene (that Trump made people urinate on a bed Obama slept in) in the 35-page source memo dossier allegedly compiled by a British intelligence officer from which the 2-page synopsis was drawn, was a hoax and fabricated by a member of the chatboard as “fanfiction”, then sent to Rick Wilson, who sent it to the CIA, which then put it in their official classified intelligence report on the election. (ZeroHedge)

In other words, what CNN reports to be Russia’s “compromising information” on Trump is a HOAX.

Shame on CNN! Shame on the CIA and other U.S. intelligence organizations! And shame on the Four Stooges: Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, FBI Director James Comey, CIA Director John Brennan, and NSA Director Admiral Mike Rogers.

This CNN fake news incident reveals, once and for all, how utterly corrupt and incompetent U.S. intelligence agencies have become under Obama. They have lost all credibility. Trump already has said he’ll reform the agencies, beginning with the CIA.

9 more days until inauguration…. Please pray for Trump’s safety. Please pray for America.

UPDATE 2 (Jan. 11, 2017):

russia-denies-compromising-info-on-trumpUPDATE 3 (Jan. 11, 2017):

WSJ (via ZeroHedge) says the name of the mysterious former MI6 spook is Chris Steele, 52. His LinkedIn page, which is now scrubbed, said he’s currently Director at Orbis Business Intelligence Ltd., London, UK.

WSJ asked Andrew Wordsworth, co-founder of London-based investigations firm Raedas, who often works on Russian issues, if the 35-page Trump dossier is credible. Wordsworth said the memos in the Trump dossier were “not convincing at all. It’s just way too good. If the head of the CIA were to declare he got information of this quality, you wouldn’t believe it.” Wordsworth said it wouldn’t make sense for Russian intelligence officials to expose state secrets to a former MI-6 officer because “Russians believe once you are an agent, you’re an agent forever.”

~Eowyn

Advertisements

CIA: Washington Post lied about a secret CIA report that Russia intervened in 2016 election

Since being bought by billionaire Amazon.com founder Jeff Bezos, Washington Post has degenerated into a newspaper of fake news, conspiracy theories, and sinister McCarthyism.

Recall that it was the Washington Post that, without making even a feeble effort at investigative journalism or verification, cited the work of a shadowy anonymous newly-founded website Is It Propaganda or Not? (PropOrNot) naming 200 websites as conscious or unconscious purveyors of Russian propaganda and “fake news”. The List of 200 includes WikiLeaks, Drudge Report, and this humble little blog, FOTM. (See “FOTM made the List of 200 secret-Russian-agents websites!“)

Most recently, Washington Post claims an anonymous “government official” said a secret CIA report has concluded that the Russian government intervened in the 2016 presidential election to favor Donald Trump by giving hacked Democrat emails to its agents to be published by WikiLeaks. The only problem is a careful reading of the Washington Post article shows that the alleged CIA report doesn’t actually say that, which means the Washington Post outright lied. (See “Fake News: Washington Post’s CIA report that Russia intervened in elections to help Trump“)

Now, Philadelphia based conservative news organization True Pundit is confirming that the Washington Post indeed lied — CIA personnel say there is no such CIA report.

hillary-clinton-in-fake-news-protector-hat

From True Pundit, Dec. 12, 2016:

The Central Intelligence Agency is declaring the Washington Post’s much-hyped story linking the Russian government to hacking the presidential election to help Donald Trump an ‘outright lie,’ according to CIA personnel with direct knowledge of the case….

‘It’s an outright lie,’ a CIA analyst divulged to True Pundit. ‘There’s nothing definitive like that. There are leads from activity originating in Finland, Italy, Norway, Sweden, Britain, France, China and Russia.’

Multiple CIA sources are now denouncing the Washington Post for knowingly reporting misleading national security intelligence. Intelligence insiders said no one in the Agency or in the FBI, who is running at least one parallel inquiry, has ruled out a possible internal leak within the Democratic National Committee from actor(s) inside the United States who funneled private DNC emails to Wikileaks.

