https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58171778
The main message to take home is how detrimental Colonization has been in world history- whether it was the Mongols, Ancient Rome, Britain in Scotland and Ireland, Britain in India and the Middle East, France in Algeria, the Opium trade with China, etc. When one group of people claim “superiority” over another and try to take over their land, one can only expect violence- whether in the form of war or “terrorism.” It continues to this day.

What happened to make some sects of Islam so violent was what was done to them by the Mongols AND the British. If you read about Islam during the Middle Ages it was FAR more progressive and made many scientific, medical and mathematical discoveries. As a matter of fact, it was Christianity back then which was backwards.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/08/10/assange-implies-murdered-dnc-staffer-was-wikileaks-source.html

lmao awww did you get little feelings hurt? Cant handle the revelations of corruption in the Democratic Party can we, little boy? Poor kid……

One day you’ll be smart enough to realize that both of your political parties are corrupt and neither should be supported. The rest of the world has, so it’s time for you to catch up.

I love groups like Anonymous, Wikileaks, Greenpeace and Snowden; they show you what’s really going on and how some bend over backwards for a buck.

I knew the instant that Clinton was backtracking from some of her progressive statements and saying she would “jail” Snowden (even though he warned the NSA 10 different times about what was going on) that she had something to hide and was afraid of getting “released.” She shows it to this day even after Wasserman-Schultz was kicked out of the DNC by supporting her candidacy and hiring her. Bernie (who had nothing to hide) was much more direct. But the Democratic Party did him wrong and since both of these shams of political parties are corrupt, the Green Party is the best choice for people who actually have a conscience.

There is no Russian “propaganda” to spread. Putin is the reincarnation of Stalin. Wikileaks has leaked info on Trump too. I’d compare Trump to Hitler, except that would be insulting Hitler because Hitler was far smarter than Trump appears to be. Anonymous even made a video about Trump that included his personal information (including social security number) and info about Trump’s tax returns that indicate the reason he won’t release them is because it shows a link between Trump’s real estate business and the mafia.

I love groups like Anonymous, Wikileaks, Greenpeace and Snowden; they show you what’s really going on and how some bend over backwards for a buck.

I knew the instant that Clinton was backtracking from some of her progressive statements and saying she would “jail” Snowden (even though he warned the NSA 10 different times about what was going on) that she had something to hide and was afraid of getting “released.” She shows it to this day even after Wasserman-Schultz was kicked out of the DNC by supporting her candidacy and hiring her. Bernie (who had nothing to hide) was much more direct. But the Democratic Party did him wrong and since both of these shams of political parties are corrupt, the Green Party is the best choice for people who actually have a conscience.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58171837

There is no Russian “propaganda” to spread. No one outside of Russia finds that kind of authoritarianism acceptable (unless they’re an authoritarian themselves.) Putin is the reincarnation of Stalin. Wikileaks has leaked info on Trump too. I’d compare Trump to Hitler, except that would be insulting Hitler because Hitler was far smarter than Trump appears to be. Anonymous even made a video about Trump that included his personal information (including social security number) and info about Trump’s tax returns that indicate the reason he won’t release them is because it shows a link between Trump’s real estate business and the mafia.

I love groups like Anonymous, Wikileaks, Greenpeace and Snowden; they show you what’s really going on and how some bend over backwards for a buck.

I knew the instant that Clinton was backtracking from some of her progressive statements and saying she would “jail” Snowden (even though he warned the NSA 10 different times about what was going on) that she had something to hide and was afraid of getting “released.” She shows it to this day even after Wasserman-Schultz was kicked out of the DNC by supporting her candidacy and hiring her. Bernie (who had nothing to hide) was much more direct. But the Democratic Party did him wrong and since both of these shams of political parties are corrupt, the Green Party is the best choice for people who actually have a conscience.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58171861

I’m now a Green Party supporter, although I’m beginning to realize that George Washington was right for his disdain of ANY political party.

The questions concerning Clinton’s warhawkism are real- and dispeccable Leon Panetta lies at the core of it with his “30 years war” propaganda and his trying to cover up torture at Gitmo and the shouting down of “No More War” chanters with faux-“patriotic” “USA” chants at the convention.

The funny thing is the DNC honored Panetta and yet Panetta spoke out against Obama in his book. If you want to find out why terrorism happens, it is a direct result of what America does overseas- and Panetta is part of the problem not part of the solution.

Thanks for sharing, also emptywheel was commenting on this guy.

CIA Director Entry Number 2: Mike Morell, Fabulist

Does this link work? If not:

Published August 5, 2016 | By emptywheel

As Eli Lake wrote the other day, there are three men angling to be CIA Director under President Hillary: John Brennan, Mike Morell, and Mike Vickers.

I’ve already explained what is terrifying about Vickers’ audition to be CIA Director: after laying out the Hillary as Commander-in-Chief case (which appears to be mandatory for these things), Vickers then talks about how we need to escalate our wars and belligerence.

To be sure, we will need more aggressive counterterrorism strategies, stronger support for the Syrian opposition as the only plausible counterweight to authoritarianism and extremism within Syria, more effective counters to Iranian and Russian expansion, and better strategies for deterring and competing with China over the long term.
Henceforth, I will refer to Vickers as The Escalationist.

Today, Mike Morell submitted his audition to be CIA Director.

As Vickers did (these do seem to be formulaic), Morell lays out his extensive bipartisan past (Vickers claims service under 4 Republican and 2 Democratic Presidents, Morell claims 3 of each), then talks about how serving with Hillary convinced him she has the temperament to be Commander-in-Chief.

I spent four years working with Mrs. Clinton when she was secretary of state, most often in the White House Situation Room. In these critically important meetings, I found her to be prepared, detail-oriented, thoughtful, inquisitive and willing to change her mind if presented with a compelling argument.
Like Vickers, Morell lauds Hillary’s courage in pushing for the raid that killed Osama bin Laden.

Mrs. Clinton was an early advocate of the raid that brought Bin Laden to justice, in opposition to some of her most important colleagues on the National Security Council.

[snip]

I never saw her bring politics into the Situation Room. In fact, I saw the opposite. When some wanted to delay the Bin Laden raid by one day because the White House Correspondents Dinner might be disrupted, she said, “Screw the White House Correspondents Dinner.”
Disrupting White House Correspondents Dinner to kill someone would count as politics? Really?

Also like Vickers, Morell then lays out Trump’s lack of qualification for the job, both in terms of background and temperament.

But Morell’s gimmick — the brand that sets him apart on this quest to be CIA Director — is not an explicit call for escalation, but instead the specific gloss he puts on Trump’s soft spot for Putin. After portraying Trump’s careless claims as full endorsements of Putin, Morell claims Trump has been recruited by the old KGB officer, albeit unwittingly.

Mr. Putin is a great leader, Mr. Trump says, ignoring that he has killed and jailed journalists and political opponents, has invaded two of his neighbors and is driving his economy to ruin. Mr. Trump has also taken policy positions consistent with Russian, not American, interests — endorsing Russian espionage against the United States, supporting Russia’s annexation of Crimea and giving a green light to a possible Russian invasion of the Baltic States.

In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m all in favor in making political hay out of Trump’s call on Putin to hack Hillary, especially coming as it does from someone (unlike Jake Sullivan and Leon Panetta) without a known history of mishandling classified information.

But that line? “recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation”? That’s all about the clicks, and it has been serving splendidly. Just like “Slam Dunk” was a nifty line.

In a piece auditioning to be CIA Director, I’d prefer someone stick more rigorously to the truth. Trump is an apologist for Putin, undoubtedly, but there’s no more evidence Putin has recruited Trump (unwittingly) than there is, say, the Saudis have recruited Hillary. They’re all just picking the assholes they champion, with Hillary picking the assholes we’ve long championed.

Then again, this is not the first time Morell has stretched the truth a bit — up to and including on torture, so we shouldn’t be surprised by the tactic.

So there you have it: The Escalationist versus The Fabulist, your first two contestants on CIA nomination competition.

Sadly, we probably won’t see something quite so explicit from Brennan (though it would be amusing to see if a third endorsement hewed so closely to the same script as the other two), so we’ll just have to accept Lake’s “drone warrior” brand for him.”

