The Deep State War Heats Up :ph34r:

[Deranged Rhino]

re-posting this here too:

 

 

More details on how the lie of "all 17 intelligence agencies agree" on the Russian issue coming to light. Funny. Some on here have been saying this for months and months now...

 

Throwing a Curveball at ‘Intelligence Community Consensus’ on Russia Definitive assessment was not what it proclaimed to be.

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/did-17-intelligence-agencies-really-come-to-consensus-on-russia/

 

Simply put, the Russia NIA is not an “IC-coordinated” assessment—the vehicle for such coordination, the NIC, was not directly involved in its production, and no NIO was assigned as the responsible official overseeing its production. Likewise, the Russia NIA cannot be said to be the product of careful coordination between the CIA, NSA and FBI—while analysts from all three agencies were involved in its production, they were operating as part of a separate, secretive task force operating under the close supervision of the Director of the CIA, and not as an integral part of their home agency or department.

 

This deliberate misrepresentation of the organizational bona fides of the Russia NIA casts a shadow over the viability of the analysis used to underpin the assessments and judgments contained within. This is especially so when considered in the larger framework of what a proper “IC-coordinated assessment” process should look like, and in the aftermath of the intelligence failures surrounding Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction and the lessons learned from that experience, none of which were applied when it came to the Russia NIA.

 

(snip)

 

According to reporting from the Washington Post, sometime during this period, CIA Director John Brennan gained access to a sensitive intelligence report from a foreign intelligence service. This service claimed to have technically penetrated the inner circle of Russian leadership to the extent that it could give voice to the words of Russian President Vladimir Putin as he articulated Russia’s objectives regarding the 2016 U.S. Presidential election—to defeat Hillary Clinton and help elect Donald Trump, her Republican opponent. This intelligence was briefed to President Barack Obama and a handful of his closest advisors in early August, with strict instructions that it not be further disseminated.

 

The explosive nature of this intelligence report, both in terms of its sourcing and content, served to drive the investigation of Russian meddling in the American electoral process by the U.S. intelligence community. The problem, however, was that it wasn’t the U.S. intelligence community, per se, undertaking this investigation, but rather (according to the Washington Post) a task force composed of “several dozen analysts from the CIA, NSA and FBI,” hand-picked by the CIA director and set up at the CIA Headquarters who “functioned as a sealed compartment, its work hidden from the rest of the intelligence community.”

The result was a closed-circle of analysts who operated in complete isolation from the rest of the U.S. intelligence community. The premise of their work—that Vladimir Putin personally directed Russian meddling in the U.S. Presidential election to tip the balance in favor of Donald Trump—was never questioned in any meaningful fashion, despite its sourcing to a single intelligence report from a foreign service.

(snip)

The decision by Brennan early on in the process to create a special task force sequestered from the rest of the intelligence community ensured that whatever product it finally produced would neither draw upon the collection and analytical resources available to the totality of the national intelligence community, nor represent the considered judgment of the entire community—simply put, the Russia NIA lacked the kind of community cohesiveness that gives national estimates and assessments such gravitas.

The over reliance on a single foreign source of intelligence likewise put Brennan and his task force on the path of repeating the same mistake made in the run up to the Iraq War, where the intelligence community based so much of its assessment on a fundamentally flawed foreign intelligence source—“Curveball.” Not much is known about the nature of the sensitive source of information Brennan used to construct his case against Russia—informed speculation suggests the Estonian intelligence service, which has a history of technical penetration of Russian governmental organizations as well as a deep animosity toward Russia that should give pause to the kind of effort to manipulate American policy toward Russia in the same way Iraqi opposition figures (Ahmed Chalabi comes to mind) sought to do on Iraq.

President Putin has repeatedly and vociferously denied any Russian meddling in the 2016 U.S. Presidential election. Those who cite the findings of the Russia NIA as indisputable proof to the contrary, however, dismiss this denial out of hand. And yet nowhere in the Russia NIA is there any evidence that those who prepared it conducted anything remotely resembling the kind of “analysis of alternatives” mandated by the ODNI when it comes to analytic standards used to prepare intelligence community assessments and estimates. Nor is there any evidence that the CIA’s vaunted “Red Cell” was approached to provide counterintuitive assessments of premises such as “What if President Putin is telling the truth?”