(Note: See “WikiLeaks’ Julian Assange: murdered DNC staffer was source of leaked DNC emails”)

On the rabid Sunday morning political talk show circuit yesterday, fueled by the Washington Post’s thinly-sourced yet highly-lauded reporting, Sen. John McCain implored President Elect Trump to look at the CIA-Russian information which he said was credible. McCain, however, as the Senate Armed Services Committee chairman, had strangely never publicly disseminated such intelligence prior to Sunday. And no other elected officials have stepped up to echo his narrative or that of the Washington Post.

CIA and intelligence sources, however, quickly countered McCain’s claims as speculative at best, saying his information is simply not accurate and he, as the Arizona senator has done previously, was grandstanding for the media without knowing key facts.

“If he (McCain) in fact is being told that information, it is bad information,” a CIA source said, pondering whether McCain had perhaps been briefed by outgoing CIA Director John Brennan or his loyal Agency underlings. Multiple sources said Brennan and his inner circle in the Agency could not be trusted to disseminate any true intelligence, especially in their final days on the job, without tainting raw data with political ideologies that parallel their White House boss.

(Note: See “CIA director John Brennan, suspected Muslim, voted for the Communist Party”)

Trump has already named Kansas Congressman Mike Pompeo as Brennan’s successor and CIA personnel anxiously anticipate Brennan’s departure, sources said. (But you won’t read about that in the Washington Post.)

Could the Russian state be linked to hacking to influence the 2016 U.S. election? Intelligence analysts, again, reiterate there is no overwhelming current evidence to definitively link any government to such rogue actions.

CIA personnel said any official information released by Brennan or the White House on this issue prior to President Barack Obama’s departure from office should be discounted and tuned out as partisan ‘white noise.’

The CIA sources’ collective assessment that the Washington Post purposely and brutally misrepresented the CIA’s findings is the third blow to the embattled newspaper in the last week, having been busted writing two other high profile fake stories on national security that were quickly proven to be problematic and ultimately bogus.

A veteran beltway journalist, author and award-winning professor…Greg Morris [said about the Washington Post], ‘They just make news up, fabricate whatever news was required at the time, especially when they were scooped or embarrassed by other publications…. Sometimes they did it because they believed they were entitled. Nothing has changed.’

Morris worked for Time Magazine, the New York Post, Gannett’s Democrat & Chronicle newspaper in Rochester, NY and Washington Star, D.C. A graduate of Cornell University with a bachelor and Master’s degree, Morris is currently an award winning journalism professor at Hunter College in New York City.

Morris has chronicled the decline of the mainstream media, especially the Washington Post, for 30 years as a professor and journalist and is currently working on a new book about corruption in undergraduate higher education.

Morris said the Washington Post’s latest foray into make-believe journalism with the CIA Russian story had several glaring inconsistencies that are often hallmarks of fabricated, fake news, including:

  • Story debates itself. Certain parts of the story directly contradict other so-called facts of the same story. The reader is rendered bewildered; the narrative’s “facts” prove untrustworthy.
  • Haphazard construction. The story’s sloppy foundations and reporting were likely the result of it being constructed on a rush basis or under pressure from editors or the publisher.
  • Weak sourcing. The story fails to nail down a true link between what the Post claims and DIRECT confirmation from CIA sources.

There are no sources with direct knowledge, it’s just all hearsay,’ Morris said. ‘Who cares what some partisan Senators or lawmakers say they were told. The Post needs real sources on this. Without CIA sources, this story wouldn’t even make it out of my classroom alive.

The editors should be fired. If you’re covering national security as a reporter for the Post or New York Times, LA Times, and don’t have CIA sources at your fingertips, find another job.’

Morris is far from alone when questioning the Washington Post’s credibility on its concocted narrative of the flimsy CIA-Russian allegations story.”

H/t Jim Stone

~Eowyn

CIA director John Brennan, suspected Muslim, voted for the Communist Party

During the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation’s annual conference, Sept. 14-18, 2016, CIA Director John Brennan admitted to supporting the Communist Party in the 1976 election.

As reported by CNN, during a panel discussion at the conference about diversity in the intelligence community, Brennan was asked about barriers to recruiting diverse candidates for the intelligence fields, including whether past records of activism could hurt someone applying for a clearance later in life.