And the article from yesterday from theintercept, guess you have read it before:

https://theintercept.com/2016/08/09/ex-cia-chief-who-endorsed-clinton-calls-for-killing-iranians-and-russians-in-syria/

Mike Morell’s Performance of “Intelligence”

The Dianne Feinstein-Jose Rodriguez Grudge Match

https://theintercept.com/2016/08/09/ex-cia-chief-who-endorsed-clinton-calls-for-killing-iranians-and-russians-in-syria/

EX-CIA DIRECTOR WHO ENDORSED CLINTON CALLS FOR KILLING IRANIANS AND RUSSIANS IN SYRIA
Murtaza Hussain
Aug. 9 2016, 4:49 p.m.
FORMER ACTING CIA Director Michael Morell said in an interview Monday that U.S. policy in Syria should be to make Iran and Russia “pay a price” by arming local groups and instructing them to kill Iranian and Russian personnel in the country.

Morell was appearing on the Charlie Rose show on PBS in the wake of his publicly endorsing Hillary Clinton on the New York Times opinion pages.

Clinton has expressed support for increased military intervention in Syria against Bashar al-Assad’s Syrian government. Iran and Russia are backing Assad.

“What they need is to have the Russians and Iranians pay a little price,” Morell said. “When we were in Iraq, the Iranians were giving weapons to the Shia militia, who were killing American soldiers, right? The Iranians were making us pay a price. We need to make the Iranians pay a price in Syria. We need to make the Russians pay a price.”

Morell said the killing of Russians and Iranians should be undertaken “covertly, so you don’t tell the world about it, you don’t stand up at the Pentagon and say ‘we did this.’ But you make sure they know it in Moscow and Tehran.”

Morell also proposed that U.S. forces begin bombing Syrian government installations, including government offices, aircraft and presidential guard positions. The former acting CIA director said that he wanted to “scare Assad.” Morell clarified that he wasn’t actually calling for Assad’s assassination.

He compared his proposal to American support for groups that targeted Russian forces in Afghanistan during the 1980’s — efforts that later helped incubate al Qaeda. He seemed unconcerned about how other parties might respond to such actions, beyond speculating that they might provide leverage for future negotiations.

If put into effect, Morell’s plans would entail a massive escalation of American covert military involvement in Syria that would bring the United States much closer to direct confrontation with Russia and Iran.

Morell’s endorsement of Clinton was quickly seen as a sign that he was interested in a role in a possible Clinton administration. He wrote that Clinton would be a “highly qualified commander in chief” and a “strong proponent of a more aggressive approach” to the conflict in Syria.

Morell told Rose that he had not discussed his proposal to kill Russian and Iranian personnel in Syria with Clinton, though he believed she was supportive of efforts to gain “diplomatic leverage.”

After leaving the CIA in 2013, Morell authored a memoir entitled “The Great War of Our Time.” The book was widely criticized for defending detainee torture in the post-9/11 era. Morell was also a co-author of a “rebuttal” to the Senate Intelligence Committee torture report.

Last week, CBS announced that Morell had left his role as a network news analyst so that he could begin publicly supporting Clinton’s run. During his interview with Rose, Morell continued to heap praise on Clinton’s perspective on U.S. relations with Syria, Russia and Iran.

This weekend, Hillary Clinton touted Morell’s endorsement on her Twitter page:

In other circles, Morell’s op-ed generated criticism of his role in defending torture, and the Times‘s failure to identify his employment at a consulting firm with strong ties to Clinton:

Follow
Domenic Powell @_vectorist
I ran the CIA, defended torture, now work for a former Clinton aide, and will accordingly endorse Hillary Clinton http://gawker.com/i-ran-the-c-i-a-now-i-work-for-a-longtime-clinton-ally-1784871887
11:19 AM – 5 Aug 2016
Photo published for I Ran the C.I.A. Now I Work For a Longtime Clinton Ally’s Consulting Firm and Am Endorsing Hillary…
I Ran the C.I.A. Now I Work For a Longtime Clinton Ally’s Consulting Firm and Am Endorsing Hillary…
On Friday, the New York Times ran an op-ed penned by Michael Morell, a 33-year veteran of the Central Intelligence agency who served as its acting director and deputy director from 2010 to 2013….
gawker.com
3 3 Retweets 5 5 likes
The Charlie Rose interview led one blogger to further update the title of Morell’s op-ed:
Follow
Christoph Germann @newgreatgame
“I ran the CIA now I’m endorsing Hillary Clinton and I want Hillary to kill lots of Russians and Iranians in Syria”:
9:47 PM – 8 Aug 2016
1,520 1,520 Retweets 838 838 likes
Top photo: Morell testifies on Capitol Hi

https://theintercept.com/2016/08/06/white-house-finally-releases-its-playbook-for-killing-and-capturing-terror-suspects/

THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION has released its internal guidelines for how it decides to kill or capture alleged terrorists around the globe, three years after they came into effect. They provide a look at the drone war bureaucracy behind hundreds of strikes in Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia and elsewhere, a system President Obama will hand off to his successor.

The guidelines show the process is concentrated at the White House, specifically in the National Security Council. They also describe the process for approving so-called signature strikes, where the target of the strike is not a known “high value terrorist,” but rather some other “terrorist target,” which could be a group of people exhibiting suspect behavior, or a vehicle, building or other infrastructure.

Amid all these procedural details, however, the presidential policy guidance, or “playbook,” as it has been called, does not provide new insight into when, where, and under what authorities someone can be killed, or what kind of intelligence is necessary to make that decision.

Much of the document, which is dated May 22, 2013, echoes public statements by administration officials over the past several years and previously-released material. The general standards for killing terrorist targets away from active battlefields were made public that May, when the president gave a speech and issued an abbreviated version of the guidance, promising that the United States would only undertake lethal action against a terrorist if they posed a continuing, imminent threat to U.S. persons, and if capture was not feasible.

It took a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union to get the full 18-page version of the guidance declassified, with some redactions.

“This document doesn’t tell us anything new about the substantive standards that they use to determine if someone can be targeted,” said Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director of the ACLU. “We’d hope that they’d fill out what they mean by ‘continuing’ and ‘imminent,’ or ‘feasible’ or ‘unfeasible.’”

In a statement, the ACLU also questioned how the document’s “relatively stringent standards can be reconciled with the accounts of eye witnesses, journalists, and human rights researches who have documented large numbers of bystander casualties” from drone strikes.

The People Who Approve “Direct Actions”

According to the guidance, each operating agency – the CIA or the Defense Department – prepares “operational plans for taking direct actions,” whether strikes or captures, in different situations. Those plans undergo a legal review by the agencies’ general counsels and a legal adviser to the National Security Council, and then are considered by a circle of advisers at the White House known as the Principals and Principals’ Deputies Committees, made up of the heads or deputy heads of the Departments of State, Defense, Justice, and Homeland Security, as well as the CIA, Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the National Counterterrorism Center.

The plans must include legal, tactical and policy rationale for undertaking the strike, what kind of “strike and surveillance assets” would be used, and how long the authority to take action would remain in place. Once the committee arrives at its decision on the plan, it is communicated to the president for his final approval.

The guidance indicates that the president does not have to sign off on individual names of high-value targets to be killed, unless there is disagreement within the National Security Council. If the individual is a U.S. person, the Justice Department needs to weigh in.

If an agency wants to nominate an individual to be killed, they make a profile of them based on intelligence reporting, which is reviewed by an interagency panel led by the White House counterterrorism adviser, currently Lisa Monaco. Again, the profile passes through lawyers at the agency and at the National Security Council before going to the Deputies Committee and ultimately the Principals Committee for a final decision.

Although the process indicates a high degree of control in the White House, generally speaking, the actual operation is still carried out under the command of the military or CIA.

A similar process is followed for approving plans for strikes against “terrorist targets other than high-value terrorists.” The section seems to address “signature strikes,” in which the United States has attacked people without knowing their identity. The examples given in the policy guidance include vehicles carrying improvised explosive devices, or “infrastructure, including explosives storage facilities.” For an actual strike, it appears from the guidance that the Principals Committee and the president get involved only when there is disagreement about the operation.

If the suspect is to be captured, a rare occurrence under Obama, the president also approves the plan. Among the various considerations going into a decision to capture someone, such as how and where they would be detained and interrogated, and if they could be tried in civilian court or military commission, one thing is spelled out clearly: “In no event will detainees be brought to the detention facilities at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base.”

