Washington Post Has Always Been A CIA Asset

greatgameindia.com ^ | FEBRUARY 21, 2022 | GGI Staff

[ransomnote]

The Washington Post has always been a CIA asset. The CIA used the Washington Post to orchestrate the Watergate narrative used to drive President Nixon out of office.

The CIA wanted Nixon gone, because Nixon was threatening the military/security complex’s budget and power by making arms control  agreements with the Soviets and by opening to China. The CIA was afraid to assassinate Nixon because of the suspicion it was under for assassinating President Kennedy and Senator Kennedy. So the CIA used the Washington Post to assassinate Nixon politically. 

The entire history of the Washington Post is one of fake news. The latest fake news from the disinformation sheet claims that the Russian troop pullback is a “deliberate ruse to mislead the United States and other world powers” about Russia’s planned invasion of Ukraine. “Anonymous US intelligence sources” (the CIA) are cited as the source.

First of all, the Russian troops were part of an exercise, not an invasion plan. But push this fact aside and ask yourself what is the point of Russia concealing its plans? If Russia wants to invade Ukraine, no one on earth can do anything whatsoever about it. So why hide it?  Indeed, with satellites overhead a force concentrated for invasion cannot be hidden. The presstitute who wrote the story and the CIA that dictated it are thinking in WW II terms when modern surveillance capabilities did not exist.

Ask yourself also why Russia needs to create a false flag attack in order to justify invading Ukraine. If Russia wants Ukraine, Russia has plenty of up front reasons. One is to prevent Ukraine from being a NATO member and hosting US missile bases on Russia’s border. Another is that Ukraine is part of Russia and had been for 300 years until the Americans broke it off from Russia when Russia was to weak to do anything about it. Another reason is that Ukraine has violated the Minsk Agreement and continues to attack the Russian population in the Donbass region.  

In actual fact, Russia doesn’t need any excuse, because no one can stop them.

Also ask yourself what is the point of an excuse. No matter how good it is, Washington and NATO would not believe it. The excuse would do no good and serve no purpose. In fact an excuse would be worse than no excuse, because the excuse would simply result in the endless refutation of the excuse.  

If I were Putin and I wanted Ukraine, I would just take it. I would say, you Americans took Iraq and Libya. The Israelis stole Palestine. I’m taking Ukraine. 

The real question is one the presstitutes will never address. Does all the focus on an imagined Russian invasion of Ukraine serve to direct attention away from the 150,000 Ukrainian troops on the Donbass border as Ukraine prepares to invade the Donetsk and Lugansk republics that broke away from Ukraine and are in the process of evacuating citizens to Russia in anticipation of a Ukrainian invasion?

The United States does not have a media. It has a propaganda service for the military/security complex, the pharmaceutical industry, and the global elite. It is impossible to wring one word of truth out of the US media.

[DoodleDawg]

Yes, Ben Bradlee was CIA.

And yes, DiogenesLamp is a nut. All all is right in the world.

[Grampa Dave]

Where have you been?

Good to hear from you!

[Inyo-Mono]

Bkmk.

[onyx]

Hey Gunner! ❤️

I’m too ornery to croak without first telling you.

[x]

So we see them today pulling the exact same sh*t on Trump. Make up a fake scandal, use their news liar assets to spread the false claim, and attempt to stage a coup against a lawful president

But who are "them" or "they"? The CIA? Rich New York Bankers? You see your problem: you are assuming a constant unchanging "they", when in fact groups are always changing and reforming. The big newspapers hated Nixon, but it's unlikely that either the CIA or New York bankers wanted him removed. But you immediately jump to your usual assumption with no evidence whatsoever.

The Military Industrial complex stood to make a lot of money, you know, kinda like routing *ALL* Southern export trade through New York, and so if Nixon made peace with China, that might disrupt the cash flow.

Nixon did make peace of sorts with China. That didn't cut defense budgets. What did cut defense budgets was the swing to the Democrats after Nixon had to leave office. Intelligent members of the military industrial complex would generally have supported Nixon because they recognized what the Democrats would do.

If we have peace, then why do we need all those expensive weapon systems that the rich elite in the Northeast produce?

Much of the defense industry was in the West. Some was in the South. I don't see any indication that Northeastern money men were more involved in defense industry than Los Angeles or Seattle or Houston or Atlanta money men were.

But you don't care. You just keep coming back with your big idea whether it's relevant or not.

[DiogenesLamp]

And yes, DiogenesLamp is a nut. All all is right in the world.

And this is the level of intellect you get when you summon forth Doodle.

She's just mad because I usually point out whenever she tries to misdirect the conversation.

[DiogenesLamp]

But who are "them" or "they"? The CIA? Rich New York Bankers? You see your problem: you are assuming a constant unchanging "they", when in fact groups are always changing and reforming.