In response, Brennan recalled being asked a standard question for a top security clearance at his early CIA lie detector test: “Have you ever worked with or for a group that was dedicated to overthrowing the US?”

Brennan told the conference, “I froze. This was back in 1980, and I thought back to a previous election where I voted, and I voted for the Communist Party candidate” — Gus Hall.

Brennan continued:

“I froze, because I was getting so close to coming into CIA and said, ‘OK, here’s the choice, John. You can deny that, and the machine is probably going to go, you know, wacko, or I can acknowledge it and see what happens.'”

So Brennan told the CIA polygrapher that he was neither Democratic, Republican nor Communist, and that voting for the Communist Party candidate was his way of “signalling” his “unhappiness with the system, and the need for change.”

The polygrapher looked at Brennan and said, “OK”.

To Brennan’s surprise, he “soon got his admission notice to the CIA.”

Brennan told the conference that this shows how broad-minded the CIA was in regards to freedom of speech, although he thinks the CIA still has a long way to go in accepting homosexual and minority recruits.

Barack Obama & CIA Director John Brennan

Barack Obama & CIA Director John Brennan

In 1980, the United States and the Soviet Union had begun a “Second Cold War,” when tensions between the major powers greatly increased, with both sides becoming more militaristic. Given that, the “tolerance” of the CIA polygrapher toward Brennan’s admission of voting for the Communist Party is certainly noteworthy.

Writing for FrontPage Mag, Daniel Greenfield observes:

“If he [Brennan] had admitted to voting for the Nazi Party, he would have been hounded out of everywhere. And rightly so. What’s wrong is that voting for a mass murdering totalitarian ideology is just considered a whimsical act of a passionate young man. This is the pernicious double standard that has allowed the left to evade its moral responsibility for the crimes of the left.

Communism and its fellow travelers have never been held accountable. That is unfortunately still the case.

It’s very telling that voting for the Communist candidate wasn’t disqualifying. […] But you can have a Communist past and still become the CIA Director.

And final question, who really won the Cold War when America’s highest offices are run by people whose essential ideas and politics are far closer to Lenin than Eisenhower.”

No wonder Barack Obama appointed Brennan as CIA director:

~Eowyn

Obama’s CIA spies on U.S. Senate

Spy vs Spy

The Voice of America reports (via Global Security) that on March 5, 2014, Senator Diane Feinstein (D-Calif) told reporters that the Central Intelligence Agency has launched an internal review into allegations that its officers had improperly monitored congressional staffers assigned to investigate the agency’s interrogation program.

In so doing, Feinstein confirmed earlier reports by The New York Times and McClatchy Newspapers.

Feinstein is the chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, which conducted a four year investigation into the CIA’s now-defunct terrorist detention and interrogation program, which began under former President George W. Bush.

In December 2012, the committee approved a 6,000-page report that concluded the CIA’s detention and interrogation program, which held suspected terrorists in secret overseas prisons and engaged in harsh interrogation techniques such as waterboarding, yielded little or no significant intelligence.

Under an agreement between the committee and the CIA, the spy agency had provided computers for the Senate Intelligence Committee’s staff members so they could review millions of pages of classified documents. But CIA officers allegedly conducted unauthorized searches of those computers to monitor the staffers’ activities, which lawmakers say violated the agreement. Some lawmakers have suggested the alleged monitoring may have also violated federal law that prohibits unauthorized access to a computer.

CIA Director John Brennan said he was “deeply dismayed” by the committee’s “spurious” allegations.

Both the Times and McClatchy said the CIA’s inspector general, who is handling the internal probe, has referred the matter to the Justice Department.

Of course, since both the CIA and the so-called Justice Department are in Obama’s pockets, I seriously doubt anything will come of either’s “investigation.”

Call me a cynic. Smirk.