The process laid out in the guidance is more detailed but does not differ substantially from the one described in a 2013 Defense Department Power Point presentation published by The Intercept last fall, although that document included additional information on how the military carried out its strikes in Yemen and Somalia at the time. For instance, the presentation included the detail that once a target was approved by the White House, the military had a 60-day window to pursue the operation.

“Associated Forces” and Other Limits

The newly-issued guidance does not specify how long authorities for given operations last, although it mentions that the case against individuals on the list for lethal strikes must be reviewed each year. It also notes that if “a capture option” becomes possible at any point, there should be an expedited reevaluation of the authority to kill them.

The Defense Department also released two heavily redacted documents describing its implementation of the policy guidance, along with a letter to the Senate from 2014, stating that the Pentagon considers the Taliban, the Haqqani Network, and other groups fighting alongside them against U.S. forces in Afghanistan to be “associated forces” of Al Qaeda, along with Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, which operates in Yemen. Some portions of the list of associated forces and all the groups considered “affiliates” of Al Qaeda are blacked out.

Associated forces would fall under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, which became law just a week after 9/11, and which the administration has used to justify 15 years of lethal operations in many countries. Yet the White House process, the Pentagon document notes, involves a “target-by-target analysis” of legal authorities, and groups not currently identified as associated forces could still be targeted if a new situation arose. The guidance also includes a large waiver for the president to disregard it in cases of “national self-defense,” “fleeting opportunities,” or even to authorize a strike against someone who posed a threat “to another country’s persons.”

The guidance does not apply to operations in “areas of active hostilities,” which the administration currently defines as Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan. A White House spokesman, Ned Price, pushed back on reports that strikes in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas of Pakistan, along the border, are not covered by the guidance, but would not clarify whether in some instances strikes in the border region might fall into the administration’s definition of active hostilities.

The guidance is one more exhibit in the Obama administration’s institutionalization of counterterrorism strikes, by drones and other means, far from conventional battlefields. Last month, the White House released casualty figures for such strikes during Obama’s presidency, stating that as many as 2,600 people had been killed in 473 strikes in 7 years. The administration believed that between 64 and 116 of them were civilians – a number disputed by outside observers, who put the total number of civilians harmed between 200 and 1000.

Even as the frequency of drone strikes, especially by the CIA, has declined markedly in the last years of Obama’s presidency, the practice has not ended. The U.S. military hit a Taliban leader in a strike in Pakistan in May, also killing a taxi driver. Strikes in Yemen have been more frequent, and there were two massive attacks in Yemen and Somalia in March killed dozens of alleged fighters.

 

Seema Sapra
Aug. 9 2016, 2:25 a.m.
http://www.asianage.com/international/pak-turns-china-over-us-drone-strikes-942

“Pakistan is once again banking on its most-trusted friend, China, for help to save it from unending US dronestrikes and to support Islamabad’s case before the world, official sources said.
The latest US drone strike, that killed Afghan Taliban leader Mullah Akhtar Mansour in Balochistan, prompted Pakistan to protest stronger than usual as Islamabad feared Washington could extend such attacks to other parts of the country.
Among Pakistan’s friends, China is the sole military power whose words are given some weight by the US.
China had mentioned in its April report on the US’ human rights record that drone attacks in Pakistan were a violation of basic norms.
The report said the US still “brazenly and brutally violated human rights” in other countries, treating civilians “like dirt”.
Airstrikes launched by the US in Iraq and Syria have killed many civilians. The US also conducted drone attacks in Pakistan and Yemen, causing scores of civilian deaths.
A senior official at the foreign ministry said China was contacted at the ministerial level seeking diplomatic help against US drone attacks as Washington showed no hints of ending the strikes.
“Like always China has promised to help in whatever way it can. Diplomatic support from a potential superpower will be helpful in efforts to curtail these strikes,” he added.
Another official said Pakistan’s allies in West Asia have been contacted by Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and his diplomatic aides to make a case for Islamabad.
“If we can have a few countries with us, we can at least try to stop the US from hitting in Balochistan and (possibly) in the other provinces,” he maintained.
He said Pakistan was in contact with Washington in a bid to end the drone strikes. “Diplomatic efforts are on, but the US is still unmoved,” he maintained.
Last week, Chinese ambassador to Pakistan, Sun Weidong, said his country appreciated Pakistan for its successful efforts in fighting terrorism.
He urged the international community to acknowledge Pakistan’s sacrifices in the war against terror and extend full cooperation to completely eliminate this menace.”

↪ Reply
Nick Torrent ↪ Seema Sapra
Aug. 9 2016, 2:42 a.m.
So Pakistan is opposed to the drone strikes but is incapable of doing anything about it?

↪ Reply
Seema Sapra ↪ Nick Torrent
Aug. 9 2016, 2:45 a.m.
What do you suggest they do? Shoot down a US drone? How will the US retaliate?

Pakistan is like a battered wife when it comes to the US.

Recall, the CIA guy who murdered two Pakistanis in broad daylight? Pakistan was forced to let him go.

By the way all this was discussed by me in comments at https://theintercept.com/2016/07/18/would-turkey-be-justified-in-kidnapping-or-drone-killing-the-turkish-cleric-in-pennsylvania/

↪ Reply

Clark
Aug. 10 2016, 8:32 a.m.
“WE think the price is worth it” (emphasis added).

Madeleine Albright said this about the killing of over

500,000 children. So, when Morrel says “a little price”

it is because their economics

(which is central to Wall Street’s Washington)

categorizes life as small change in regard to the

acquisition of their idea of REAL money.

↪ Reply
Si1ver1ock
Aug. 10 2016, 6:51 a.m.
Plausible Deniability is dead. Stories originating from the United States government are no longer plausible.

Here is a story that provides a little background context about Syria. It was linked at Antiwar.com. Antiwar.com has been providing superior coverage of World Affairs for many years. Lots of good stuff there.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/09/spies-for-hire-now-at-war-in-syria.html

↪ Reply
raymond
Aug. 10 2016, 5:29 a.m.
Yeah !…this man is ready for any “asylum”…right now !!..with people like this one roaming free in the streets, the world is in Real Peril !!…

↪ Reply
Karma
Aug. 10 2016, 4:39 a.m.
Super Provacative! Guess it won’t be any surprise now if Russian & Iranian troops start dying ‘mysteriously’.

↪ Reply
Deschutes
Aug. 10 2016, 3:48 a.m.
Hey I have an idea: if Michael Morell is so eager to kill lots more Syrians, Russians and Iranians why doesn’t he dress his chickenshit ass up in a white T-shirt with a big U.S. flag on the front and backside, along with some stars and stripes shorts–then have the airforce airdrop his ass into ISIS controlled territory with a gun? Its time for Mikey boy to to stop bloviating and start workin’ you CIA bitch!

↪ Reply
barabbas ↪ Deschutes
Aug. 10 2016, 4:29 a.m.
yes sir. Real Americans everywhere feel the same way. We dont have leaders, we have a shitload of profiteering pirates wanting to sacifice Americans for the greed of their paymasters.

THAT MUST END.

↪ Reply
Fred Cowan
Aug. 10 2016, 3:39 a.m.
Hillary or Trump if WE the people do not step up and “check their fire” something Very bad may happen. Trump will inspire such resistance, Hillary will slide it past us and WE may end up in a bigger war than We bargained for.

↪ Reply
SignalDetected
Aug. 10 2016, 2:25 a.m.
If evolution made people look the way they behave, the creatures in Washington would have by now shark teeth coming out of their mount, eyes, ears and nose.

↪ Reply
Seema Sapra
Aug. 10 2016, 12:02 a.m.
Ex-CIA spook who whitewashed Benghazi endorses Hillary https://counterjihadreport.com/2016/08/08/ex-cia-spook-who-whitewashed-benghazi-endorses-hillary/

The very same Michael Morell

↪ Reply
Seema Sapra ↪ Seema Sapra
Aug. 10 2016, 12:06 a.m.
Here are other achievements of Michael Morell

https://counterjihadreport.com/tag/michael-morell/

↪ Reply
Seema Sapra
Aug. 9 2016, 11:43 p.m.
It would be good to find out what were Michael Morell’s CIA assignments around 9/11.

According to wikipedia:

Morell “also managed the staff that produced the Presidential Daily Briefings for President George W. Bush. Morell was Bush’s briefer during the September 11, 2001, attacks, and has been quoted as saying, “I would bet every dollar I have that it’s al Qaeda.” Later, Morell was a trusted asset to President Barack Obama in the Osama bin Laden raid on May 2, 2011.[1][2]””

↪ Reply
TimN
Aug. 9 2016, 11:38 p.m.
Wow, another dumb fuck about to be placed in a position where he will likely do real harm.

