Sunday, May 31, 2015

Cuba, Terrorism, and JFK (More KGB Disinformation) - Part One

I am going to begin with the Kennedy assassination, because the information I have found is nothing short of stunning. To my amazement, all of it has been available on the Internet (and in book stores) for many years, but because the Mainstream Media has its own liberal agenda I was completely unaware of most of it until now. We can only research those things that are brought to our attention or that occur to us, and when certain narratives are fed to us for our entire lives it becomes difficult to think "outside the box".
As I touched on in my last blog post, the KGB has long used the Central Intelligence Agency as its main scapegoat in its disinformation campaigns, and there is no more glaring example of that than the assassination of President John F. Kennedy. We were even given a perfect propaganda movie, "JFK", put together by a very well-known filmmaker, Oliver Stone, and starring one of the biggest box office draws of all time, Kevin Costner. Boy, the Kremlin is good.
Unfortunately for Moscow, sometimes people get tired of communism and defect to the United States (not realizing how far we have fallen). One such person is Ion Mihai Pacepa, whom I have mentioned before. What I did not realize is he wrote a book about the Kennedy Assassination that turns Oliver Stone's film on its ear. Here is a glimpse into that book:
Shocking. Absolutely incredible. And, Pacepa's Power Point presentation is rather compelling as well:
But, he is not the only defector to who told us about Oswald. The following link comes from CIA directly:
It tells a very convoluted story which I will try to unravel. Let us begin with Anatoly Golitsyn, whom I mentioned in a previous post:
As my readers will recall, the predictions Golitsyn made regarding the Soviet Union came true with an accuracy of 94%. That hardly fits with the picture of Golitsyn as an unstable, unreliable source:
(There are a lot of twists and turns to this story as readers can imagine, so I am deliberately limiting my discussion to a handful of key figures for now. I will be writing more about this in Part Two.)
The primary person who "discredited" Golitsyn was another Soviet defector who came to the United States three years after he did, Yuri Nosenko. Golitsyn maintained that the KGB sent him to America for the express purpose of refuting Golitsyn, a claim I find to be very credible given what we have learned about KGB tactics (see previous posts on the subject). Before I elaborate, let us also remember who James Angleton was:
Anatoly Golitsyn:
And, Yuri Nosenko:
So, the way the story unfolds is this: Golitsyn defects to the United States. Two years later, Kennedy is assassinated and Golitsyn immediately points his finger at the KGB. Nosenko suddenly decides the Kremlin has found out he was working with CIA and says he must defect immediately. Upon his arrival in America, he announces he was the person who watched Oswald during his time in Moscow and can state categorically that he was not in the KGB's employ. Evidently Nosenko had impeccable timing.
Or, was Golitsyn correct in his assertion that Nosenko had been sent to the United States in order to discredit him? It is not as if the KGB ever engages in subterfuge, right? Given his incredible accuracy rate, I would think Moscow would have done everything possible to shut Golitsyn down.
I want to point out one other article on Nosenko, because it gives an interesting account of his part in the Kennedy assassination maze:
His track record with polygraph tests left something to be desired, as did his story about the doctor. The fact that he finally passed a third lie detector test four years later is not impressive; with time, lies become easier (especially when retold frequently) and the liar becomes comfortable with those lies, sometimes to the point that he actually believes them. On the credibility scale, Golitsyn not only tips it; he shatters it.
Thus we have Oswald, possibly a KGB asset, killing the president only to be gunned down by Ruby two days later. According to CIA, initial suspicions were directed at the Kremlin, suspicions Golitsyn confirmed and Angleton believed. Nosenko came along and not only refuted those suspicions but directed them at the FBI and CIA (bringing us back to Oliver Stone's version of events).
But, why did I include Cuba in the title of this post? Because the DGI played a major role in Kennedy's assassination, a role I will explain in Part Two.