~Eowyn

Memo to Obama from intel officials calls claim about Syrian chemical attack a FRAUD

VIPS1The Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS), formed in January 2003, is a group of current and former officials of the United States intelligence agencies that include the CIA, the U.S. State Department‘s Intelligence Bureau (INR),  and the Pentagon’s Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA). The VIPS’ Steering Group is comprised of:

  • Richard Beske
  • Gene Betit, Arlington, VA
  • Ray Close
  • Patrick G. Eddington, former CIA imagery analyst
  • Larry C. Johnson, former CIA analyst
  • David MacMichael, former CIA analyst
  • Raymond McGovern, retired CIA officer who had served under 7 U.S. presidents and presented the morning intelligence briefings at the White House to many of those presidents.
  • Greg Theilmann, former State Department intelligence official

On September 6, 2013, twelve members of the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity — all former or retired officials of various U.S. intelligence agencies including the CIA, FBI, DIA, NSA, State Department, U.S. Army, and U.S. Marine Corps — wrote a letter to Obama stating that the information they’ve gathered disputes the White House’s claim that Syria’s Assad regime had perpetrated the chemical weapon (sarin nerve gas) attack that allegedly killed hundreds of civilians in a suburb of Damascus on August 21.

More than that, the VIPS letter states that the claim is a fraud by CIA Director John Brennan.

President Lucifer, his three henchmen, and the warmongers in Congress (most notably John McCain) are using the alleged Assad chemical attack to justify a U.S. “military strike” war on Syria, in the name of “humanitarian intervention” — never mind that in so doing, America precisely will inflict untold human pain and suffering on exactly those same Syrian civilians, as a heart-rending letter from Trappist nuns in Syria points out.

First published on ConsortiumNews.com, here is the VIPS memo in its entirety. For the love of God, please help disseminate this to as many people as you can, via Facebook, Twitter, email, etc.

Thank you,

~Eowyn

world-on-fire

MEMORANDUM FOR: The President

FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)

SUBJECT: Is Syria a Trap?

Precedence: IMMEDIATE

We regret to inform you that some of our former co-workers are telling us, categorically, that contrary to the claims of your administration, the most reliable intelligence shows that Bashar al-Assad was NOT responsible for the chemical incident that killed and injured Syrian civilians on August 21, and that British intelligence officials also know this. In writing this brief report, we choose to assume that you have not been fully informed because your advisers decided to afford you the opportunity for what is commonly known as “plausible denial.”

We have been down this road before – with President George W. Bush, to whom we addressed our first VIPS memorandumimmediately after Colin Powell’s Feb. 5, 2003 U.N. speech, in which he peddled fraudulent “intelligence” to support attacking Iraq. Then, also, we chose to give President Bush the benefit of the doubt, thinking he was being misled – or, at the least, very poorly advised.

The fraudulent nature of Powell’s speech was a no-brainer. And so, that very afternoon we strongly urged your predecessor to “widen the discussion beyond …  the circle of those advisers clearly bent on a war for which we see no compelling reason and from which we believe the unintended consequences are likely to be catastrophic.” We offer you the same advice today.

CIA Director John Brennan

CIA Director John Brennan

Our sources confirm that a chemical incident of some sort did cause fatalities and injuries on August 21 in a suburb of Damascus. They insist, however, that the incident was not the result of an attack by the Syrian Army using military-grade chemical weapons from its arsenal. That is the most salient fact, according to CIA officers working on the Syria issue. They tell us that CIA Director John Brennan is perpetrating a pre-Iraq-War-type fraud on members of Congress, the media, the public – and perhaps even you.

James ClapperJames Clapper

We have observed John Brennan closely over recent years and, sadly, we find what our former colleagues are now telling us easy to believe. Sadder still, this goes in spades for those of us who have worked with him personally; we give him zero credence. And that goes, as well, for his titular boss, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who has admitted he gave “clearly erroneous” sworn testimony to Congress denying NSA eavesdropping on Americans.

Intelligence Summary or Political Ploy?

That Secretary of State John Kerry would invoke Clapper’s name this week in Congressional testimony, in an apparent attempt to enhance the credibility of the four-page “Government Assessment” strikes us as odd. The more so, since it was, for some unexplained reason, not Clapper but the White House that released the “assessment.”

This is not a fine point. We know how these things are done. Although the “Government Assessment” is being sold to the media as an “intelligence summary,” it is a political, not an intelligence document. The drafters, massagers, and fixers avoided presenting essential detail. Moreover, they conceded upfront that, though they pinned “high confidence” on the assessment, it still fell “short of confirmation.”