↪ Reply
photosymbiosis
Aug. 9 2016, 10:25 p.m.
This is like an ex-KGB head saying that Russia should arm Al Qaeda in Yemen to kill Saudis and Americans and Brits over the Yemen War.

And, in any case, the covert arming and financing of radical Islamic groups in Syria by the CIA, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Israel and Turkey from late 2011 through 2015 is a well-established fact, even if the media refuses to report on it.

Morrell’s op-ed is probably just a PR effort aimed at covering up this fact; a detailed investigation of CIA training camps in Turkey and Jordan would likely reveal that most of their trained fighters defected to ISIS or Al Qaeda once they entered Iraq. Morell, after all, was working under Leon Panetta when the whole Libyan-Syrian debacle was initiated; he has a lot to cover up, as does Clinton.

↪ Reply
Seema Sapra ↪ photosymbiosis
Aug. 9 2016, 11:21 p.m.
Yeah, looks like Mossad and the CIA are both very worried that their men who created ISIS and are part of ISIS might now get destroyed in Syria by the Russians.

↪ Reply
Orville ↪ Seema Sapra
Aug. 10 2016, 12:32 a.m.
One can hope the turnaround in the war will continue, so that IS, Al-Nusra, Al-Sham and their allies are defeated before Clinton gets voted in and decides to change sides in the War on Terror, like she did in Libya. The Russophobes are already pushing for a ceasefire (or intervention, like they did in Libya) so the bad guys in Aleppo won’t get wiped out by the Syrians, Iranians and Russians.

↪ Reply
rrheard
Aug. 9 2016, 9:34 p.m.
Well short of employing nuclear weapons, in which case we’re all dead, future Pres. Hillary Clinton sparking it off with eitherIran or Russia, much less both of them, would be the end of America’s little experiment in empire.

America couldn’t defeat a pallet of cheese whiz much less the Iranians or Russians. America couldn’t defeat the people of Viet Nam, couldn’t defeat the decades long sanctioned people of Iraq, and sure as shit got its ass handed to it by the various warring folks in Afghanistan.

So, I’m really trying to figure out which geniuses at the Pentagon or various other alphabet agencies think provoking the Iranians and Russians (who have just as many nukes as we do) is a smart move.

I’m all for America’s little experiment in empire ending. But I’d really prefer not to see it end at the receiving end of a bunch of mushroom clouds or the utter defeat of our military on Syrian soil with either the Iranians or Russians sending our kids home in a whole lot of body bags.

Really and truly the dumbest fucking idea I’ve heard in my lifetime. I looked seriously into moving to Canada or South America when Shrub was elected. But if this is the sort of “advice” Hillary Clinton will consider seriously as POTUS then that makes her marginally worse then Shrub coming right out of the gate, and I better get back on the phone to those immigration attorneys in both places and start liquidating what little in retirement and other assets I have and get to steppin’. Because sparking it off with Russia and/or Iran would be borderline suicidal for the US with or with the help of the British, French, Turks and whatever other barely armed allies are part of NATO.

Mike Morell’s Performance of “Intelligence”

Eli Lake’s Portrayal of the CIA Director Campaign: Drones, Benghazi, and … ?

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58171943

CIA Director Entry Number 2: Mike Morell, Fabulist

Does this link work? If not:

"

Published August 5, 2016 | By emptywheel

As Eli Lake wrote the other day, there are three men angling to be CIA Director under President Hillary: John Brennan, Mike Morell, and Mike Vickers.

I’ve already explained what is terrifying about Vickers’ audition to be CIA Director: after laying out the Hillary as Commander-in-Chief case (which appears to be mandatory for these things), Vickers then talks about how we need to escalate our wars and belligerence.

To be sure, we will need more aggressive counterterrorism strategies, stronger support for the Syrian opposition as the only plausible counterweight to authoritarianism and extremism within Syria, more effective counters to Iranian and Russian expansion, and better strategies for deterring and competing with China over the long term.
Henceforth, I will refer to Vickers as The Escalationist.

Today, Mike Morell submitted his audition to be CIA Director.

As Vickers did (these do seem to be formulaic), Morell lays out his extensive bipartisan past (Vickers claims service under 4 Republican and 2 Democratic Presidents, Morell claims 3 of each), then talks about how serving with Hillary convinced him she has the temperament to be Commander-in-Chief.

I spent four years working with Mrs. Clinton when she was secretary of state, most often in the White House Situation Room. In these critically important meetings, I found her to be prepared, detail-oriented, thoughtful, inquisitive and willing to change her mind if presented with a compelling argument.
Like Vickers, Morell lauds Hillary’s courage in pushing for the raid that killed Osama bin Laden.

Mrs. Clinton was an early advocate of the raid that brought Bin Laden to justice, in opposition to some of her most important colleagues on the National Security Council.

[snip]

I never saw her bring politics into the Situation Room. In fact, I saw the opposite. When some wanted to delay the Bin Laden raid by one day because the White House Correspondents Dinner might be disrupted, she said, “Screw the White House Correspondents Dinner.”
Disrupting White House Correspondents Dinner to kill someone would count as politics? Really?

Also like Vickers, Morell then lays out Trump’s lack of qualification for the job, both in terms of background and temperament.

But Morell’s gimmick — the brand that sets him apart on this quest to be CIA Director — is not an explicit call for escalation, but instead the specific gloss he puts on Trump’s soft spot for Putin. After portraying Trump’s careless claims as full endorsements of Putin, Morell claims Trump has been recruited by the old KGB officer, albeit unwittingly.

Mr. Putin is a great leader, Mr. Trump says, ignoring that he has killed and jailed journalists and political opponents, has invaded two of his neighbors and is driving his economy to ruin. Mr. Trump has also taken policy positions consistent with Russian, not American, interests — endorsing Russian espionage against the United States, supporting Russia’s annexation of Crimea and giving a green light to a possible Russian invasion of the Baltic States.

In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m all in favor in making political hay out of Trump’s call on Putin to hack Hillary, especially coming as it does from someone (unlike Jake Sullivan and Leon Panetta) without a known history of mishandling classified information.

But that line? “recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation”? That’s all about the clicks, and it has been serving splendidly. Just like “Slam Dunk” was a nifty line.

In a piece auditioning to be CIA Director, I’d prefer someone stick more rigorously to the truth. Trump is an apologist for Putin, undoubtedly, but there’s no more evidence Putin has recruited Trump (unwittingly) than there is, say, the Saudis have recruited Hillary. They’re all just picking the assholes they champion, with Hillary picking the assholes we’ve long championed.

Then again, this is not the first time Morell has stretched the truth a bit — up to and including on torture, so we shouldn’t be surprised by the tactic.

So there you have it: The Escalationist versus The Fabulist, your first two contestants on CIA nomination competition.

Sadly, we probably won’t see something quite so explicit from Brennan (though it would be amusing to see if a third endorsement hewed so closely to the same script as the other two), so we’ll just have to accept Lake’s “drone warrior” brand for him."

And the article from yesterday from theintercept, guess you have read it before:

https://theintercept.com/2016/08/09/ex-cia-chief-who-endorsed-clinton-calls-for-killing-iranians-and-russians-in-syria/
Thanks I just got done reading that and also found this:

https://theintercept.com/2016/08/06/white-house-finally-releases-its-playbook-for-killing-and-capturing-terror-suspects/

http://www.asianage.com/international/pak-turns-china-over-us-drone-strikes-942

“Pakistan is once again banking on its most-trusted friend, China, for help to save it from unending US dronestrikes and to support Islamabad’s case before the world, official sources said.

The latest US drone strike, that killed Afghan Taliban leader Mullah Akhtar Mansour in Balochistan, prompted Pakistan to protest stronger than usual as Islamabad feared Washington could extend such attacks to other parts of the country.

Among Pakistan’s friends, China is the sole military power whose words are given some weight by the US.

China had mentioned in its April report on the US’ human rights record that drone attacks in Pakistan were a violation of basic norms.

The report said the US still “brazenly and brutally violated human rights” in other countries, treating civilians “like dirt”.

Airstrikes launched by the US in Iraq and Syria have killed many civilians. The US also conducted drone attacks in Pakistan and Yemen, causing scores of civilian deaths.