Wednesday, May 27, 2015

KGB Tactics Explained - Part Two

How many of my readers have had a one-night stand? How much did you know about that person? He or she was good-looking, had a nice personality, made you laugh? You were lonely? Who was going to know? It was no one else's business, right? Just two people enjoying each other in complete privacy.
Remember the brouhaha over Bill Clinton and Monica Lewinsky? Adultery has become rather commonplace in our society (another consequence of cultural subversion), so many people said it was none of our business. Yet, in the military, adultery is a court-martial offense. Just ask General David Petraeus. In fact, until "Don't ask, Don't tell", homosexuality was grounds for immediate discharge. Why? Remnants of our Puritan days?
Ninety percent of those people recruited by the KGB are obtained through blackmail (from 36:55:00):
Ninety percent. An astonishing number. Hede Massing described how she would provide a sex partner for many of the people she recruited. How easily we allow our baser impulses to be manipulated, often with disastrous consequences.
This segment also mentions the use of journalists, and that brings up a problem I have with a certain "hostage" being "held" by the Islamic State. I find it impossible to believe that John Cantlie is actually a captive. I do not know if he was in the beginning (Islamists notoriously turn on those who "help" them), but he most certainly is not one now. The video he put together in Mosul looked like something a travel agency would put together. How many captors allow their victims to jump on a motorcycle and whirl through the streets? In fact, my suspicion was aroused by the video before that, where he sat behind a table and lectured the world for ten minutes on the Islamic State's behalf. I did not see a single twitch from him that indicated he was in any way under duress. Quite the opposite; he was very emphatic in his defense of the mujahideen. Things are not always what they seem.
At the end of the section, Hede Massing says something fascinating, but completely in line with what I have discussed previously from Yuri Bezmenov. She says the working class is almost impossible to recruit, that the best targets are the elite (Useful Idiots). These are the people who will go to an art gallery and spend hours staring at a portrait of an apple trying to understand the artist's "meaning" (maybe he just wanted to paint an apple?). These are the ones Bezmenov mocked in the interviews I have posted previously, the ones who think they are so highly intelligent when in fact those they are trying to impress think they are Useful Idiots.
My jaw dropped repeatedly over Cuba. I knew the basics about the Castros, and about the oppression in that country, and of course I knew about the Cuban Missile Crisis. The rest is simply astonishing (from 47:07:00):
The Cuban DGI (intelligence agency) fanning the flames of race riots in the '60's, in fact inciting violence as evidenced in "The Days of Rage"; funding and giving terrorism training both to Cuban "revolutionaries" and Americans who came to Cuba for that purpose; and, the Weather Underground (from 55:15:00):
Incredible. Absolutely unbelievable. Bill Ayers, one of Barack Obama's best friends. Now I understand why our "President" wants relations with Cuba so badly. Oh my God! The Soviet Union has been playing in our backyard in ways we never imagined.
So, these are the people Obama wants to allow into our country. The very people who fueled dissent and violence within our society will now walk around America, free to sow discontent and engage in terrorist activities at will. Is this the "Change" POTUS has been promising?
I had no idea of the importance of what happened in Grenada and Nicaragua, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Puerto Rico; nor the reason behind Vladimir Putin's current interest in Venezuela (other than being ideological bedfellows). Grenada is the epicenter of a major Middle Eastern trade route (from 1:04:37):
When I got to the part about Soviet fishing vessels I could not help but flash on Israel. All of the international pressure to open up the waters off the coast of Gaza for "fishing". I now see "fishing" through new eyes, and I understand far better why Israel has that blockade in place. Do not get me wrong; I realized it was for security (can you say "flotilla"?), but I had no idea of some of the subterfuge that can occur under the guise of "fishing".
Anyone professing to care about border security needs to watch this entire segment (from 1:13:16):
Who needs a cover to come into this country, spy on us, and subvert our society when we can just offer amnesty to anyone and everyone who manages to cross our border? If the Soviet Union had just waited a little while, they could have done their job far more easily under the Obama administration.
Self-explanatory (from 1:27:05):
Here, several examples of moles in our nation's recent history are discussed, lending credence to the idea that Snowden was not just a "whistleblower" (from 1:37:26):
Of particular note is the map of Germany and the surrounding countries at the end of World War II. Because of its well-placed spy network, the Soviet Union was in a position to finish demolishing the country had the war not ended when it did. Also of great significance is how the Soviet Union, thanks to their spy running the Treasury Department, was able to bring Communism to China, as well as the incredible Congressional testimony as to just how deeply the Russian spy tentacles reached.
A look at the KGB in the world of academia (from 1:46:25):
However, the subterfuge surrounding the submersible technology is disturbing. It seems businesses will do just about anything to make a dollar, and will sell to anyone who will give them a dollar. So much for patriotism.
Sixty, to one hundred billion dollars, the United States had to spend for no other reason than to come up with a defense system that would counter what the Soviet Union had acquired from us through espionage. That is quite a price tag for not staying ahead of the enemy.
Of course most, if not all, of the technology described in this film is completely out-of-date, but the principles of how the Russians were able to acquire that technology is the reason for its inclusion in this article. Those principles are very much in practice to this day, with some modern-day improvements.
Yuri Bezmenov reminds us of the origins of the KGB's subversion tactics: Sun Tzu, who said it is better not to fight, but rather to subvert your enemy by pitting black against white, young against old, rich against poor, etc. (is any of this sounding familiar?). In this section, Soviet attempts to destroy NATO through disinformation are discussed. Specific reference is made to their planting of information that the United States was spying on its allies (does this sound familiar?), reminding me of Edward Snowden, the NSA, and the uproar that occurred specifically with Germany after WikiLeaks obtained Snowden's documents (from 1:55:48):
"Who's Who in CIA"? Do my readers recall the musical Station Chiefs in Pakistan that I discussed a few posts ago regarding bin Laden? Were those leaks, supposedly done by a reporter who was angry that his brother and son were killed in a drone strike, actually part of yet another KGB disinformation program?
And, Guyana? Really? Is there anything CIA does not get blamed for? Allegedly they created al-Qaeda, and the Taliban, and ISIS, and were behind 9/11 (with Mossad, of course); the list goes on endlessly. Can any of these stories be believed? I mean, any? Like the ones that sound halfway plausible? Or is it all one big spin put on by the masters of subversion? I think I will tread very carefully around such stories from now on.
Finally, since the word is bandied about and misused constantly (not just by the KGB but by those who hate America and/or Israel), what is Fascism? As Mussolini put it, "Everything in the State. Nothing outside the State. Nothing against the State", a definition that certainly does not apply to either the United States nor to Israel:
Subversion. Disinformation. Misinformation. Spies. Distrust. If my readers are anything like myself, they are now seeing the world completely differently than they did yesterday. As I stated in Part One, that is a good thing. If we are to save our Republic, we must first learn to recognize the enemy and think like the enemy. Only then can we hope to defeat the enemy.