"They" are all of the above, except "bankers". I never mention bankers. Pretty sure they would just be the lackeys to the real players, don't you think?

And yes, the "elite' is always changing and evolving. In the 1860s it was pretty much Boston, New York and Washington DC, but nowadays it's more diverse and spread out, but still mainly concentrated in the Northeast.

The big newspapers hated Nixon, but it's unlikely that either the CIA or New York bankers wanted him removed. But you immediately jump to your usual assumption with no evidence whatsoever.

You declare and assert there is no evidence, but it looks like there is quite a lot of evidence to me. The Washington Post has long been the house organ for the deep state, and if the Washington Post is screaming for Nixon's blood, it is because this is what the Deep State wanted.

Nixon did make peace of sorts with China. That didn't cut defense budgets. What did cut defense budgets was the swing to the Democrats after Nixon had to leave office. Intelligent members of the military industrial complex would generally have supported Nixon because they recognized what the Democrats would do.

That is one theory. Here's another. They thought Nixon's peace overture might threaten their corporate backers income stream, and so they worked to get rid of him while thinking they could manage the Democrats.

Either theory could be correct, or both could be wrong and another theory we hadn't put forth could be correct.

Much of the defense industry was in the West. Some was in the South.

Who owned it? Where were the owners located? I found out a long time ago that a lot of businesses are owned in the Northeast, but located elsewhere.

I don't see any indication that Northeastern money men were more involved in defense industry than Los Angeles or Seattle or Houston or Atlanta money men were.

Ships, Submarines and aircraft are built where? Where do they build Tanks? Where does all the big ticket stuff come from?

But you don't care. You just keep coming back with your big idea whether it's relevant or not.

And you dismiss it just as easily and without any more facts than you accuse me of having.

Why does all the money keep ending up in Washington DC and all the industries connected to Washington DC?

Vaccines anyone? New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts have made quite a lot of money from this scam.

[BroJoeK]

From the article: "The Washington Post has always been a CIA asset."

So Woodward & Burnstein are really CIA agents?

Speaking of which, does anybody remember what, exactly, the "Plumbers" were looking for in the Watergate? It was never mentioned at the time, and I don't think I've heard it more than once since -- now I forget.

I'd think, if the CIA, or some nefarious creatures in the CIA, were in on the coup against Nixon, then they were relatively minor players.
The key players were actually Nixon's fellow Republicans, like John Dean who exposed the alleged plot and Republican US Senators who told Nixon he must resign.
It's a lesson Watergate investigators like young Hillary Rodham learned well and used to keep her own Pres. Slick from getting impeached some 23 years later.

[DiogenesLamp]

So Woodward & Burnstein are really CIA agents?

Useful idiots.

Speaking of which, does anybody remember what, exactly, the "Plumbers" were looking for in the Watergate? It was never mentioned at the time, and I don't think I've heard it more than once since -- now I forget.

I have heard it involves a girl who was seeing someone at the DNC. Apparently someone wanted to know if she was cheating on him, but I don't recall for certain.

The key players were actually Nixon's fellow Republicans, like John Dean who exposed the alleged plot and Republican US Senators who told Nixon he must resign.

We've noticed a lot of Republican backstabbing over the years. It seems that once you become part of the "establishment" you tend to do this sort of backstabbing.

[x]

That is one theory. Here's another. They thought Nixon's peace overture might threaten their corporate backers income stream, and so they worked to get rid of him while thinking they could manage the Democrats.

Then they were truly idiots. They certainly trusted Nixon more than they trusted McGovern and the Democrats, and getting rid of Nixon would have opened the door for the Democrats and defense cuts. Military spending was bound to go down after Vietnam, but nobody seriously thought that Nixon would slash new weapons budgets or gut the military industrial complex. While détente was going on the Soviets were flexing their muscles and there was still a need for weaponry to counteract that.

Ships, Submarines and aircraft are built where? Where do they build Tanks?

Tanks are made in Lima Ohio. Jets are made in Texas and Oklahoma, also maybe in California and Washington State. The manufacturers are headquartered in Maryland (Moved in recent decades from California), Virginia (moved in recent decades from Missouri), Missouri and Washington State. Ships and subs are made in Maine, Connecticut, Virginia, Mississippi, Alabama, and California.

Wealthy New York money men spread their money around and are unlikely to have all their eggs in one basket. With many investment opportunities available, it's unlikely that the defense contractors are going to be able to determine what some power elite pushes for.

And you dismiss it just as easily and without any more facts than you accuse me of having.

If you make a claim, it's up to you to prove it. If you want to prove that George Bush killed Kennedy or that Michelle Obama is a man or that Fidel Castro is Justin Trudeau's father or that New Yorkers run the country or that the CIA and the defense industry took down Nixon, you have to provide the evidence. You are just attaching your pet idea to everything that comes along without evidence and without any serious investigation.