A senior official at the foreign ministry said China was contacted at the ministerial level seeking diplomatic help against US drone attacks as Washington showed no hints of ending the strikes.

“Like always China has promised to help in whatever way it can. Diplomatic support from a potential superpower will be helpful in efforts to curtail these strikes,” he added.

Another official said Pakistan’s allies in West Asia have been contacted by Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and his diplomatic aides to make a case for Islamabad.

“If we can have a few countries with us, we can at least try to stop the US from hitting in Balochistan and (possibly) in the other provinces,” he maintained.

He said Pakistan was in contact with Washington in a bid to end the drone strikes. “Diplomatic efforts are on, but the US is still unmoved,” he maintained.

Last week, Chinese ambassador to Pakistan, Sun Weidong, said his country appreciated Pakistan for its successful efforts in fighting terrorism.

He urged the international community to acknowledge Pakistan’s sacrifices in the war against terror and extend full cooperation to completely eliminate this menace.”

Madeleine Albright said this about the killing of over

500,000 children. So, when Morrel says “a little price”

it is because their economics

(which is central to Wall Street’s Washington)

categorizes life as small change in regard to the

acquisition of their idea of REAL money.

Here is a story that provides a little background context about Syria. It was linked at Antiwar.com. Antiwar.com has been providing superior coverage of World Affairs for many years. Lots of good stuff there.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/09/spies-for-hire-now-at-war-in-syria.html

His views on torture resemble Trump far more than the candidate he's endorsing- ironic huh?

CIA Director Entry Number 2: Mike Morell, Fabulist

Does this link work? If not:

"

Published August 5, 2016 | By emptywheel

As Eli Lake wrote the other day, there are three men angling to be CIA Director under President Hillary: John Brennan, Mike Morell, and Mike Vickers.

I’ve already explained what is terrifying about Vickers’ audition to be CIA Director: after laying out the Hillary as Commander-in-Chief case (which appears to be mandatory for these things), Vickers then talks about how we need to escalate our wars and belligerence.

To be sure, we will need more aggressive counterterrorism strategies, stronger support for the Syrian opposition as the only plausible counterweight to authoritarianism and extremism within Syria, more effective counters to Iranian and Russian expansion, and better strategies for deterring and competing with China over the long term.
Henceforth, I will refer to Vickers as The Escalationist.

Today, Mike Morell submitted his audition to be CIA Director.

As Vickers did (these do seem to be formulaic), Morell lays out his extensive bipartisan past (Vickers claims service under 4 Republican and 2 Democratic Presidents, Morell claims 3 of each), then talks about how serving with Hillary convinced him she has the temperament to be Commander-in-Chief.

I spent four years working with Mrs. Clinton when she was secretary of state, most often in the White House Situation Room. In these critically important meetings, I found her to be prepared, detail-oriented, thoughtful, inquisitive and willing to change her mind if presented with a compelling argument.
Like Vickers, Morell lauds Hillary’s courage in pushing for the raid that killed Osama bin Laden.

Mrs. Clinton was an early advocate of the raid that brought Bin Laden to justice, in opposition to some of her most important colleagues on the National Security Council.

[snip]

I never saw her bring politics into the Situation Room. In fact, I saw the opposite. When some wanted to delay the Bin Laden raid by one day because the White House Correspondents Dinner might be disrupted, she said, “Screw the White House Correspondents Dinner.”
Disrupting White House Correspondents Dinner to kill someone would count as politics? Really?

Also like Vickers, Morell then lays out Trump’s lack of qualification for the job, both in terms of background and temperament.

But Morell’s gimmick — the brand that sets him apart on this quest to be CIA Director — is not an explicit call for escalation, but instead the specific gloss he puts on Trump’s soft spot for Putin. After portraying Trump’s careless claims as full endorsements of Putin, Morell claims Trump has been recruited by the old KGB officer, albeit unwittingly.

Mr. Putin is a great leader, Mr. Trump says, ignoring that he has killed and jailed journalists and political opponents, has invaded two of his neighbors and is driving his economy to ruin. Mr. Trump has also taken policy positions consistent with Russian, not American, interests — endorsing Russian espionage against the United States, supporting Russia’s annexation of Crimea and giving a green light to a possible Russian invasion of the Baltic States.

In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m all in favor in making political hay out of Trump’s call on Putin to hack Hillary, especially coming as it does from someone (unlike Jake Sullivan and Leon Panetta) without a known history of mishandling classified information.

But that line? “recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation”? That’s all about the clicks, and it has been serving splendidly. Just like “Slam Dunk” was a nifty line.

In a piece auditioning to be CIA Director, I’d prefer someone stick more rigorously to the truth. Trump is an apologist for Putin, undoubtedly, but there’s no more evidence Putin has recruited Trump (unwittingly) than there is, say, the Saudis have recruited Hillary. They’re all just picking the assholes they champion, with Hillary picking the assholes we’ve long championed.

Then again, this is not the first time Morell has stretched the truth a bit — up to and including on torture, so we shouldn’t be surprised by the tactic.

So there you have it: The Escalationist versus The Fabulist, your first two contestants on CIA nomination competition.

Sadly, we probably won’t see something quite so explicit from Brennan (though it would be amusing to see if a third endorsement hewed so closely to the same script as the other two), so we’ll just have to accept Lake’s “drone warrior” brand for him."

And the article from yesterday from theintercept, guess you have read it before:

https://theintercept.com/2016/08/09/ex-cia-chief-who-endorsed-clinton-calls-for-killing-iranians-and-russians-in-syria/
Thanks I just got done reading that and also found this:

https://theintercept.com/2016/08/06/white-house-finally-releases-its-playbook-for-killing-and-capturing-terror-suspects/

http://www.asianage.com/international/pak-turns-china-over-us-drone-strikes-942

“Pakistan is once again banking on its most-trusted friend, China, for help to save it from unending US dronestrikes and to support Islamabad’s case before the world, official sources said.

The latest US drone strike, that killed Afghan Taliban leader Mullah Akhtar Mansour in Balochistan, prompted Pakistan to protest stronger than usual as Islamabad feared Washington could extend such attacks to other parts of the country.

Among Pakistan’s friends, China is the sole military power whose words are given some weight by the US.

China had mentioned in its April report on the US’ human rights record that drone attacks in Pakistan were a violation of basic norms.

The report said the US still “brazenly and brutally violated human rights” in other countries, treating civilians “like dirt”.

Airstrikes launched by the US in Iraq and Syria have killed many civilians. The US also conducted drone attacks in Pakistan and Yemen, causing scores of civilian deaths.

A senior official at the foreign ministry said China was contacted at the ministerial level seeking diplomatic help against US drone attacks as Washington showed no hints of ending the strikes.

“Like always China has promised to help in whatever way it can. Diplomatic support from a potential superpower will be helpful in efforts to curtail these strikes,” he added.

Another official said Pakistan’s allies in West Asia have been contacted by Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and his diplomatic aides to make a case for Islamabad.

“If we can have a few countries with us, we can at least try to stop the US from hitting in Balochistan and (possibly) in the other provinces,” he maintained.

He said Pakistan was in contact with Washington in a bid to end the drone strikes. “Diplomatic efforts are on, but the US is still unmoved,” he maintained.

Last week, Chinese ambassador to Pakistan, Sun Weidong, said his country appreciated Pakistan for its successful efforts in fighting terrorism.

He urged the international community to acknowledge Pakistan’s sacrifices in the war against terror and extend full cooperation to completely eliminate this menace.”

Madeleine Albright said this about the killing of over

500,000 children. So, when Morrel says “a little price”

it is because their economics

(which is central to Wall Street’s Washington)

categorizes life as small change in regard to the

acquisition of their idea of REAL money.

Here is a story that provides a little background context about Syria. It was linked at Antiwar.com. Antiwar.com has been providing superior coverage of World Affairs for many years. Lots of good stuff there.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/09/spies-for-hire-now-at-war-in-syria.html

His views on torture resemble Trump far more than the candidate he's endorsing- ironic huh?

Not surpised what the Pakistanis are doing, they were unhappy with the dronekillings since a longer time. http://www.dw.com/en/pakistan-accuses-us-of-violating-national-sovereignty-with-taliban-drone-strike/a-19276393

Concerning your dailybeast link, have seen it somewhere else today (I guess you know where) and read it, so thanks for sharing it.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58171979

The only one I'm supporting is Dr. Jill Stein and the Green Party. I've had enough of the pro-war pro-torture antics of both the Republicans and the Democrats. I hope they both lose- because if either of them win- the American people lose but especially the people of the world who will suffer unnecessary casualties and deaths in decades of wars. And don't be surprised when these wars cause more terrorist attacks rather than less. How else can one expect people to respond when they get their lives ruined?