Déjà Fraud: This brings a flashback to the famous Downing Street Minutes of July 23, 2002, on Iraq, The minutes record the Richard Dearlove, then head of British intelligence, reporting to Prime Minister Tony Blair and other senior officials that President Bush had decided to remove Saddam Hussein through military action that would be “justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD.” Dearlove had gotten the word from then-CIA Director George Tenet whom he visited at CIA headquarters on July 20.

The discussion that followed centered on the ephemeral nature of the evidence, prompting Dearlove to explain: “But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy.” We are concerned that this is precisely what has happened with the “intelligence” on Syria.

The Intelligence

There is a growing body of evidence from numerous sources in the Middle East — mostly affiliated with the Syrian opposition and its supporters — providing a strong circumstantial case that the August 21 chemical incident was a pre-planned provocation by the Syrian opposition and its Saudi and Turkish supporters. The aim is reported to have been to create the kind of incident that would bring the United States into the war.

[See “Article cited by Limbaugh on Syrian chemical attack being a U.S. false flag,” Sept. 4, 2013. ~Eowyn]

According to some reports, canisters containing chemical agent were brought into a suburb of Damascus, where they were then opened. Some people in the immediate vicinity died; others were injured.

We are unaware of any reliable evidence that a Syrian military rocket capable of carrying a chemical agent was fired into the area. In fact, we are aware of no reliable physical evidence to support the claim that this was a result of a strike by a Syrian military unit with expertise in chemical weapons.

In addition, we have learned that on August 13-14, 2013, Western-sponsored opposition forces in Turkey started advance preparations for a major, irregular military surge. Initial meetings between senior opposition military commanders and Qatari, Turkish and U.S. intelligence officials took place at the converted Turkish military garrison in Antakya, Hatay Province, now used as the command center and headquarters of the Free Syrian Army (FSA) and their foreign sponsors.

Senior opposition commanders who came from Istanbul pre-briefed the regional commanders on an imminent escalation in the fighting due to “a war-changing development,” which, in turn, would lead to a U.S.-led bombing of Syria.

At operations coordinating meetings at Antakya, attended by senior Turkish, Qatari and U.S. intelligence officials as well as senior commanders of the Syrian opposition, the Syrians were told that the bombing would start in a few days. Opposition leaders were ordered to prepare their forces quickly to exploit the U.S. bombing, march into Damascus, and remove the Bashar al-Assad government

The Qatari and Turkish intelligence officials assured the Syrian regional commanders that they would be provided with plenty of weapons for the coming offensive. And they were. A weapons distribution operation unprecedented in scope began in all opposition camps on August 21-23. The weapons were distributed from storehouses controlled by Qatari and Turkish intelligence under the tight supervision of U.S. intelligence officers.

Cui bono? [Who stands to gain? ~Eowyn]

That the various groups trying to overthrow Syrian President Bashar al-Assad have ample incentive to get the U.S. more deeply involved in support of that effort is clear. Until now, it has not been quite as clear that the Netanyahu government in Israel has equally powerful incentive to get Washington more deeply engaged in yet another war in the area. But with outspoken urging coming from Israel and those Americans who lobby for Israeli interests, this priority Israeli objective is becoming crystal clear.

Reporter Judi Rudoren, writing from Jerusalem in an important article in Friday’s New York Times addresses Israeli motivation in an uncommonly candid way. Her article, titled “Israel Backs Limited Strike Against Syria,” notes that the Israelis have argued, quietly, that the best outcome for Syria’s two-and-a-half-year-old civil war, at least for the moment, is no outcome. Rudoren continues:

For Jerusalem, the status quo, horrific as it may be from a humanitarian perspective, seems preferable to either a victory by Mr. Assad’s government and his Iranian backers or a strengthening of rebel groups, increasingly dominated by Sunni jihadis.

“‘This is a playoff situation in which you need both teams to lose, but at least you don’t want one to win — we’ll settle for a tie,’ said Alon Pinkas, a former Israeli consul general in New York. ‘Let them both bleed, hemorrhage to death: that’s the strategic thinking here. As long as this lingers, there’s no real threat from Syria.’”

