Powerful elites are using the credibility of the US Intelligence agencies to demonize Russia and prepare the country for war. This is the real meaning of the "Russia hacking" story which, as yet, has not produced any hard evidence of Russian complicity.
Last week's 25-page report, that was released by the Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, illustrates to what extent intelligence is being "fixed around the policy." Just as the CIA generated false information related to Weapons of Mass Destruction to soften public resistance to war with Iraq, so too, the spurious allegations in the DNI's politically-motivated report are designed to depict Russia as a growing threat to US national security. The timing of the report has less to do with the election of Donald Trump as President than it does with critical developments in Syria where the Russian military has defeated US-proxies in Syria's industrial hub, Aleppo, rolling back Washington's 15-year War of Terror and derailing the imperialist plan to control vital resources and pipeline corridors across the Middle East and Central Asia. Russia has become the main obstacle to Washington achieving its strategic vision of pivoting to Asia and maintaining its dominant role into the next century. The Intelligence Community has been coerced into compromising its credibility to incite fear of Russia and to advance the geopolitical ambitions of deep state power-brokers.
The "Russia hacking" flap shows how far the Intel agencies have veered from their original mandate, which is to impartially gather and analyze information that may be vital to US national security. As we have seen in the last two weeks, the leaders of these organizations feel free to offer opinions on issues that clearly conflict with those of the new President-elect. Trump has stated repeatedly that he wants to reduce tensions and reset relations with Russia, but that policy is being sabotaged by members of the intelligence community, particularly CIA Director John Brennan who appeared just last week on PBS Newshour with Judy Woodruff. Here's an excerpt from the interview:
"We see that there are still a lot of actions that Russia is undertaking that undermine the principles of democracy in so many countries. What has happened in our recent election is not new. The Russians have engaged in trying to manipulate elections in Europe for a number of years...
"the Russians tried to interfere in our electoral process recently, and were actively involved in that. And that is something that we can't countenance." ("Interview with CIA Director John Brennan," PBS Newshour)
Brennan, of course, provided no evidence for his claims nor did he mention the hundreds of CIA interventions around the world. But Brennan's accusations are less important than the fact that his appearance on a nationwide broadcast identifies him as a political advocate for policies that conflict with those of the new president. Do we really want unelected intelligence officials -- whose job it is to provide the president with sensitive information related to national security -- to assume a partisan role in shaping policy? And why would Brennan -- who is supposed to "serve at the pleasure of the president"-- accept an invitation to offer his views on Russia when he knew they would be damaging to the new administration?
Powerful people behind the scenes are obviously pushing the heads of these intelligence agencies to stick to their "anti-Moscow" narrative to force Trump to abandon his plan for peaceful relations with Moscow. Brennan isn't calling the shots and neither are Clapper or Comey. They're all merely agents serving the interests of establishment plutocrats whose geopolitical agenda doesn't jibe with that of the incoming administration. If that wasn't the case, then why would the Intelligence Community stake its reputation on such thin gruel as this Russian hacking gibberish? It doesn't make any sense. The people who launched this campaign are either supremely arrogant or extremely desperate. Which is it? Here's an excerpt from an article by veteran journalist Robert Parry sums it up like this in an article at Consortium News:
"The DNI report amounted to a compendium of reasons to suspect that Russia was the source of the information -- built largely on the argument that Russia had a motive for doing so because of its disdain for Democratic nominee Clinton and the potential for friendlier relations with Republican nominee Trump.
"But the case, as presented, is one-sided and lacks any actual proof. Further, the continued use of the word 'assesses' -- as in the U.S. intelligence community 'assesses' that Russia is guilty -- suggests that the underlying classified information also may be less than conclusive because, in intelligence-world-speak, 'assesses' often means 'guesses.'" ("US Report Still Lacks Proof on Russia 'Hack,'" Robert Parry, Consortium News)
Bottom line: Brennan and his fellow spooks have nothing. The report is little more than a catalog of unfounded assumptions, baseless speculation and uncorroborated conjecture. In colloquial parlance, it's bullshit, 100 percent, unalloyed Russophobic horse-manure. In fact, the authors admit as much in the transcript itself when they say:
"Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact. Assessments are based on collected information, which is often incomplete or fragmentary, as well as logic, argumentation, and precedents."
What kind of kooky admission is that? So the entire report could be BS but we're supposed to believe that Putin flipped the election? Is that it???
What's really going on here? Why have the Intelligence agencies savaged their credibility just to convince people that Russia is up to no good?
The Russia hacking story has more to do with recent developments in Syria than it does with delegitimizing Donald Trump. Aleppo was a real wake-up call for the US foreign policy establishment which is beginning to realize that their plans for the next century have been gravely undermined by Russia's military involvement in Syria. Aleppo represents the first time that an armed coalition of allied states (Russia, Iran, Syria, Hezbollah) have actively engaged US jihadist-proxies and soundly beat them to a pulp. The stunning triumph in Aleppo has spurred hope among the vassal states that Washington's bloody military juggernaut can be repelled, rolled back and defeated. And if Washington's CIA-armed, trained and funded jihadists can be repelled, then the elitist plan to project US power into Central Asia to dominate the world's most populous and prosperous region, will probably fail. In other words, the outcome in Aleppo has cast doubts on Uncle Sam's ability to successfully execute its pivot to Asia.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).