(snip)

The excuse that Brennan’s source was simply too sensitive to be shared with these individuals, and the analysts assigned to them, is ludicrous—both the NIO for cyber issues and the CIA’s mission manager for Russia and Eurasia are cleared to receive the most highly classified intelligence and, moreover, are specifically mandated to oversee projects such as an investigation into Russian meddling in the American electoral process.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

CONGRESS TRYING TO SNEAK THROUGH MAJOR GIVEAWAY TO DEFENSE CONTRACTORS

 

 

 

The National Defense Authorization Act, or NDAA, is practically the only bill Congress passes on time every year. The last 50 NDAA’s, which authorize funds and set policy for the Department of Defense, have reached the president’s desk without a holdup. Education, healthcare, and jobs can wait, but supporting the troops — actually, supporting the defense contractors who make the weapons — must never face a delay. The bill even goes through a regular process, with dozens of amendments and bipartisan votes. It’s like nothing else in Washington.

 

This year’s version of the NDAA, which authorizes $696 billion in military spending, includes a nice gift for contractors, particularly those that have monopolized a particular part the Pentagon needs. Buried in the NDAA, which is scheduled to pass the House Friday, is an increase in the amount of products which can be sold to the military without providing cost information — data about the price of manufacturing and labor. Without this information, monopoly contractors could enjoy a huge markup on their sales to the government without anyone knowing about it.

 

(snip)

 

Hiding cost information benefits a small group of sole-source contractors,

 

(snip)

 

This model of competition in defense contracting ran aground after the Cold War, when policymakers made streamlining the primary objective. The number of audits of contractor facilities fell. Experienced procurement officers were let go. Buy American mandates were loosened. Contractors won an exception to cost information disclosure if they listed their items as “commercial.” Indeed, the House’s justification for raising the cost information threshold, obtained by The Intercept in a summary of the NDAA, is to “reduce administrative burdens” and “improve process timelines for smaller contracts.” Keeping costs down is no longer the focus.

 

(snip)

 

Partially due to these procurement changes, the defense contractor sector has concentrated significantly since the 1990s. A handful of companiescontrol the sector, and all these loopholes for disclosure prevent public understanding of whether the taxpayer is being harmed by exorbitant pricing.

 

(snip)

 

It’s hard to identify how this loophole got into the NDAA, because the process is so secretive. Citing national security, the Senate Armed Services Committee did all its work on the bill this year in closed sessions.

 

(snip)

 

But the NDAA also gives a boost to another monopoly provider — Amazon.

 

 

[GoBills808]

CONGRESS TRYING TO SNEAK THROUGH MAJOR GIVEAWAY TO DEFENSE CONTRACTORS

 

 

 

 

Interesting...trying to think of a sole-source contractor, did they give examples?

 

Citing national security for keeping defense pork undercover is absurd.

 

*Edit: TransDigm...basically a patent troll? Too weird.

Edited July 15, 2017 by GoBills808

[Deranged Rhino]

CIA Plans to Destroy Some of Its Old Leak Files The National Archives has tentatively approved a proposal to let the agency get rid of files that don’t have historical value. Historians fear there’s a lot of room for error.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cia-plans-to-destroy-some-of-its-old-leak-files?source=twitter&via=mobile

[Tiberius]

CIA Plans to Destroy Some of Its Old Leak Files

 

The National Archives has tentatively approved a proposal to let the agency get rid of files that don’t have historical value. Historians fear there’s a lot of room for error.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cia-plans-to-destroy-some-of-its-old-leak-files?source=twitter&via=mobile

That's just wrong. Stuff them in basement and seal them for 50 years so that future historians can have access to them. You can't tell what historians will be looking for in the future

[Deranged Rhino]

The empire is collapsing... even the Pentagon knows it. Their solution, of course, is more war. This is a report cobbled together by the US Army War College with contributions from the normal think tanks and alphabet agencies:

 

At Our Own Peril: DoD Risk Assessment in a Post Primacy World

 

The U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) faces persistent fundamental change in its strategic and operating environments. This report suggests this reality is the product of the United States entering or being in the midst of a new, more competitive, post-U.S. primacy environment. Post-primacy conditions promise far-reaching impacts on U.S. national security and defense strategy. Consequently, there is an urgent requirement for DoD to examine and adapt how it develops strategy and describes, identifies, assesses, and communicates corporate-level risk.