KGB Tactics Explained - Part One

I was wrong! Edward Snowden was not a "joke Vladimir Putin used to embarrass the United States".
He was a mole.
How did a low-level "contractor" gain access to highly classified information from an agency such as the National Security Administration, to which I devoted an entire post?:
It just does not seem likely, unless you listen to people who are familiar with Russian espionage:
And then there is WikiLeaks itself:
Now, the author of this article attempts to undermine Schindler, but bear with me because you will see throughout this video that Schindler's assessment has a great deal of credibility.
Meanwhile, let us not forget Julian Assange:
Notice the name of Bradley Manning. I have written about subversion repeatedly; here is just one post as a reminder:
I have found no evidence that Manning was knowingly working for Russia. However, his allegations about Iraq, and the damage done by those allegations, are reminiscent of those made by John Kerry during the Vietnam War. Do my readers remember what Pacepa said about that?:
With that as a preface, let me move on to the KGB documentary.
Remember when I said whenever we hear "Iran", we should think "Russia"? Remember when I said Obama is working for Iran? Well, he is working for Russia, only I do not think he realizes just how well. I am going to go through the video in this post segment-by-segment because I suspect many of my readers are not taking the time to view the videos I post, but also because I want to point out how the subjects discussed are playing out in America right now.
When we watched the insanity in Ferguson, who did we blame? The answers to my question will vary greatly: criminals, malcontents, bums, "activists" with nothing better to do, the New Black Panthers.... Those who are observant saw representatives from "Palestinian" causes as well as supporters of the Islamic State amongst the crowds. What about in Baltimore? Cleveland?
Who remembers the 1968 riots? All of the civil unrest? Who was behind all of that? It was just a culmination of years of racial tension, right?
Did anyone happen to think of Cuba?
That question was out-of-left-field, was it not? Readers will understand where it came from by the end of this post.
The information in this video is nothing short of astonishing. I cannot count the number of times my jaw dropped while I viewed it, and I thought I understood the clandestine world. To a degree I did, but what I knew was nothing compared to what I have now learned.
Beginning at 5:20:00, we hear the echo of a more recent interview I posted just a few days ago. America is na├»ve when it comes to intelligence. While we send actual diplomats and journalists to Russia, the Russians in turn have bombarded the United States with covert operatives of the GRU/KGB/FSB. Yes, I am certain some of our diplomats are undercover agents (remember the unconfirmed rumor about Ambassador Stevens), but in sheer numbers we have always been outmaneuvered.
I encourage all readers to take the time to watch this entire video, but under this first section I would like everyone to listen very carefully to William Kelly, formerly of the RCMP (Royal Canadian Mounted Police). He confirms what I have stated in previous posts (referencing Anatoly Golitsyn, among others) that the Soviet bloc countries work together. Although this interview was conducted years ago, the relationship between these countries has not changed (from 11:40:00):
Listen to how Russians use their "residences" (from 13:40:00):
The piece de resistance, Russian espionage at the United Nations (from 17:05:00):
Heads swimming yet? We in America do not think like this unless we have worked in the clandestine world. By now readers should be wondering who, if anyone, can be trusted to be who he or she claims to be. That is good. We have all seen the movies ("Lethal Weapon 3" comes to mind) where "diplomats" get away with murder (literally) and use the cover of "diplomatic immunity" in order to escape prosecution. Well, the Russians have been doing this for decades. Not so much actually killing people (at least, not on our soil), but using their positions in order to spy with impunity. Yet, I would be willing to bet if my readers ran into a Russian "diplomat" on the street, until this moment they would likely have been very friendly and not given the encounter a second thought.
Those of us who advocate for the State of Israel have long been aware of the bias exhibited in the United Nations, an organization that is supposed to represent the world community and human rights. We are aware of voting blocs. But, this documentary paints a picture of the UN that mirrors that depicted in "The Peacemaker" where more than the typical quid pro quo back room deals occur. Rather, subterfuge and nefarious activities seem to permeate that "esteemed" organization.
I cannot stress this point enough. Americans have a very bad habit of taking people and things at face value. For example, I am homeless. As a result, I am completely ignored. A few weeks ago, I sat next to a group of people at a Starbucks who had just come from the White House. They freely discussed a meeting they had just come from with Ambassador Samantha Power. I heard a cell phone conversation where someone was ordering a wiretap and discussing which type he had the best chance of obtaining from the judge. I have panhandled outside the Egyptian Embassy and watched comings and goings for hours on end without anyone giving me the slightest glance, including the Secret Service. We really need to wake up.
Listen carefully to Hede Massing, the KGB's most effective recruiter until her defection (from 25:52:00):
What she has to say about her commitment to Communism is fascinating. The KGB uses "Fascism" to persuade its operatives and Useful Idiots to commit to their cause, and even after people begin to realize they have signed on to a lie there is great reluctance to admit their mistake and change their ways. The common theme I have noticed throughout the interviews in this video is a deeply-rooted commitment to the "common good". These spies firmly believed that "Fascism" was evil and that Communism was the answer, which is how they were able to be so staunch in their convictions despite whatever outside pressures were exerted.
Of course, it goes without saying that the ease with which our diplomats were recruited by the Soviet Union is terrifying. If the Useful Idiots within our government today are as easily swayed as the traitors in our past, the United States is in far more trouble than I imagined.
(Part Two in the following post, to be published later today.)

Friday, May 22, 2015

The National Security Administration - Unfettered

"Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely." Lord Acton

I stand by everything I have said about our intelligence community with one notable exception: the National Security Administration. There were things I did not know about the NSA until someone sent me some startling information (link is posted below). I still believe we need to trust the men and women who work in clandestine operations to do what is in the best interests of our country. Abuses will occur in any job, no matter what that job is, and there are laws to deal with such abuses when they are exposed. At least, there should be.
Do any of my readers know how many regulations exist to govern the National Security Administration? The answer is, zero. None. Zilch. Nada. Not one. That is what disturbs me and what has provoked this post. In fact, no one has even seen the NSA's charter:
It is classified as "top secret", with the reasoning that to expose it would expose past and current intelligence-gathering techniques and assets. So, if no one knows what it is the National Security Administration is supposed to do, how can anyone regulate how it is supposed to conduct itself? In fact, the only laws that exist concerning the NSA are to prohibit the "release of any information about the agency":
Very disturbing indeed. I have mentioned my experience in security many times. Never in any job I ever held did I have carte blanche with zero accountability. I was wrong to condemn Senator Rand Paul for his "filibuster". I did not realize this agency runs independently, without restriction and without supervision. That is appalling. Perhaps George Orwell knew of the NSA when he wrote "1984". Technically, the National Security Administration is governed by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, with warrants being issued by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court:
However, in practice, the NSA pretty much does whatever it wants:
The abuses outlined in this op ed piece are not new; in "The Puzzle Palace" (link below) the first chapter outlines a similar arrangement the NSA had with Western Union and other communications companies that existed when the agency was first created.
I want to point out something else, because most of my readers will not sit down and read the link provided below (although they really should). The National Security Administration falls under the auspices of the Department of Defense. Those two agencies, along with the Joint Chiefs of Staff, govern 85% to 90% of all humtel (human intelligence) and sigtel (signals intelligence) assets. Read that again. The military governs eighty-five-to-ninety percent of all intelligence assets, leaving just 10% to 15% for the Central Intelligence Agency (Congress says ten percent).
Ten percent. We all thought the CIA controlled intelligence when in fact it has a very small role, which once again brings me to Mike Morell and Benghazi. If the military controls intelligence, it is entirely possible (even likely) that CIA did not see the DIA report released by Judicial Watch this week...or at least did not see it in time for the "talking points" to be completed.
Something needs to be done about the National Security Administration. The need for the agency is clear, and I support its existence. However, there must be accountability in any organization, and with the grave powers of the NSA must come grave oversight and grave consequences for abusing those powers. Otherwise, an agency created ostensibly to protect the United States of America can and will become its greatest threat.