We think this is the way Israel’s current leaders look at the situation in Syria, and that deeper U.S. involvement – albeit, initially, by “limited” military strikes – is likely to ensure that there is no early resolution of the conflict in Syria. The longer Sunni and Shia are at each other’s throats in Syria and in the wider region, the safer Israel calculates that it is.

That Syria’s main ally is Iran, with whom it has a mutual defense treaty, also plays a role in Israeli calculations. Iran’s leaders are not likely to be able to have much military impact in Syria, and Israel can highlight that as an embarrassment for Tehran.

Iran’s Role

Iran can readily be blamed by association and charged with all manner of provocation, real and imagined. Some have seen Israel’s hand in the provenance of the most damaging charges against Assad regarding chemical weapons and our experience suggests to us that such is supremely possible.

Possible also is a false-flag attack by an interested party resulting in the sinking or damaging, say, of one of the five U.S. destroyers now on patrol just west of Syria. Our mainstream media could be counted on to milk that for all it’s worth, and you would find yourself under still more pressure to widen U.S. military involvement in Syria – and perhaps beyond, against Iran.

Iran has joined those who blame the Syrian rebels for the August 21 chemical incident, and has been quick to warn the U.S. not to get more deeply involved. According to the Iranian English-channel Press TV, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javid Zarif has claimed: “The Syria crisis is a trap set by Zionist pressure groups for [the United States].”

Actually, he may be not far off the mark. But we think your advisers may be chary of entertaining this notion. Thus, we see as our continuing responsibility to try to get word to you so as to ensure that you and other decision makers are given the full picture.

Inevitable Retaliation

We hope your advisers have warned you that retaliation for attacks on Syrian are not a matter of IF, but rather WHERE and WHEN. Retaliation is inevitable. For example, terrorist strikes on U.S. embassies and other installations are likely to make what happened to the U.S. “Mission” in Benghazi on Sept. 11, 2012, look like a minor dust-up by comparison. One of us addressed this key consideration directly a week ago in an article titled “Possible Consequences of a U.S. Military Attack on Syria – Remembering the U.S. Marine Barracks Destruction in Beirut, 1983.”

For the Steering Group, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity

Thomas Drake, Senior Executive, NSA (former)

Philip Giraldi, CIA, Operations Officer (ret.)

Matthew Hoh, former Capt., USMC, Iraq & Foreign Service Officer, Afghanistan

Larry Johnson, CIA & State Department (ret.)

W. Patrick Lang, Senior Executive and Defense Intelligence Officer, DIA (ret.)

David MacMichael, National Intelligence Council (ret.)

Ray McGovern, former US Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA analyst (ret.)

Elizabeth Murray, Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Middle East (ret.)

Todd Pierce, US Army Judge Advocate General (ret.)

Sam Provance, former Sgt., US Army, Iraq

Coleen Rowley, Division Council & Special Agent, FBI (ret.)

Ann Wright, Col., US Army (ret); Foreign Service Officer (ret.)

******

The VIPS also wrote a memo on August 30, 2013, to General Martin Dempsey, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, on “Syria and Our Oath to Defend the Constitution.” Here’s the link to that memo.

FBI director admits drones used for surveillance of Americans

A quadrocopter drone equipped with a camera stands on display at the Zeiss stand on the first day of the CeBIT 2012 technology trade fair on March 6, 2012 in Hanover, Germany. (credit: Sean Gallup/Getty Images)

More than a year ago, FOTM first posted on the Obama regime’s admission (only because of a Freedom of Information Act request) that unmanned spy drones are deployed not just over war zones like Afghanistan, but also over the United States, and that the government was “considering” arming those drones. In fact, there are 63 active drone sites in 20 states scattered across America.

.

We were told at the time that those drones in the sky over our heads are really for border patrol and to combat terrorism.

Lies.

All lies.

Jordy Yager reports for The Hill that yesterday, June 19, 2013, testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee, FBI Director Robert Mueller admitted that the FBI uses drones for surveillance within the United States.