 

https://ssi.armywarcollege.edu/pubs/display.cfm?pubID=1358

 

(PDF available at the link w full document)

 

Lead:

 

 

“In brief, the sta­tus quo that was hatched and nurtured by U.S. strategists after World War II and has for decades been the principal ‘beat’ for DoD is not merely fraying but may, in fact, be collapsing.”

 

snip

 

“The order and its constituent parts, first emerged from World War II, were transformed to a unipolar sys­tem with the collapse of the Soviet Union, and have by-and-large been dominated by the United States and its major Western and Asian allies since. Status quo forces collectively are comfortable with their dominant role in dictating the terms of international security outcomes and resist the emergence of rival centers of power and authority.”

 

 

But this era is over, by the Pentagon's own admission. This era ended for multiple reasons listed in the report, but it primarily pins it on the desire of Russia and China (and to some extent NK and Iran) to have an equal seat at the global table. Because Russia and China are being denied a seat, both nations have "engaged in a deliberate program to demonstrate the limits of U.S. authority, will, reach, influence, and impact.”

 

In other words, the US policy since WW2 has been to make the global order work favorably for itself and its closest allies - but any effort to make that same global order work favorably for anyone else is automatically seen as a threat to U.S. power and interests. More to the point - the empire will not be denied.

 

There's a lot in this report to chew on, especially the ramifications but here are a few more highlights based on this topic:

 

On losing the propaganda war:

 

 

“Wide uncontrolled access to technology that most now take for granted is rapidly undermining prior advantages of discrete, secret, or covert intentions, actions, or operations… In the end, senior defense leaders should assume that all defense-related activity from minor tactical movements to major military operations would occur completely in the open from this point forward.”

 

 

Civil unrest coming to the homeland:

 

 

“To date, U.S. strategists have been fixated on this trend in the greater Middle East. However, the same forces at work there are similarly eroding the reach and authority of governments worldwide… it would be unwise not to recognize that they will mutate, metastasize, and manifest differently over time.”

 

“The United States and its population are increasingly exposed to substantial harm and an erosion of security from individuals and small groups of motivated actors, leveraging the conflu­ence of hyperconnectivity, fear, and increased vulner­ability to sow disorder and uncertainty. This intensely disorienting and dislocating form of resistance to author­ity arrives via physical, virtual, and psychological vio­lence and can create effects that appear substantially out of proportion to the origin and physical size or scale of the proximate hazard or threat.”

 

 

The above section is particularly interesting because of the conclusion drawn by the report. According to the authors, the spread of "facts" - whether they be true or 'fake news' - challenging the legitimacy of the US empire is a major driver of its decline and civil unrest... NOT THE ACTUAL BEHAVIOR OF THE EMPIRE ITSELF.

 

Let that one sink in a bit while we remember we live, supposedly, in a land dedicated to freedom of thought, speech, and expression... so long as it doesn't cut against the company line.

 

The solutions offered in the report are many, but all revolve around an increase in military spending and an increase in military action around the globe - while simultaneously admitting the US military power has weakened to the point of no longer being able to "automatically generate consistent and sustained local military superiority at range."

 

So in one breath the report is admitting the US Empire is collapsing due to the unintended consequences of keeping major nations sidelined from benefiting from the post WW2 global order, while in the next it's clamoring for more of the same policies (interventionist regime change, larger military excursions across the globe, an increase in domestic surveillance, and the suppression of the free press and 1st amendment at large) that led to that outcome in the first place.

 

 

[ALF]

As long as the U.S. has a nuclear deterrent capable of M.A.D. massive defence spending is not needed.

 

The U.S. is in too much debt to continue being the world's policeman. Time for the UN to do it's job.