Why does all the money keep ending up in Washington DC and all the industries connected to Washington DC?

Before 1933 New York had a lot of power. A lot of money ended up in New York and the private sector concentrated in New York did make a lot of decisions. It's only since then (or since 1913 if you like) that Washington DC has been getting substantially more power.

The really big money only started to flow into DC in the 1960s and 1970s. Those defense contractors only moved to Maryland and Virginia in the 1990s. In other words, for most of our history people didn't go to Washington to make really big money. The gains of the DC area and other parts of the country, particularly California and Texas were very much at the expense of the New York area. People who do business with the government move to where the government is. There's no conspiracy involved. It's business.

What you're missing here is that during the long years from the Thirties to the Nineties the Democrats controlled Congress. They weren't a party dominated by the Northeast in those years. Much of their strength came from the South. It was in their interest to move bases and defense plants away from the Northeast. Land and labor were also cheaper in the South and West. With more factories being built, the South and West began to have more power economically than they had before, as well as more political influence. So rather than simply doing the bidding of some Northeastern elite, the federal government did much to weaken that region.

[Interesting Times]

So Woodward & Burnstein are really CIA agents?

Pretty much.

Deep State Operatives and Mouthpieces for CIA.

[DiogenesLamp]

Then they were truly idiots.

You saw how the Vietnam war was handled?

They certainly trusted Nixon more than they trusted McGovern and the Democrats, and getting rid of Nixon would have opened the door for the Democrats and defense cuts.

They wouldn't have gotten McGovern. Who they got was Gerald Ford. But again, people make decisions based on what they think will happen, and this crowd probably manages their skullduggery about as well as they managed Vietnam.

Military spending was bound to go down after Vietnam, but nobody seriously thought that Nixon would slash new weapons budgets or gut the military industrial complex.

I'm sure there was more than one factor here. I used to read in "American Spectator" how much the liberals detested Nixon because of his prosecution of Alger Hiss, who was one of their darlings back in the 1950s.

The bureaucratic structure of Washington DC has long been in the leftist camp, and it does not seem unreasonable to me that they hated Nixon just as much as they hate Trump right now.

If you make a claim, it's up to you to prove it.

Well, see there? I believe I have proven it to the degree necessary for a reasonable man to give it credibility.

I've already shown you that the Southern states accounted for 72% of the total US export value for the nation in 1860, and then i've also shown you that all the money came back into the country through New York, Boston, and Washington DC. I have also learned that Southern products sent to the Northern states were valued at about 500 million dollars, and so we looking at the greater part of a billion dollars production from the Southern states in a total 4 billion economy of a nation.

But with this massive amount of money at stake (and not even counting the financial losses which would occur from European products flooding the domestic market) we are expected to believe the primary driving force for war was concern about slaves?

Pardon me if I don't believe the "milk of human kindness" explanation for war when there is a great big pile of money reason for doing it.

Before 1933 New York had a lot of power. A lot of money ended up in New York and the private sector concentrated in New York did make a lot of decisions. It's only since then (or since 1913 if you like) that Washington DC has been getting substantially more power.

The collusion creature created in the past simply grew and evolved. It's still the same corrupt crony capitalist collusion creature. It's just metastasized.

The really big money only started to flow into DC in the 1960s and 1970s.

"Big" is relative. 750 million was a lot in 1860, but not so much in 1960. And yes, the 24th amendment unlocked a lot of government taxing and spending in it's aftermath. There were a lot of areas of exploitation in the government's "war on poverty" scheme.

In other words, for most of our history people didn't go to Washington to make really big money.

When you own the congressmen and the bureaucrats, you don't have to live next to them. You can live in your fine Mansion in Boston or New York and still control your servants in DC.

Thirties to the Nineties the Democrats controlled Congress.

But back then they were less insane, more honest, and emerging from states all over the nation instead of just the concentrations of liberal power. Of course there were exceptions like Huey Long.

With more factories being built, the South and West began to have more power economically than they had before, as well as more political influence. So rather than simply doing the bidding of some Northeastern elite, the federal government did much to weaken that region.

By this era, the "elite" didn't particularly care about the peasants in their region. What they care about is *THEIR* power and wealth. While the relative overall economic activity in New York and the Northeast declined, it was still the same powerful families making money and controlling Washington DC.

And where is all the "vaccine" money going?

[x]

You haven't proven anything. You just have one obsession that you drag into every discussion.

And yes, the 24th amendment unlocked a lot of government taxing and spending in it's aftermath.

The abolition of poll taxes? You're against that? You think it sparked the growth of big government?

[MinorityRepublican]

So the CIA used the Washington Post to assassinate Nixon politically.

So in a way, Nixon was lucky?