Thursday, May 21, 2015

Subversion in Action


Edward Snowden was a joke Vladimir Putin used to embarrass the United States yet again. In January, 2014, I had the opportunity to make the acquaintance of a retired "spook" (his word). I asked him, "Did Edward Snowden reveal anything we did not already know?" because frankly, I was not surprised by any of his "leaks". My new-found friend scoffed and said, "No. He did not say anything that was not at least ten years old." He continued, "We in the intelligence community laugh when we see 'breaking news'. We think, 'Really? You JUST found out about that?"
Exactly what I thought. What I did not realize at the time was the real damage that was being caused by these "revelations". For example, when Angela Merkel "discovered" that America had been spying on Germany and hit the ceiling, the result was that our intelligence services pulled back their surveillance due to political pressure. The same thing occurred throughout Europe. Here in America, run-of-the-mill Americans discovered that spies spy, and were outraged, demanding that these infringements on their Fourth Amendment right to privacy be stopped. The problem is, there is no "right to privacy" in the Fourth Amendment:
We are protected from "unreasonable searches and seizures". Surveillance is not a "search":
Now, I understand that citizens who were unaware of how intelligence-gathering is done are shocked when they find out. At least, I understand to a degree. In 2015, cameras are everywhere, the Internet is easily monitored through the airwaves, cell phone signals can be intercepted by virtually anyone with the right equipment and technical knowledge, etc., so for an American to think his life is private seems to me to be a bit ludicrous. The only place a person really has an expectation of privacy these days is in a restroom or in his own home. The days when a signed release was required before a picture of someone could be used are long gone; everyone has a cell phone camera and we can be certain we were caught in the background of someone's "selfie".
The first clue that people are on the wrong track on this issue should have been Diane Feinstein's feigned outrage over not only the NSA but when she "discovered" CIA had been "spying" on Congress. Please. She is on the Intelligence Committee. If she does not know how the clandestine world operates, what does she do all day?
The problem with all of this is we are once again the victims of subversion. What is the result of all of the ballyhoo over spying? Distrust, and the reigning in of our intelligence community (translation: hog-tying of our intelligence community). Does anyone remember all of the recriminations after 9/11 about who should have known, why didn't they know, who did not do his or her job, who should be shot at dawn for failing to protect America? Have we forgotten? We cannot have it both ways.
Now, before someone throws Benjamin Franklin in my face let us remember that, despite what Barack Obama has to say, we are at war. War time is different than peace time; the rules are different. First and foremost in all of our minds should be defending our country, not screaming at the NSA because they might know how many times we called Pizza Hut last year. In the grand scheme of things, who cares? Even the NSA does not care how many times we called Pizza Hut! If the information they gather has nothing to do with national security, it is ignored. I know that because I spent years in security, and did things that would probably shock a lot of my readers. On the surface, it would appear I was violating everyone's privacy and probably being some sort of voyeur in the process, when in fact I could not possibly have cared less about most of what I saw and heard (much of it was boring; some was downright disgusting). I was only interested in protecting my employers. I paid no attention to anything else, and 99% of the people in our intelligence community treat information the same way.
Nowhere are the results of subversion more apparent than within the homeless community. If my readers recall from Yuri Bezmenov, there are four stages of subversion: Demoralization, Destabilization, Crisis, Normalization. When we removed God from our schools back in the 1960's, that was the beginning of the demoralization process. Soon, God was being removed from other areas of our lives under the guise of “separation of church and state” (a fictional principle; this phrase does not appear in the Constitution. It is a quote from a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote referring to a “wall of separation between church and state”). Lawsuits began popping up by various atheist groups demanding that nativity displays be removed from government property, prayer be removed from public settings, etc. After a few years political correctness began to appear, and with it came the Useful Idiots who are constantly concerned that we not “offend” anyone. As a result, lawsuits demanding that crosses be removed from various places across the country began forcing people into compliance with the new PC world. (This is just one of many examples.)
Once God is removed from a society, there are no more moral absolutes. As television began reflecting this new God-lessness, we saw major changes in family units and individual behavior. As we became more self-centered, the divorce rate skyrocketed and children became out-of-control. Then came the drugs. Instead of parents teaching their children how to sit still and behave, doctors “diagnosed” the children with ADHD and gave them pills. As the “sexual revolution” took hold, teen pregnancy became the norm and rather than teach personal responsibility we taught “safe sex” and gave easy access to abortions.
Do my readers recognize the progression from the lectures on subversion I posted? As we speak, the consequences are walking the streets of Washington, D.C. Madness is the order-of-the-day in the Capitol of the Free World. Yes, there are those people who were released from mental institutions. Plenty of others are felons who cannot find work and/or a place to live, or who have resumed their lawless lifestyles and have no desire for work or living accommodations. But, many are anesthetized. A new drug hit the streets a few years ago called “K-2”. On the streets, it is referred to as “Scooby” or “Scooby-Doo”. (Thanks to the KGB, that cartoon has been ruined for me.) The drug is actually household potpourri to which someone has added chemicals. It is then smoked, and the results are devastating. Otherwise sane people become mad almost instantly. They no longer know who they are, who anyone else is; they have imaginary fights with imaginary people, and they ramble on at length about real or imagined happenings in front of perfect strangers.
This is quintessential subversion. Keep the masses drugged up so they cannot think and have little or no impulse control. The result is lawlessness. Anarchy. Can anyone say, “Ferguson”? The situation here in the District has plummeted since Baltimore. Many in the black population visibly have an attitude. Men can be seen stomping the streets just looking for a fight. My more perceptive readers are aware that I am a homeless veteran. Shortly after people in Baltimore were given “room to destroy”, a black man threatened to rape me for no other reason than the fact that I am white and I was there. Godlessness. Hopelessness. Drugs. Lawlessness. Anarchy. The KGB is winning.
Some people think I am crazy for harping on the KGB the way that I am, but I am trying to wake up America before it is too late, and it is close to being too late.


