Posted on 12/12/2016 6:36:31 AM PST by detective
Shortened title.
Full title: Former UK Ambassador Blasts "CIA's Blatant Lies", Shows "A Little Simple Logic Destroys Their Claims"
I have watched incredulous as the CIA’s blatant lie has grown and grown as a media story – blatant because the CIA has made no attempt whatsoever to substantiate it. There is no Russian involvement in the leaks of emails showing Clinton’s corruption. Yes this rubbish has been the lead today in the Washington Post in the US and the Guardian here, and was the lead item on the BBC main news. I suspect it is leading the American broadcasts also. A little simple logic demolishes the CIA’s claims. The CIA claim they “know the individuals” involved. Yet under Obama the USA has been absolutely ruthless in its persecution of whistleblowers, and its pursuit of foreign hackers through extradition. We are supposed to believe that in the most vital instance imaginable, an attempt by a foreign power to destabilise a US election, even though the CIA knows who the individuals are, nobody is going to be arrested or extradited, or (if in Russia) made subject to yet more banking and other restrictions against Russian individuals? Plainly it stinks. The anonymous source claims of “We know who it was, it was the Russians” are beneath contempt.
(Excerpt) Read more at zerohedge.com ...
But, it comes from the CIA. And we know they are reliable because, WMD.
Leave it to the Brits to tell the truth the US MSM won’t
The CIA hasn’t been worth a 2 cent piece of candy since LBJ took office after JFKs death.
Why are Democrats saying Russia interferred with the presidential election?
They are concerned with the integrity of the system
They are trying to delegitimize Trump’s presidency
Will everybody stop with the WMD already. Saddam did have the WMD and used it against his own people and other countries.
Being an employee of the federal government used to be a badge of distinction and then they had to go all PC, affirmative action, and lower their standards. Now we are seeing the effects of that and their images are suffering because of it. You don’t put a Fdirector in office who is sympathetic to the Muslim Brotherhood and might divulge national security information to the opposing team for starters. I’d like to see what sources they have that proves the claim that Russia interfered with the elections. I’m guessing that information is “classified” and can’t be divulged to the public for national security reason.../s
Being an employee of the federal government used to be a badge of distinction and then they had to go all PC, affirmative action, and lower their standards. Now we are seeing the effects of that and their images are suffering because of it. You don’t put a Fdirector in office who is sympathetic to the Muslim Brotherhood and might divulge national security information to the opposing team for starters. I’d like to see what sources they have that proves the claim that Russia interfered with the elections. I’m guessing that information is “classified” and can’t be divulged to the public for national security reasons.../s
I want the CIA director on TV laying out the case with names, dates, and all other evidence.
Until then, this is a politicized CIA doing the behest of the party that appointed them.
All this type of attack is from Sauk Alynsky from his book Rules for Radicals, a socialist publication:
Saul Alinsky’s 12 Rules for Radicals
Here is the complete list from Alinsky.
* RULE 1: “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood. (These are two things of which there is a plentiful supply. Government and corporations always have a difficult time appealing to people, and usually do so almost exclusively with economic arguments.)
* RULE 2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. (Organizations under attack wonder why radicals don’t address the “real” issues. This is why. They avoid things with which they have no knowledge.)
* RULE 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. (This happens all the time. Watch how many organizations under attack are blind-sided by seemingly irrelevant arguments that they are then forced to address.)
* RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules. (This is a serious rule. The besieged entity’s very credibility and reputation is at stake, because if activists catch it lying or not living up to its commitments, they can continue to chip away at the damage.)
* RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. (Pretty crude, rude and mean, huh? They want to create anger and fear.)
* RULE 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones. (Radical activists, in this sense, are no different that any other human being. We all avoid “un-fun” activities, and but we revel at and enjoy the ones that work and bring results.)
* RULE 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news. (Even radical activists get bored. So to keep them excited and involved, organizers are constantly coming up with new tactics.)
* RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. (Attack, attack, attack from all sides, never giving the reeling organization a chance to rest, regroup, recover and re-strategize.)
* RULE 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. (Perception is reality. Large organizations always prepare a worst-case scenario, something that may be furthest from the activists’ minds. The upshot is that the organization will expend enormous time and energy, creating in its own collective mind the direst of conclusions. The possibilities can easily poison the mind and result in demoralization.)
* RULE 10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog. (Unions used this tactic. Peaceful [albeit loud] demonstrations during the heyday of unions in the early to mid-20th Century incurred management’s wrath, often in the form of violence that eventually brought public sympathy to their side.)
* RULE 11: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem. (Old saw: If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem. Activist organizations have an agenda, and their strategy is to hold a place at the table, to be given a forum to wield their power. So, they have to have a compromise solution.)
* RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions. (This is cruel, but very effective. Direct, personalized criticism and ridicule works.)
Thuis second entry should look really familiar.
Saul Alinsky”s Doctrine: 8 steps to topple a nation and create a socialist state
1) Healthcare — Control healthcare and you control the people
2) Poverty — Increase the Poverty level as high as possible, poor people are easier to control and will not fight back if you are providing everything for them to live.
3) Debt — Increase the debt to an unsustainable level. That way you are able to increase taxes, and this will produce more poverty.
4) Gun Control — Remove the ability to defend themselves from the Government. That way you are able to create a police state.
5) Welfare — Take control of every aspect of their lives (Food, Housing, and Income).
6) Education — Take control of what people read and listen to — take control of what children learn in school.
7) Religion — Remove the belief in the God from the Government and schools.
8) Class Warfare — Divide the people into the wealthy and the poor. This will cause more discontent and it will be easier to take (Tax) the wealthy with the support of the poor.
Obama and Hilary both studied his works with Hilary communicating with him before he died to write a school thesis on him. These rules were copied and pasted, not made up. Since they are so obvious, I invite you to look them up. His different books are on sale for anywhere for $11.95 up. I wouldn’t buy them, but radicals do like we buy the Bible.
red
My understanding is that John Podesta’s email password
was “P@ssword”.
You don’t exactly need a high-level KGB operative to
crack THAT one.
As Julian Assange has made crystal clear, the leaks did not come from the Russians. As I have explained countless times, they are not hacks, they are insider leaks – there is a major difference between the two. And it should be said again and again, that if Hillary Clinton had not connived with the DNC to fix the primary schedule to disadvantage Bernie, if she had not received advance notice of live debate questions to use against Bernie, if she had not accepted massive donations to the Clinton foundation and family members in return for foreign policy influence, if she had not failed to distance herself from some very weird and troubling people, then none of this would have happened.
My above posting should be in quotes. It includes a statement from Assuange.
How do we know the CIA did mention any of this?
All this report was done by the Times, and Compost who said they had an unnamed source.
Hardly a fact finding article is it.
This is why the media are hard and Trump won. Lies and fake news by these rags, spread by the left, in order to destroy Trump
This is their 'argument'.
Now......
Who decided to host their emails on a server with potentially compromised security?
Exactly which emails were falsified and do not represent exchanges between the individuals named?
In what way do the recorded email exchanges NOT represent the communication between the individuals at the time?
Can ANYONE in the mainstream media do the job they're SUPPOSED to do?
y-o-u-r- -n-e-w.....
“...the CIA has made no attempt whatsoever to substantiate it.” If they were to do so, their substantiation would likely amount to something akin to the fake CIA video/cartoon describing the crash of TWA 800. Only in the creative mind of CIA analysts or Hollywood could a Boeing 747 lose the entire forward section of the fuselage and climb 3,000 feet.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lbny8XnAifY
Good post, but nobody is listening. Chalk it up to another success of the left.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.