[GG]

 

But this era is over, by the Pentagon's own admission. This era ended for multiple reasons listed in the report, but it primarily pins it on the desire of Russia and China (and to some extent NK and Iran) to have an equal seat at the global table. Because Russia and China are being denied a seat, both nations have "engaged in a deliberate program to demonstrate the limits of U.S. authority, will, reach, influence, and impact.”

 

In other words, the US policy since WW2 has been to make the global order work favorably for itself and its closest allies - but any effort to make that same global order work favorably for anyone else is automatically seen as a threat to U.S. power and interests. More to the point - the empire will not be denied.

 

 

 

 

No **** sherlock. But please enlighten me what Russia China, North Korea and Iran have done to earn a place at the table and possibly lead civilized nations?

[Deranged Rhino]

 

No **** sherlock. But please enlighten me what Russia China, North Korea and Iran have done to earn a place at the table and possibly lead civilized nations?

 

What has Saudi Arabia done?

[GG]

 

What has Saudi Arabia done?

 

They don't get a seat at the big boys table, but they do just enough to get the good left over pickins after the meal is done.

[Deranged Rhino]

 

They don't get a seat at the big boys table, but they do just enough to get the good left over pickins after the meal is done.

 

They don't?

 

That's funny. They seem to be able to dictate our foreign policy agenda as much - if not more so- than any other ally over the recent decade and half. They get $100s of billions in weapons from us. We support their religious wars with arms, intelligence and boots on the ground. They own large swaths of our corporate media which protect their image. They also hold positions of import on various UN councils including the council on human rights.

 

Oh, and they have sponsored more terrorism that has directly hit the west and its allies than either Iran, North Korea, or China over the past 16 years. Killing hundreds if not thousands of civilians during that stretch.

 

You might want to re-think that statement.

[GG]

 

They don't?

 

That's funny. They seem to be able to dictate our foreign policy agenda as much - if not more so- than any other ally over the recent decade and half. They get $100s of billions in weapons from us. We support their religious wars with arms, intelligence and boots on the ground. They own large swaths of our corporate media which protect their image. They also hold positions of import on various UN councils including the council on human rights.

 

Oh, and they have sponsored more terrorism that has directly hit the west and its allies than either Iran, North Korea, or China over the past 16 years. Killing hundreds if not thousands of civilians during that stretch.

 

You might want to re-think that statement.

 

So reading your assessment, the US empire is an extension of the Kingdom of Saud?

[Deranged Rhino]

 

So reading your assessment, the US empire is an extension of the Kingdom of Saud?

 

Of course not. But it's a far more honest assessment than your claim that they don't have a seat at the big boy table. That's not just inaccurate, it's dishonest.

 

They own a large chunk of our media, they own a large chunk of our politicians (on both sides of the aisle). They use both of those assets to get funding and support for their foreign policy agendas which amount to us fighting their religious wars. This happens while the Saudis directly fund our "enemies" in ISIS and AQ who in turn go out and slaughter western civilians as well as other Muslims in the ME.

 

We do all of this on their behalf despite the fact the Saudis are, without question, the antithesis as a nation to everything the United States is supposed to stand for and fight for.

[GG]

 

Of course not. But it's a far more honest assessment than your claim that they don't have a seat at the big boy table. That's not just inaccurate, it's dishonest.

 

They own a large chunk of our media, they own a large chunk of our politicians (on both sides of the aisle). They use both of those assets to get funding and support for their foreign policy agendas which amount to us fighting their religious wars. This happens while the Saudis directly fund our "enemies" in ISIS and AQ who in turn go out and slaughter western civilians as well as other Muslims in the ME.

 

We do all of this on their behalf despite the fact the Saudis are, without question, the antithesis as a nation to everything the United States is supposed to stand for and fight for.

 

Using the standard of owning media & news, China is certainly front and center.

 

Not going to argue about Saudi's impeccable human rights record. But you have cause & effect reversed. Saudis are benefiting from the USA's largesse because it's in USA's interests are more aligned with the kingdom at the moment. Saudis don't dictate US foreign policy. If the USA's position changes, then Saudis are left twisting in the wind, no matter how much cash the princes throw around.