Wednesday, May 20, 2015

Iraq, WMDs, and the KGB

After a twenty-four hour tour of Iraq guided by Saddam Hussein himself, Sean Penn dutifully declared that there were no weapons of mass destruction. Wasn't that comforting? I slept so much better after an actor cleared Iraq of any nuclear threat.
By all appearances, he turned out to be right. For years we have been told no WMDs were found after our invasion, that we had operated based upon faulty intelligence, that in retrospect we should never have gone into Iraq; we have even been given a list of the "liars" who led the drumbeat to war: Benjamin Netanyahu, Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld, with President George W. Bush leading the charge to avenge his father's first Gulf War.
By all appearances.
Soon after we went into Iraq, reports began filtering back that we did not find weapons of mass destruction. The naysayers went wild. I immediately countered by asking what it was Saddam used to gas the Kurds. Magic? I also had another theory. I contended that during the year Bush kept warning Iraq to hand over their WMDs or else, Saddam moved his arsenal to Syria.
For years this debate went on. People who wanted to paint Bush as a warmonger, a war criminal, and a murderer touted the lack of WMDs as their weapon against him. I was certain the intelligence had been right, but I had no way to prove it. Knowing Prime Minister Netanyahu the way I do, I had no doubt he was telling the truth, and I would stand by Israeli intelligence any day of the week. So, what happened?
Last year, part of the mystery was solved, although for some reason the media gave it a pass and even people like Ted Cruz who wave the flag at every turn continue to promote the narrative that no weapons were found and that, knowing what we know today, we should never have attacked Iraq. Following are just a handful of articles about last year's story. Since people love to argue with sources, the reader is free to type "WMDs found in Iraq" into the search engine of his or her choice and see for himself/herself:
Not only did we find what purportedly qualify as WMDs (for some reason failing to dispose of them properly), but last summer the Islamic State found what we left behind: various chemical weapons along with eighty-eight pounds of uranium. Uranium. You cannot gas people with uranium. There is only one reason Saddam would have had that particular item.
This information raised a huge question in my mind. With all of the flak the Bush Administration took over "failing" to find weapons of mass destruction, why on Earth was this cache not announced to the world? The only thing I could think of was there was something else they did not want us to know. It turns out I was right about that as well, because yesterday the following article re-surfaced:
Wait. What was that? Underground facilities in Syria? You mean, like the ones we see in Iran? What could those be? Of course, we have no official confirmation from any intelligence sources at this time, but coincidentally I was also watching the following video yesterday about Russian disinformation:
I realize it is long, but it is well-worth the investment. One of the many things that is brought out is the "Bush-lied-about-WMDs-in-Iraq" mantra and the fact that it is straight from Russia. My regular readers will remember the following post from just a few weeks ago:
Anyone who did not take the time to click through the links needs to do so at this time. America is under attack like never before. Because we bought into the biggest farce the Soviet Union ever perpetrated, Russia has been free to unleash every bit of its well-oiled propaganda machine against us with impunity. It is incumbent upon us to learn about their tactics so that we recognize them and can counter them.
I will have more in coming days.

Tuesday, May 19, 2015

Another Damned Benghazi Lie

This is precisely what Mike Morell was trying to explain to the House Intelligence Committee. I no sooner completed my last Benghazi post than the following information was released by Judicial Watch:
I am angrier than ever, because this document proves I was right when I stated in January that Congressman Trey Gowdy had lied to Greta van Susteran last December:
So many people confronted me on that post, saying I had no evidence, that Gowdy is an honest man, that I had no right to impugn his reputation, calling my patriotism into question; there were even a few expletives thrown in for good measure.
Well, it seems I did have evidence, that Gowdy is not an honest man, and that he impugned his own reputation.
Speaking of Mike Morell, Fox News aired the following after the report became public:
As usual, people are not listening. The fact is (and I like him), Bret Baier did not do his job. When Morell said "we" were not running guns into Syria, he should have immediately asked the question I did in a previous post, "Who is 'we'?" But he did not, and now the assumptions have become "fact" in news reports. This is how lies get propagated. Further, not only Fox but the House Intelligence Committee do not listen very well. Morell laid out the process of analysis very painstakingly, but it seems everyone only wants to hear what he or she wants to hear, which is one of the many reasons I am so frustrated.
This last link accuses Morell of lying at the National Press Club, when he said they did not know in advance of the planned attack on September 11, 2012. The document released by Judicial Watch states very clearly that the DIA memorandum dated September 12, 2012 was sent to Hillary Clinton, Leon Panetta (then-Secretary of Defense, not CIA), the Joint Chiefs, and the National Security Council. Granted, CIA is represented on the NSC. But, this memo came out after the attack, and there is no guarantee that the information was passed along to the appropriate analyst(s). Further, there is nothing in the Judicial Watch report that tells who-knew-what-when. It is premature to be calling Morell a liar.
Also, the information from August, 2012 supports what Morell had to say. He stated repeatedly that CIA had warned for months about the "deteriorating situation", so again I fail to see how yesterday's "breaking news" proves Morell is lying about anything.
I am not defending a "Hillary man". Everyone knows (or should know) that I want Hillary Clinton hung from a yard arm. I am being as objective as I know how to be. Not everyone in CIA is a liar. General David Petraeus was not a liar, and so far Mike Morell has not proven himself to be one, either. I am speaking from my many years in security. You do not want a memo from CIA to the FBI saying, "It was al-Qaeda". Why not? Because it would taint the investigation. So, regardless of CIA's suspicions, it was reasonable to leave that out of the "talking points". Also, I thought Congressman Dwyer was absurd when he suggested Morell was protecting the State Department by omitting the "warning language". Had Morell left it in, I have no doubt Dwyer would have accused him of trying to deflect blame away from CIA. A little objectivity would be refreshing, Congressmen.
However, it is impossible to give that same benefit-of-the-doubt to the White House. Clearly they knew it was al-Qaeda, but given what I just said about tainting the investigation, what story should the Administration have told? How about: None? Certainly do not float a narrative they know to be a lie and that they know is going to bite them in the ass! So, why did Obama do it? Because al-Qaeda was "on the run", and God-forbid the public should find out otherwise.
The reason for this blog post is a classic example of how analysis works. Until Sunday, I was working with a given set of information, and drawing conclusions based upon that information. Yesterday, Judicial Watch shed new light on Benghazi, causing me to reassess my previous analyses, which is precisely the process Morell described to the Committee.
That being said, it also proved I was right about Gowdy. There is no way that, in December of 2014, with all of the classified briefings and classified documents to which he has been exposed, including the above-referenced DIA memorandum from September 12, 2012, that he did not have any clue about a possible "nefarious" connection between Benghazi and Turkey. There is just no way, especially for a man who sarcastically refers to himself as having been a "average prosecutor" (in fact he had a perfect conviction rate).
Congressman Trey Gowdy, along with key members of the Obama Administration, have a truckload of explaining to do.