Violence only begets more violence.
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58171613

Jamesie wrote:

Sure, the English do have reputation to defend as racists, but oh boy, think of some of the others!

The Spaniards and Portuguese wouldn't p*ss on a dark skinned guy if he was on fire -- and in fact, they had a nasty reputation for setting them on fire (and yes, I know they did burn some of their own, but still).

The Portuguese held East Timor for 400 years. At the end of that time, 1975, there was no educational institution in East Timor that was higher than high (secondary) school, nd there were only a couple of them to serve 400,000 people. There was a handful of university graduates, possibly all of mixed race. In the 60s, they were still exiling people of the "wrong" political views. Oh -- that was the ultra right wing dictatorship, of course.

The Belgians cut off the hands and feet of recalcitrant workers in the Congo and when they left, they took everything with them, even the chalk out of the (few) classrooms.

The French? They're like Roger the Lodger -- once in, you can't get rid of them. The Vietnamese had to fight a protracted and very, very bloody war against them, as did the Algerians.

The white elite in Brazil (Portuguese language) and Argentina (Spanish) provided homes away from home to surviving Nazi bigwigs at the end of WW II. 'nuff said, I think.

The Japanese saw (see?) themselves as a superior race, and the Chinese are not backwards in coming forwards in such matters either.

Sleep a little easier, anglophones are not alone.
Yes, humans of every ilk have a portion of their number who tend to the tribal, some of which tribalism expresses itself as racism. However, we anglos do seem to find ways to allow our own variety of racist traditions to survive, one way or another, within institutions such as prisons, the police and other authoritative organisations; and despite a lot of successful effort to make racism less endemic elsewhere in our various cultures and behaviours.

Racism has also morphed into other forms, such as the Islamophobia of Pap-types, as well as other hatreds based in different "ethnicity".

SirLataxe
Jamesie wrote:

Sure, the English do have reputation to defend as racists, but oh boy, think of some of the others!

The Spaniards and Portuguese wouldn't p*ss on a dark skinned guy if he was on fire -- and in fact, they had a nasty reputation for setting them on fire (and yes, I know they did burn some of their own, but still).

The Portuguese held East Timor for 400 years. At the end of that time, 1975, there was no educational institution in East Timor that was higher than high (secondary) school, nd there were only a couple of them to serve 400,000 people. There was a handful of university graduates, possibly all of mixed race. In the 60s, they were still exiling people of the "wrong" political views. Oh -- that was the ultra right wing dictatorship, of course.

The Belgians cut off the hands and feet of recalcitrant workers in the Congo and when they left, they took everything with them, even the chalk out of the (few) classrooms.

The French? They're like Roger the Lodger -- once in, you can't get rid of them. The Vietnamese had to fight a protracted and very, very bloody war against them, as did the Algerians.

The white elite in Brazil (Portuguese language) and Argentina (Spanish) provided homes away from home to surviving Nazi bigwigs at the end of WW II. 'nuff said, I think.

The Japanese saw (see?) themselves as a superior race, and the Chinese are not backwards in coming forwards in such matters either.

Sleep a little easier, anglophones are not alone.
Yes, humans of every ilk have a portion of their number who tend to the tribal, some of which tribalism expresses itself as racism. However, we anglos do seem to find ways to allow our own variety of racist traditions to survive, one way or another, within institutions such as prisons, the police and other authoritative organisations; and despite a lot of successful effort to make racism less endemic elsewhere in our various cultures and behaviours.

Racism has also morphed into other forms, such as the Islamophobia of Pap-types, as well as other hatreds based in different "ethnicity".

SirLataxe

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58171788

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/08/10/assange-implies-murdered-dnc-staffer-was-wikileaks-source.html

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange implied in an interview that a murdered Democratic National Committee staffer was the source of a trove of damaging emails the rogue website posted just days before the party's convention.

Speaking to Dutch television program Nieuswsuur Tuesday after earlier announcing a $20,000 reward for information leading to the arrest of Seth Rich's killer, Assange said the July 10 murder of Rich in Northwest Washington was an example of the risk leakers undertake.
"Whistle-blowers go to significant efforts to get us material and often very significant risks," Assange said. "As a 27-year-old, works for the DNC, was shot in the back, murdered just a few weeks ago for unknown reasons as he was walking down the street in Washington."

When the interviewer interjected that the murder may have been a robbery, Assange pushed back.

Follow
WikiLeaks ✔ @wikileaks
ANNOUNCE: WikiLeaks has decided to issue a US$20k reward for information leading to conviction for the murder of DNC staffer Seth Rich.
11:58 AM - 9 Aug 2016
8,737 8,737 Retweets 9,126 9,126 likes
"No," he said. "There’s no finding. So… I’m suggesting that our sources take risks."

When pressed as to whether Rich was, in fact, the leaker, Assange stated that the organization does not reveal its sources.

2016 Election Headquarters
The latest headlines on the 2016 elections from the biggest name in politics.
See Latest Coverage →
Police have said they believe the motive was robbery, and that there is no evidence Rich's murder was connected to his work. But Rich's father has said the 4 a.m. murder, in which Rich was shot several times from behind, did not appear to be a robbery, as his son's wallet and watch were not taken.
Related Image

dncmurderExpand / Contract
Police say no witnesses to Rich's murder have come forward.
When police found Rich, he was still conscious and breathing. He was transported to a hospital where he later died. No witnesses have come forward and police have no suspects. The WikiLeaks reward adds to a $25,000 reward posted by Washington police.
WikiLeaks’ email dump of DNC files, which embarrassed the party and showed possible collusion to block Bernie Sanders from the nomination, occurred 12 days after his death. Rich was the DNC’s director of voter expansion.

Washington Police Assistant Chief Peter Newsham said the department appreciates WikiLeaks offering of a reward.

“We're very pleased if anyone is going to assist us with giving reward money," Newsham added.

The 45-year-old Assange is founder and editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks, which touts itself as a nonprofit journalistic organization. WikiLeaks specializes in publishing online leaked documents and classified information gleaned from an international network of secret sources.

The Australian has been subject to extradition to Sweden since 2010, wher he is wanted for questioning in a rape case that his supporters claim is a pretext to muzzle his efforts. He has been holed up in Ecuador's United Kingdom embassy since he was granted asylum there in August 2012.

Assange participated in the interview from inside the embassy.
108New CommentsRefresh
straigthline
straigthline 5 minutes ago
Seth Rich said "If something happens to me, it was murder"

FlagShare3LikeReply
mtorsd
mtorsd 2 minutes ago
@straigthline

Well, obviously it was murder.
FlagShareLikeReply
rdixonshell
rdixonshell 5 minutes ago
Someday this is all going to make a great movie ! Get Tarantino to direct it.

FlagShareLikeReply
1new reply
TheHonorableEagle
TheHonorableEagle 2 minutes ago
@rdixonshell F Tarantino. I hope he chokes on a hot dog.

FlagShare2LikeReply
shiitake
shiitake 5 minutes ago
The Clintons, Obama and the DNC just want Americans to go back to sleep.

Pay no attention people.
FlagShare4LikeReply
MauiAl
MauiAl 5 minutes ago
And very soon: Assange - 3, Clinton - 0, just before the debates,,, yum

108New CommentsRefresh
straigthline
straigthline 5 minutes ago
Seth Rich said "If something happens to me, it was murder"

FlagShare3LikeReply
mtorsd
mtorsd 2 minutes ago
@straigthline

Well, obviously it was murder.
FlagShareLikeReply
rdixonshell
rdixonshell 5 minutes ago
Someday this is all going to make a great movie ! Get Tarantino to direct it.

FlagShareLikeReply
1new reply
TheHonorableEagle
TheHonorableEagle 2 minutes ago
@rdixonshell F Tarantino. I hope he chokes on a hot dog.

FlagShare2LikeReply
shiitake
shiitake 5 minutes ago
The Clintons, Obama and the DNC just want Americans to go back to sleep.