[Deranged Rhino]

(written on the run... reserve the right to edit any typos or unformed thoughts when I get back to my desk)

 

Trump ends covert CIA program to arm anti-Assad rebels in Syria, a move sought by Moscow

http://archive.is/q1vS6#selection-1265.0-1265.88

 

This is a huge story that fits in with the original thesis of this thread. That thesis stated we are witnessing a civil war of sorts between behind the scenes players on the global stage. I've argued, with evidence, that one of the front lines of that battle is ongoing between elements within CIA and elements within the DIA who disagree over whether the future of globalism is unipolar or multipolar in nature.

 

This announcement is further proof of that divide. Notice the CIA's program (which has been funding, training, and sharing intelligence with ISIS fighters and AQ fighters in Syria - while the DIA has been battling the same ISIS fighters and AQ fighters in Iraq and regions of Syria) is being shuttered but the Pentagon's program remains in tact. That's a clear sign, once again, that the real power behind Trump's administration is coming from the Pentagon rather than Langley. It's a clear sign that despite the fears shared by many (including myself) that the neocon agenda found a way to slither back into power through men like McMasters, is actually still on the outs with this administration.

 

The backlash on this story, once it gets mainstream attention (which shouldn't be too long), will be wrapped into the Russian collusion story. It will be presented as defacto proof of Putin manipulating his asset to get an outcome favorable to Russia. You will see the same talking heads on the left and right, the same talking heads in the media, and the same "leaders" in the USIC arguing this is, as the Washington Post puts it, letting "Putin win in Syria". It will be compelling to the partisans that have worked themselves up into a frenzy since November hunting for that elusive proof of collusion. But in reality it will be nothing more than egregious spin. Spin that will completely leave out the fact the CIA program being shut down is the one that's actively colluding with a declared enemy of the United States.

 

The program in question has formed an active battlefield alliance with AQ and ISIS fighters in Syria. This is proven by various sources linked in this thread, including first hand documents from the Wikileaks dumps during the election. So pay attention when the talking heads bring this up to see who's really being honest with you. If they're being honest they will talk about the warts of this program. The ones who are trying to sell an agenda will spin it to completely exclude the fact that this program was supporting the same enemy that took down the towers on 9/11; the same enemy that boils children alive, beheads dissenters, and destroys archaeological treasures that don't fit their version of history. This enemy, the same one that was deemed such a threat to our safety that we had to roll back civil liberties such as the 4th and 5th amendments, was being actively armed, trained, and funded in Syria by the CIA to fight Assad.

 

That's the truth about this program. Let's see how much of that actually makes it past the alternative media outlets or Russian/Iranian rags.

 

Now that the CIA program has been shuttered, which lead directly to the cease fire being drawn up bringing some measure of peace to Syria, expect the neocons who have co-opted the DNC and corporate media of late - the same people who got WMD and the Iraq invasion so wrong - to ramp up the collusion story to an ever greater degree. It's not a coincidence, for example, the second "secret" meeting with Putin (which wasn't so secret) became a story the same day this story broke. The pump is being primed to distract us all from the real game afoot. It's not really about Russian collusion. It's about hiding the sins done on behalf of our own empire by convincing us we are facing an imminent and hostile threat from the Bear.

 

Which brings us back to the inherent dangers of rushing to accept this collusion story simply because it's an expedient means to an end of getting rid of Trump. The collusion story has nothing to do with Trump and everything to do with sustaining the neocon and USIC agenda of regime change in Syria, Ukraine, Iran, and Moscow. That's why these stories hyping the Russian threat date back to years before Trump even announced his candidacy. But, because the left has now reached such a fever pitch with the hysterics to the point of saying anyone who even talks to a Russian is a traitor, there will be ZERO room for any politician on the left to object to military intervention if it's aimed at stopping Putin. The left is now a blank check for the neocon agenda to cash whenever they see fit.

 

All it will take is a spark in the ME, the Ukraine, or the Baltics and it'll be check mate.

 

Buckle up. This will be a fun news cycle once this story starts getting traction.