But never fear!

Mueller says the drones are used “infrequently” and only to watch “specific targets” “in isolated instances” in regards to “specific investigations” of “particularized cases,” which “is the principle of privacy limitations we have.”

Mueller said, “Our footprint is very small. We have very few and have limited use,” and that the FBI is in “the initial stages” of developing privacy guidelines for how the agency balances civil liberty concerns with security threats.

Mueller made the revelation amid a debate over National Security Agency programs used to collect U.S. phone records and overseas Internet data.

While Mueller told lawmakers that the FBI uses drones domestically only for surveillance purposes, members of Congress have had growing concerns over the use of armed drones.

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) made headlines in the lead-up to CIA Director John Brennan’s confirmation earlier this year when he delivered a 13-hour talking filibuster aimed at delaying the vote until the administration told him that it could not legally kill U.S. citizens on American soil using a drone strike, which Attorney General Eric Holder ultimately did.

The use of drones by the American military and the CIA to attack terrorists began under former President George W. Bush, but President Obama has increased the use of the armed, unmanned aerial vehicles dramatically — largely in the Middle East — to target individuals his administration suspects are carrying out acts of terrorism.

Obama laid out the administration’s policy and rationale for the increased use of drone strikes abroad in a speech last month, saying that the U.S. “does not take strikes when we have the ability to capture individual terrorists.”

In a letter to Congress the day before Obama’s speech, Holder said that four Americans suspected of terrorism had been killed abroad in “counterterrorism” operations since 2009. In all four instances, drones have been reported as being used. The most widely known case, which initially prompted congressional concern, came in 2011 when U.S. officials targeted and killed American-born Anwar al-Awlaki in a drone strike. Al-Awlaki was known for inciting attacks against the United States, such as the 2009 Fort Hood mass shooting, the thwarted “underwear” bombing of a U.S.-bound plane the same year and the failed Times Square bombing in 2010.

It was last year in a speech at Northwestern University that Holder first laid out the Obama regime’s justification for targeting U.S. citizens abroad  last year. He said that the regime’s definition of a person who posed an “imminent threat” consisted of three criteria:

  1. There was a limited open window for attacking the person;
  2. A grave possible harm that not attacking the target could have on U.S. civilians; and
  3. A strong likelihood that targeting the person would head off a future attack against the United States.

So when we wake up some morning to the news that someone in the United States had been killed by a drone strike, you’ll know that Pres. Lucifer’s “reasons” for the murder assassination.

Just my humble Public Service Announcement heads-up!

See also “FBI director not sure if Americans can be assassinated on U.S. soil,” March 13, 2012.

~Eowyn

Mr. Paul Goes to Washington – Watch Live

mr-smith-goes-to-washington-1

Remember Jimmy Stewart in the Frank Capra classic movie, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington?

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Kentucky) is doing the same thing RIGHT NOW on the Senate floor.

Rand Paul

Sen. Paul is filibustering the POS regime’s appointment of John Brennan as CIA Director because the administration won’t disavow drone killing American citizens on US soil without due process. In fact, the POS’s attorney general Eric Holder three-times refused to answer the question whether it is constitutional for the the United States to use a drone to kill an American citizen on U.S. soil, even if said citizen does not pose an “imminent [national security] threat”.

This is unconstitutional and Sen. Paul said he’s had a enough of unconstitutional actions by this regime and will talk until he can’t do it any more.

Sen. Paul is getting great support from Sens. Mike Lee (R-Utah), John Barrasso (R-Wyoming), and Ted Cruz (R-Texas).

Will any other senators step in when Paul has to quit? Flood your senators’ phone lines with that question.

This is democracy in action, folks!

Sen. Paul and other supporting speakers are also using this occasion to give the American people an excellent crash course on the threats posed to our liberty by the Obama regime’s drones, as well as the fundamentals of the U.S. government as designed by our Founding Fathers — separation of powers into three co-equal branches, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights (especially the Fourth Amendment), and the importance of due process.

Read more in the Washington Times.

Watch Senator Paul live on CSPAN here.

H/t my friend Robert K. Wilcox

~Eowyn