Friday, May 15, 2015

Osama Bin Laden, Benghazi, and the KGB

[AUTHOR'S NOTE: Because of the timing of Michael Morell's book, my research shifted gears as my readers know from my last post, Someone is Lying About Benghazi. Therefore, even though I still intend to cover the topics I promised in this new publication, I am going to order it differently so as to fit better with how things happened this week. I am also publishing this in pieces because it is going to be long and I want just as much information public just as quickly as I can get it organized and typed.]

I am reminded of Jim Lovell's book, "Apollo 13". In describing the events leading up to the oxygen tank explosion, he explains that in most aircraft accidents it is usually not one catastrophic event that causes the disaster but rather a sequence of smaller, seemingly benign events that accumulate to create the requisite environment.
Such is the case with Benghazi. One can easily get caught up in the ongoing finger-pointing campaigns and try to find the one person to hang for the deaths of Ambassador Chris Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty, but there is no one person. Rather, Benghazi was the culmination of many different factions converging to doom the compound and its occupants. So, while seemingly conflicting evidence is aggravating, it is understandable.
What I have a problem with is the blatant lies, and they are legion. As any lawyer can attest, when a witness lies it calls all of his/her testimony into question. When lie after lie after lie is told, the situation reaches the point where nothing can be believed. At this point, I am not even certain Kris Paronto was in Libya that night. Does anyone have a time-stamped photo of him at the annex?
As I was beginning my research into Seymour Hersh's article, the following interview came out with Mike Morell:
It just so happened that same day I had just met a man who was a Navy veteran and was in his company while I was listening to the interview. He was trying to talk to me about something, and I asked him to wait a minute because I needed to find out how to fire a mortar (I was going to do a search). After the requisite, "Why? Are you planning on shooting one?" he replied, "Well, I can tell you that". So, I asked him, and he explained mortars are fired pretty much like a sniper rifle. You put in the coordinates, and then fire. I asked how long this process would take, and he said not very long. I asked if it would require days of planning, and he said no. Then he elaborated, "In fact, those people (meaning Middle Eastern terrorists) fire them so much, they have had so much practice, that they can pretty much just point and shoot."
Oh, really?
My friend's explanation fits with what Michael Morell said, and calls other accounts into question. After all, the deadly accuracy of that first mortar proves this was a pre-planned event, right? (NOTE: While I am laying out my case, please do not misconstrue my analysis as being insensitive to the losses of Doherty and Woods. I have always been struck by the irony of their having travelled so far for so long only to be killed within the first minutes of the final attack.)
But, how does this fit with other explanations we have been given? General McInerney did not mince words when he said "we knew about Benghazi two weeks in advance". And Morell himself said CIA had been warning about the situation for months. Then there is the infamous video. Originally released in July, 2012, it was translated into Arabic and re-released in September, with a screening planned by Terry Jones on September 11 of all days. (Remember that Jones is the one who created an uproar after holding a Quran-burning at his church.)
The answer is, frankly, that Benghazi was a compilation of all of the above...coupled with something more nefarious. I have written repeatedly about Trey Gowdy's appearance on "Greta" last December, saying that he lied about Stevens' meeting with the Turk (he said they were likely just "friends"). I wrote an entire post on it, demonstrating how ludicrous that statement is:
However, Morell insists that we were not running guns through Benghazi, and I would love to believe him. In fact, I was impressed by his veracity in the interviews I have seen. He does not have the slick, polished veneer I see in John Brennan. I think Morell is genuine. Yet, there is that ship with arms in a Turkish port. What was going on in Benghazi?
* * * * *
Remember this report from a few months ago?
I have already written that I do not believe everything in it. The idea that Hillary Clinton gave General Ham a direct order is insane...not that she would think she had the authority to do such a thing but rather the idea that he would give such an order a millisecond of his consideration. I also find it to be hilarious that Obama supposedly abdicated his throne to his Secretary of State with a shrug of his shoulders and a “Don't look at me; this is Hillary's war”. Please.
But, the Pentagon warring with the State Department rings true to me. And we have seen of late how Congress will go around other branches of government when it finds a policy to be outlandish (observe their recent outreach to Israel). So, for the Pentagon and Congress to say, “This is crazy! Kill Qaddafi? Does she have any idea what will happen as a result?” sounds perfectly plausible.
Back to that ship. We know that after Libya's revolution the weapons we supplied to the “rebels” fell into the “wrong” hands. (Will we ever learn to stop arming “rebels”? HINT: JOHN MCCAIN?) There is no question that Russia and Iran are playing both sides in Syria and that ISIS is a Russian invention. For readers who find that statement to be outlandish, please see my recent post on KGB incitement of Middle Eastern terrorism:
Hold that thought. Now, why was Hillary so opposed to increasing security at the compound? Every indication is she wanted to make that a permanent outpost; ostensibly the reason Ambassador Stevens was in Benghazi that fateful night was to compile the paperwork necessary for her report on September 30th. Clearly, she knew of the repeated security failures, and while I suppose she could make a wild attempt at plausible deniability (in fact, she has) the truth is there is no way she did not know about the repeated security requests and denials that occurred on her watch. Nevertheless, it just does not make good sense for someone to want a permanent diplomatic facility sans the security required to keep that facility safe. What was Hillary's problem?
I have it on good authority that to this day CIA does not trust Russia, so the idea that Benghazi was some sort of CIA operation to funnel guns to terrorists being supported by Russia defies logic. But, what if the State Department was busy trying to conduct another war and CIA was in fact spying upon their operation? Not very far-fetched if we remember what happened with Qaddafi. Had Hillary gone rogue again? Was she conducting an operation that CIA was monitoring, not so much because it was the State Department but because they knew the real agitator within Syria was the Russians? Because, the bottom line is, guns were traveling from Libya through Turkey into Syria. And the fact that CIA was in Syria as early as spring, 2012 was probably the worst-kept secret in CIA history. Why were they there? Were they arming the “rebels” without authorization? Or were they monitoring the movement of those guns? Was Benghazi in fact the culmination of yet another inter-agency war over Libya?
My readers need to learn how to speak Spy. Who is “we”? Mike Morell was adamant when he said to Bret Baier, “We” were not running guns into Syria. He even put his hands to his chest. It was very heart-felt. “We”, who? “We” the United States of America, or “we” CIA? See how this works? I find Morell to be very candid. The listener simply needs to understand the language.
See, I think there are still many good men and women at CIA who love America, although the current director is not one of them. I think that CIA works to protect this country against all enemies, foreign and domestic, and if that means spying on a “diplomatic outpost”, so be it. As to the rumors that Stevens was CIA, I am not sure where to put that. His love of the Libyan people was no secret. I do not know how far he would have gone to do what he thought would help them. I am aware of the argument he had on September 10, 2012 with a dinner companion about the Muslim Brotherhood, and the side he took in that debate disturbs me. But, I do not have enough information to be able to draw a sound conclusion.
As they say on the streets, “Let's not get it twisted”. My readers know how I feel about Hillary Clinton. But, this is about the truth, not politics, which brings me to the House Intelligence Committee. The display I saw out of the Republicans was ridiculous. The partisan lines were drawn, and because Morell is clearly a Clinton supporter anything he said was interpreted in that light. Note to Congress: This is supposed to be an investigation. Check your party affiliation at the door and investigate. The same goes for the House Select Committee, with specific reference to one congressman on the other side of the aisle, Elijah Cummings. If you cannot be objective, recuse yourself.
One other thing. Hillary Clinton might think she runs this country, but she does not. The reason I resist the calls to hang her for Benghazi is that there is one person who is ultimately responsible for anything that happens regarding America, and his name is Barack Hussein Obama.
Finally, we need to train our ears. Whenever we hear Iran mentioned, we need to think “Russia”. Iran is not acting unilaterally. It has the full support of Russia.
Which brings me to Osama bin Laden.