[Deranged Rhino]

If the overall premise of this thread is correct, that there exists a behind the scenes power tilting the tables, it would require massive amounts of funding to keep going. How does that happen? With things like this... which (shockingly) wasn't even mentioned in the corporate media when it came out in March:

 

HUD mismanaged $516.4 billion in funds:

https://www.hudoig.gov/sites/default/files/documents/2017-FO-0005.pdf

 

Skipping ahead to the summary on page three, in particular these bits:

 

 

 

What We Audited and Why

In accordance with the Chief Financial Officers Act of 1990, as amended, we are required to annually audit the consolidated financial statements of the U.S. Department of Housing and

Urban Development (HUD). HUD reissued its fiscal year s 2016 and 2015 (restated) consolidated financial statements due to pervasive material errors that we identified. Our objective was to express an opinion on the fairness of HUD’s consolidated financial statements in accordance with U.S. generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) applicable to the Federal Government. This report presents our reissued independent auditor’s report on HUD’s fiscal year s 2016 and 2015 (restated) consolidated financial statements, including an update to our report on HUD’s internal controls.

What We Found

The total amounts of errors corrected in HUD’s notes and consolidated financial statements were $516.4 billion and $3.4 billion, respectively. There were several other unresolved audit matters, which restricted our ability to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to express an opinion.These unresolved audit matters relate to (1) the Office of General Counsel’s refusal to sign the management representation letter , (2) HUD’s improper use of cumulative and first-in, first-out budgetary accounting methods of disbursing community planning and development program funds, (3) the $4.2 billion in nonpooled loan assets from Ginnie Mae’s stand-alone financial statements that we could not audit due to inadequate support, (4) the improper accounting for certain HUD assets and liabilities, and (5) material differences between HUD’s subledger and general ledger accounts. This audit report contains 11 material weaknesses, 7 significant deficiencies, and 5 instances of noncompliance with applicable laws and regulations.

 

 

Translating page 3 of the report from Governmentese to english:

 

1) "pervasive material errors were identified" = we couldn't make much sense of how HUD keeps their books but,

2) we found "amounts of errors totaling $516,400,000,000" = in spite of the horrible state of HUD's books, we identified half a trillion dollars worth of errors.

 

Does this mean the money is actually missing or was it a series of accounting errors? Based on what comes next it starts to look like it's actual missing money:

 

3) "There were several other unresolved audit matters, which restricted our ability to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to express an opinion" = we did the best we could, but despite the fact we identified half a trillion in errors we were unable to get any further because there's something wrong with the books.

 

4) We ran into the "improper accounting of HUD's assets and liabilities" = we aren't even sure what HUD owns or is liable for.

 

How can that be? They tell us:

 

5) There were "material differences between HUD's subledger and general ledger accounts" = we don't know what HUD owns or is liable for because we're keeping two sets of books!!

 

So they're saying they keep two sets of books (at least), which creates confusion and prevents a full audit from happening despite being able to identify half a trillion dollars worth of errors. Sounds to me like the perfect way to loot an agency without fearing oversight.

 

People are outraged over collusion or bathrooms should take a moment and consider if their outrage is aimed at the right targets. Half a trillion of our dollars, gone. To what end? No one knows.

Edited July 19, 2017 by Deranged Rhino

[Tiberius]

Why does Putin support Assad anyway?

[Deranged Rhino]

Why does Putin support Assad anyway?

 

Russian involvement in Syria goes back decades. If Putin really does desire the restoration of the Soviet Empire, he's going to need Tartus.

[GoBills808]

(written on the run... reserve the right to edit any typos or unformed thoughts when I get back to my desk)

 

Trump ends covert CIA program to arm anti-Assad rebels in Syria, a move sought by Moscow

http://archive.is/q1vS6#selection-1265.0-1265.88

 

Think you left out the 'moderate' prefix

[Deranged Rhino]

Think you left out the 'moderate' prefix

 

Incorrect. The CIA's mission had nothing to do with moderate rebels. The "moderate" rebels follow ISIS orders in the field in that theater. The Pentagon's mission, which primarily is arming Kurds, is different.