Pay no attention people.
FlagShare4LikeReply
MauiAl
MauiAl 5 minutes ago
And very soon: Assange - 3, Clinton - 0, just before the debates,,, yum

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/25/bernie-sanders-starts-looking-beyond-2016-with-endorsements/https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/05/29/who-will-lead-the-progressive-movement-after-bernie-sanders-and-elizabeth-warren-here-are-6-who-could/?tid=a_inl

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58171778
The main message to take home is how detrimental Colonization has been in world history- whether it was the Mongols, Ancient Rome, Britain in Scotland and Ireland, Britain in India and the Middle East, France in Algeria, the Opium trade with China, etc. When one group of people claim "superiority" over another and try to take over their land, one can only expect violence- whether in the form of war or "terrorism." It continues to this day.

What happened to make some sects of Islam so violent was what was done to them by the Mongols AND the British. If you read about Islam during the Middle Ages it was FAR more progressive and made many scientific, medical and mathematical discoveries. As a matter of fact, it was Christianity back then which was backwards.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/08/10/assange-implies-murdered-dnc-staffer-was-wikileaks-source.html

lmao awww did you get little feelings hurt? Cant handle the revelations of corruption in the Democratic Party can we, little boy? Poor kid......

One day you'll be smart enough to realize that both of your political parties are corrupt and neither should be supported. The rest of the world has, so it's time for you to catch up.

I love groups like Anonymous, Wikileaks, Greenpeace and Snowden; they show you what's really going on and how some bend over backwards for a buck.

I knew the instant that Clinton was backtracking from some of her progressive statements and saying she would "jail" Snowden (even though he warned the NSA 10 different times about what was going on) that she had something to hide and was afraid of getting "released." She shows it to this day even after Wasserman-Schultz was kicked out of the DNC by supporting her candidacy and hiring her. Bernie (who had nothing to hide) was much more direct. But the Democratic Party did him wrong and since both of these shams of political parties are corrupt, the Green Party is the best choice for people who actually have a conscience.

There is no Russian "propaganda" to spread. Putin is the reincarnation of Stalin. Wikileaks has leaked info on Trump too. I'd compare Trump to Hitler, except that would be insulting Hitler because Hitler was far smarter than Trump appears to be. Anonymous even made a video about Trump that included his personal information (including social security number) and info about Trump's tax returns that indicate the reason he won't release them is because it shows a link between Trump's real estate business and the mafia.

I love groups like Anonymous, Wikileaks, Greenpeace and Snowden; they show you what's really going on and how some bend over backwards for a buck.

I knew the instant that Clinton was backtracking from some of her progressive statements and saying she would "jail" Snowden (even though he warned the NSA 10 different times about what was going on) that she had something to hide and was afraid of getting "released." She shows it to this day even after Wasserman-Schultz was kicked out of the DNC by supporting her candidacy and hiring her. Bernie (who had nothing to hide) was much more direct. But the Democratic Party did him wrong and since both of these shams of political parties are corrupt, the Green Party is the best choice for people who actually have a conscience.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58171837

There is no Russian "propaganda" to spread. No one outside of Russia finds that kind of authoritarianism acceptable (unless they're an authoritarian themselves.) Putin is the reincarnation of Stalin. Wikileaks has leaked info on Trump too. I'd compare Trump to Hitler, except that would be insulting Hitler because Hitler was far smarter than Trump appears to be. Anonymous even made a video about Trump that included his personal information (including social security number) and info about Trump's tax returns that indicate the reason he won't release them is because it shows a link between Trump's real estate business and the mafia.

I love groups like Anonymous, Wikileaks, Greenpeace and Snowden; they show you what's really going on and how some bend over backwards for a buck.

I knew the instant that Clinton was backtracking from some of her progressive statements and saying she would "jail" Snowden (even though he warned the NSA 10 different times about what was going on) that she had something to hide and was afraid of getting "released." She shows it to this day even after Wasserman-Schultz was kicked out of the DNC by supporting her candidacy and hiring her. Bernie (who had nothing to hide) was much more direct. But the Democratic Party did him wrong and since both of these shams of political parties are corrupt, the Green Party is the best choice for people who actually have a conscience.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58171861

I'm now a Green Party supporter, although I'm beginning to realize that George Washington was right for his disdain of ANY political party.

The questions concerning Clinton's warhawkism are real- and dispeccable Leon Panetta lies at the core of it with his "30 years war" propaganda and his trying to cover up torture at Gitmo and the shouting down of "No More War" chanters with faux-"patriotic" "USA" chants at the convention.

The funny thing is the DNC honored Panetta and yet Panetta spoke out against Obama in his book. If you want to find out why terrorism happens, it is a direct result of what America does overseas- and Panetta is part of the problem not part of the solution.

Thanks for sharing, also emptywheel was commenting on this guy.

CIA Director Entry Number 2: Mike Morell, Fabulist

Does this link work? If not:

"

Published August 5, 2016 | By emptywheel

As Eli Lake wrote the other day, there are three men angling to be CIA Director under President Hillary: John Brennan, Mike Morell, and Mike Vickers.

I’ve already explained what is terrifying about Vickers’ audition to be CIA Director: after laying out the Hillary as Commander-in-Chief case (which appears to be mandatory for these things), Vickers then talks about how we need to escalate our wars and belligerence.

To be sure, we will need more aggressive counterterrorism strategies, stronger support for the Syrian opposition as the only plausible counterweight to authoritarianism and extremism within Syria, more effective counters to Iranian and Russian expansion, and better strategies for deterring and competing with China over the long term.
Henceforth, I will refer to Vickers as The Escalationist.

Today, Mike Morell submitted his audition to be CIA Director.

As Vickers did (these do seem to be formulaic), Morell lays out his extensive bipartisan past (Vickers claims service under 4 Republican and 2 Democratic Presidents, Morell claims 3 of each), then talks about how serving with Hillary convinced him she has the temperament to be Commander-in-Chief.

I spent four years working with Mrs. Clinton when she was secretary of state, most often in the White House Situation Room. In these critically important meetings, I found her to be prepared, detail-oriented, thoughtful, inquisitive and willing to change her mind if presented with a compelling argument.
Like Vickers, Morell lauds Hillary’s courage in pushing for the raid that killed Osama bin Laden.

Mrs. Clinton was an early advocate of the raid that brought Bin Laden to justice, in opposition to some of her most important colleagues on the National Security Council.

[snip]

I never saw her bring politics into the Situation Room. In fact, I saw the opposite. When some wanted to delay the Bin Laden raid by one day because the White House Correspondents Dinner might be disrupted, she said, “Screw the White House Correspondents Dinner.”
Disrupting White House Correspondents Dinner to kill someone would count as politics? Really?

Also like Vickers, Morell then lays out Trump’s lack of qualification for the job, both in terms of background and temperament.

But Morell’s gimmick — the brand that sets him apart on this quest to be CIA Director — is not an explicit call for escalation, but instead the specific gloss he puts on Trump’s soft spot for Putin. After portraying Trump’s careless claims as full endorsements of Putin, Morell claims Trump has been recruited by the old KGB officer, albeit unwittingly.

Mr. Putin is a great leader, Mr. Trump says, ignoring that he has killed and jailed journalists and political opponents, has invaded two of his neighbors and is driving his economy to ruin. Mr. Trump has also taken policy positions consistent with Russian, not American, interests — endorsing Russian espionage against the United States, supporting Russia’s annexation of Crimea and giving a green light to a possible Russian invasion of the Baltic States.

In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m all in favor in making political hay out of Trump’s call on Putin to hack Hillary, especially coming as it does from someone (unlike Jake Sullivan and Leon Panetta) without a known history of mishandling classified information.

But that line? “recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation”? That’s all about the clicks, and it has been serving splendidly. Just like “Slam Dunk” was a nifty line.

In a piece auditioning to be CIA Director, I’d prefer someone stick more rigorously to the truth. Trump is an apologist for Putin, undoubtedly, but there’s no more evidence Putin has recruited Trump (unwittingly) than there is, say, the Saudis have recruited Hillary. They’re all just picking the assholes they champion, with Hillary picking the assholes we’ve long championed.

Then again, this is not the first time Morell has stretched the truth a bit — up to and including on torture, so we shouldn’t be surprised by the tactic.

So there you have it: The Escalationist versus The Fabulist, your first two contestants on CIA nomination competition.

Sadly, we probably won’t see something quite so explicit from Brennan (though it would be amusing to see if a third endorsement hewed so closely to the same script as the other two), so we’ll just have to accept Lake’s “drone warrior” brand for him."