May 1, 2011
Barack Obama made a special announcement from the White House that sent shock waves around the world. Osama bin Laden had been killed in a raid in Abbottabad, Pakistan. Everyone in America cheered, including myself. It was far past time for the man responsible for September 11th to meet “allah” and his seventy-two virgins. Revenge was sweet.
But, once the elation died, I began having serious questions. The President had made a point of declaring his intention of ending the “War on Terror”, in effect saying there was no war on terror. He campaigned on his desire to close our base at Guantanamo Bay. 2011 was not an election year, and it was a little early in the campaign season to pull a stunt that Americans were supposed to remember a year-and-a-half later. So, why did he suddenly get an irresistible urge to do the one “good” thing he has done in office?
Adding to my consternation was the ambush of Extortion 17, the families' subsequent demands for the “truth” about how those SEALs died, and the emergence of Robert O'Neill, Sniper Extraordinaire. Not only that, but I have long been convinced that several “coincidences” are not coincidences at all. I have addressed Camp Chapman before. Jennifer Matthews' death has always bothered me. She was so close to her goal, and then apparently sloppy so-called security at the base gets her killed. Who at CIA cleared this Jordanian blogger? And, what of the musical CIA Station Chiefs in Pakistan?:
It also has not escaped my notice that, not only was Ayman al-Zawahiri trained by the KGB, but almost before bin Laden was “buried” someone by the name of Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi began to emerge, a man who is rumored in some circles to be a Mossad agent by the name of Simon Elliott. (Bear with me; my regular readers should already know why I am bringing that up; the rest of you please do not jump to conclusions before you finish reading this post.) More on this in a moment.
Some of my questions may have been answered by Seymour Hersh. In an article released last week that caused tremendous backlash for five minutes before other news stories shoved it aside, he gives a completely different account of what happened that night from what the Obama Administration has been telling us:
According to the White House narrative, our military crossed over into Pakistani airspace, flew for almost an hour, and just as it was approaching the compound in Abbottabad learned that the Pakistani Air Force had dispatched planes to attack them. We supposedly radioed them with a threat, and they turned tail and ran back to base. Then we completed the mission without further confrontation. An hour is a very long time to fly undetected over enemy territory. Hersh says the Pakistanis knew of the raid in advance, and that bin Laden had been a prisoner of the ISI since 2006. In fact, the last video released by bin Laden was on October 31, 2004, so the timing fits. Hersh further claims that the Pakistanis were holding bin Laden as insurance against the Taliban.
After the Peshawar attack, I had the opportunity to have some lively discussions with Pakistanis on Twitter, many of whom are great fans of the TTP. Why? Because they believe the TTP protects them from the Taliban. The average Pakistani does not view the TTP as being terrorists, despite their being designated as a terrorist organization. I found it to be mind-boggling that the same people who had just slaughtered 132 children were being hailed as heroes. The motive behind the Peshawar attack was revenge against the army for its attack on the TTP several months earlier, and Pakistanis were defending the TTP! So, we are back to “good” terrorists and “bad” terrorists. I guess that warped way of thinking is not exclusive to America.
Nevertheless, if that is the prevalent thinking in Pakistan, it makes sense that the ISI might want to hold bin Laden in order to keep the Taliban at bay. So, while I cannot independently verify Hersh's assertion, it at least has the ring of truth.
As to the courier, I always wondered about that, because the accounts I heard from the bin Laden Task Force were that bin Laden was extremely paranoid. Paranoid to the point that not only were cell phones shut off, but batteries and sim cards were removed to ensure movements could not be tracked. I have no way of knowing one way or the other. Anything is possible, but the idea that Pakistan would cooperate with America in dealing with bin Laden only to have America betray them rings true. We have a long history of doing precisely that (remember bin Laden's doctor)?
The fact that Obama was “cautious” rings 100% true. History has proven our President does not do anything without a guarantee he will not be exposed politically. It also makes sense that, in order to guarantee no casualties in taking out bin Laden, the IC (intelligence community) would try to “get the Pakistanis on board”.
From everything I have read over several decades about intelligence operations in the Middle East, Hersh's account of the political situation involving Saudi Arabia, the subterfuge in our relationship with Pakistan, and the duplicity involved in Pakistan's relationship with the Taliban is spot-on. (I realize many readers went numb attempting to follow Hersh's description; I often tell people that whenever I study the Middle East I first remove my brain. The western mind does not follow the mentality of Middle Easterners naturally. It takes work.)
So, bin Laden is killed, Obama is a hero, and SEAL Team Six is exposed. The Pentagon could not have been very happy about that. I also doubt anyone was thrilled with Obama's, “the longest 45 minutes of my life” remark. Who was shooting at him? Good grief. Anyway, as I stated in a previous post, the SEALs stayed true to their oath and did not take personal credit for who took the kill shot. Until Robert O'Neill. Back to him in a moment.
I cannot speak to the financial situation Hersh describes in his article, although I know money talks in the Middle East just like everywhere else, only more loudly. There, the guy who pays $1 more is the one who wins the payee's “loyalty”, so again I find Hersh to be credible.
But, what of the events that occurred after that night, and the initial glory-seeking on the part of the Obama Administration? What of Extortion 17? What is the deal with Robert O'Neill violating the SEAL creed? Why do the SEALs who are still alive from that mission say he is lying? Why was bin Laden really killed (opportunity and Pakistan's motives aside)? Who was really behind it? And did these events pave the way for the future “Caliph Ibrahim”?
I will address that tomorrow when I publish the KGB portion of this post.
Why would Russia be involved in the Middle East? Most people would immediately reply, “oil”, but that makes no sense. Russia has more than enough oil to last a very long time. Why would Russia support terrorism? Most people would immediately reply that I am crazy, that Putin has made it very clear he will not tolerate terrorism on Russian soil. Yet, the evidence indicates otherwise.
What is happening in Russia while all eyes are focused on ISIS? Does anyone know? Many are vaguely aware of problems in Ukraine, and of the annexation of Crimea. Other than that, what has Vladimir been up to? Here is just a small sample: Russian planes have been running “First Strike” practice maneuvers in Europe and North America, invading American, Canadian, and British airspace on numerous occasions. Putin has threatened Great Britain, Denmark, and the Baltics with a nuclear attack. Russian submarines have been spotted in German waters. And then there is the Russian spy ship that went on “liberty” in Cuba in April, 2014. That ship remains docked at this very moment. Wow. My father joined the wrong Navy. In his entire career, he never had a “liberty” that lasted over a year. Russia must be very kind to her sailors. Or, is something else going on?
Does Russia sponsor terrorism? My readers are probably aware of a book called “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion”. That book is a best seller in the Middle East. Most Arabs are very familiar with it, and many can pull out a copy upon request. “Protocols” purports to be the minutes of a meeting of Zionists where they discussed their plans for world domination, and includes the blood libel that Jews use the blood of Christian boys to make matvot for Passover. That libel has gotten countless Jews massacred. “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion” was written by the KGB:
Also see:
“The Protocols” was designed to blame the Jews for the Bolshevik Revolution (where have we seen this same scapegoating of the Jews in recent history? See “Mein Kampf”), and was responsible for horrible massacres of the Jews. The “success” of this book gave the Russians the idea to expand its influence, so it has since been distributed throughout the Middle East. As I have outlined previously, the KGB was responsible for Yasser Arafat, Ayatollah Khomeini, Mahmoud Abbas, and Ayman al-Zawahiri, among others, and let us not forget that Stalin originally allied himself with Hitler (and thus the Muslim Brotherhood) during World War II until Hitler became too greedy. The KGB's hand in terrorism goes back almost 100 years, so it should come as no surprise that Russia remains in “the game” to this day.
Getting back to my questions from earlier: Why was bin Laden really killed? Who was the “walk-in” Seymour Hersh says gave him up? Obviously, what I am about to assert cannot be proven at this time, but I have formed an educated opinion. Who was the number two in charge of al-Qaeda? Ayman al-Zawahiri. So, with bin Laden dead, who took control of al-Qaeda? The KGB. (I will continue to use this more familiar name although its “official” title is the FSB; my readers are aware of my assertion that the FSB and the KGB are one and the same.) Bin Laden's death also set the stage for Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi to begin his reign of terror, which he commenced the following month. While we have no information as to whether or not he was ever anywhere near Moscow or had any Russian contact whatsoever, I find the rumor that he is a Mossad agent named Simon Elliott to be fascinating:
So, back to Benghazi. What about the guns that we now know for a fact were being moved from Libya to Syria through Turkey? See, I do not think we were the only ones in Libya arming the “rebels” to overthrow Qaddafi. In fact, given Russia's track record, I would be shocked if they were not running weapons out of Libya into Syria. Which points the finger for Benghazi directly at the same party who was responsible for 9/11 but who no one will name:
There is much more to say on the subject of the KGB. In fact, they will factor in to my next topic: Iraq, and whether or not Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.