And the article from yesterday from theintercept, guess you have read it before:

https://theintercept.com/2016/08/09/ex-cia-chief-who-endorsed-clinton-calls-for-killing-iranians-and-russians-in-syria/

Mike Morell’s Performance of “Intelligence”

The Dianne Feinstein-Jose Rodriguez Grudge Match

https://theintercept.com/2016/08/09/ex-cia-chief-who-endorsed-clinton-calls-for-killing-iranians-and-russians-in-syria/

EX-CIA DIRECTOR WHO ENDORSED CLINTON CALLS FOR KILLING IRANIANS AND RUSSIANS IN SYRIA
Murtaza Hussain
Aug. 9 2016, 4:49 p.m.
FORMER ACTING CIA Director Michael Morell said in an interview Monday that U.S. policy in Syria should be to make Iran and Russia “pay a price” by arming local groups and instructing them to kill Iranian and Russian personnel in the country.

Morell was appearing on the Charlie Rose show on PBS in the wake of his publicly endorsing Hillary Clinton on the New York Times opinion pages.

Clinton has expressed support for increased military intervention in Syria against Bashar al-Assad’s Syrian government. Iran and Russia are backing Assad.

“What they need is to have the Russians and Iranians pay a little price,” Morell said. “When we were in Iraq, the Iranians were giving weapons to the Shia militia, who were killing American soldiers, right? The Iranians were making us pay a price. We need to make the Iranians pay a price in Syria. We need to make the Russians pay a price.”

Morell said the killing of Russians and Iranians should be undertaken “covertly, so you don’t tell the world about it, you don’t stand up at the Pentagon and say ‘we did this.’ But you make sure they know it in Moscow and Tehran.”

Morell also proposed that U.S. forces begin bombing Syrian government installations, including government offices, aircraft and presidential guard positions. The former acting CIA director said that he wanted to “scare Assad.” Morell clarified that he wasn’t actually calling for Assad’s assassination.

He compared his proposal to American support for groups that targeted Russian forces in Afghanistan during the 1980’s — efforts that later helped incubate al Qaeda. He seemed unconcerned about how other parties might respond to such actions, beyond speculating that they might provide leverage for future negotiations.

If put into effect, Morell’s plans would entail a massive escalation of American covert military involvement in Syria that would bring the United States much closer to direct confrontation with Russia and Iran.

Morell’s endorsement of Clinton was quickly seen as a sign that he was interested in a role in a possible Clinton administration. He wrote that Clinton would be a “highly qualified commander in chief” and a “strong proponent of a more aggressive approach” to the conflict in Syria.

Morell told Rose that he had not discussed his proposal to kill Russian and Iranian personnel in Syria with Clinton, though he believed she was supportive of efforts to gain “diplomatic leverage.”

After leaving the CIA in 2013, Morell authored a memoir entitled “The Great War of Our Time.” The book was widely criticized for defending detainee torture in the post-9/11 era. Morell was also a co-author of a “rebuttal” to the Senate Intelligence Committee torture report.

Last week, CBS announced that Morell had left his role as a network news analyst so that he could begin publicly supporting Clinton’s run. During his interview with Rose, Morell continued to heap praise on Clinton’s perspective on U.S. relations with Syria, Russia and Iran.

This weekend, Hillary Clinton touted Morell’s endorsement on her Twitter page:

In other circles, Morell’s op-ed generated criticism of his role in defending torture, and the Times‘s failure to identify his employment at a consulting firm with strong ties to Clinton:

Follow
Domenic Powell @_vectorist
I ran the CIA, defended torture, now work for a former Clinton aide, and will accordingly endorse Hillary Clinton http://gawker.com/i-ran-the-c-i-a-now-i-work-for-a-longtime-clinton-ally-1784871887
11:19 AM - 5 Aug 2016
Photo published for I Ran the C.I.A. Now I Work For a Longtime Clinton Ally's Consulting Firm and Am Endorsing Hillary...
I Ran the C.I.A. Now I Work For a Longtime Clinton Ally's Consulting Firm and Am Endorsing Hillary...
On Friday, the New York Times ran an op-ed penned by Michael Morell, a 33-year veteran of the Central Intelligence agency who served as its acting director and deputy director from 2010 to 2013....
gawker.com
3 3 Retweets 5 5 likes
The Charlie Rose interview led one blogger to further update the title of Morell’s op-ed:
Follow
Christoph Germann @newgreatgame
"I ran the CIA now I’m endorsing Hillary Clinton and I want Hillary to kill lots of Russians and Iranians in Syria":
9:47 PM - 8 Aug 2016
1,520 1,520 Retweets 838 838 likes
Top photo: Morell testifies on Capitol Hi

https://theintercept.com/2016/08/06/white-house-finally-releases-its-playbook-for-killing-and-capturing-terror-suspects/

THE OBAMA ADMINISTRATION has released its internal guidelines for how it decides to kill or capture alleged terrorists around the globe, three years after they came into effect. They provide a look at the drone war bureaucracy behind hundreds of strikes in Yemen, Pakistan, Somalia and elsewhere, a system President Obama will hand off to his successor.

The guidelines show the process is concentrated at the White House, specifically in the National Security Council. They also describe the process for approving so-called signature strikes, where the target of the strike is not a known “high value terrorist,” but rather some other “terrorist target,” which could be a group of people exhibiting suspect behavior, or a vehicle, building or other infrastructure.

Amid all these procedural details, however, the presidential policy guidance, or “playbook,” as it has been called, does not provide new insight into when, where, and under what authorities someone can be killed, or what kind of intelligence is necessary to make that decision.

Much of the document, which is dated May 22, 2013, echoes public statements by administration officials over the past several years and previously-released material. The general standards for killing terrorist targets away from active battlefields were made public that May, when the president gave a speech and issued an abbreviated version of the guidance, promising that the United States would only undertake lethal action against a terrorist if they posed a continuing, imminent threat to U.S. persons, and if capture was not feasible.

It took a lawsuit by the American Civil Liberties Union to get the full 18-page version of the guidance declassified, with some redactions.

“This document doesn’t tell us anything new about the substantive standards that they use to determine if someone can be targeted,” said Jameel Jaffer, deputy legal director of the ACLU. “We’d hope that they’d fill out what they mean by ‘continuing’ and ‘imminent,’ or ‘feasible’ or ‘unfeasible.’”

In a statement, the ACLU also questioned how the document’s “relatively stringent standards can be reconciled with the accounts of eye witnesses, journalists, and human rights researches who have documented large numbers of bystander casualties” from drone strikes.

The People Who Approve “Direct Actions”

According to the guidance, each operating agency – the CIA or the Defense Department – prepares “operational plans for taking direct actions,” whether strikes or captures, in different situations. Those plans undergo a legal review by the agencies’ general counsels and a legal adviser to the National Security Council, and then are considered by a circle of advisers at the White House known as the Principals and Principals’ Deputies Committees, made up of the heads or deputy heads of the Departments of State, Defense, Justice, and Homeland Security, as well as the CIA, Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the National Counterterrorism Center.

The plans must include legal, tactical and policy rationale for undertaking the strike, what kind of “strike and surveillance assets” would be used, and how long the authority to take action would remain in place. Once the committee arrives at its decision on the plan, it is communicated to the president for his final approval.

The guidance indicates that the president does not have to sign off on individual names of high-value targets to be killed, unless there is disagreement within the National Security Council. If the individual is a U.S. person, the Justice Department needs to weigh in.

If an agency wants to nominate an individual to be killed, they make a profile of them based on intelligence reporting, which is reviewed by an interagency panel led by the White House counterterrorism adviser, currently Lisa Monaco. Again, the profile passes through lawyers at the agency and at the National Security Council before going to the Deputies Committee and ultimately the Principals Committee for a final decision.

Although the process indicates a high degree of control in the White House, generally speaking, the actual operation is still carried out under the command of the military or CIA.

A similar process is followed for approving plans for strikes against “terrorist targets other than high-value terrorists.” The section seems to address “signature strikes,” in which the United States has attacked people without knowing their identity. The examples given in the policy guidance include vehicles carrying improvised explosive devices, or “infrastructure, including explosives storage facilities.” For an actual strike, it appears from the guidance that the Principals Committee and the president get involved only when there is disagreement about the operation.

If the suspect is to be captured, a rare occurrence under Obama, the president also approves the plan. Among the various considerations going into a decision to capture someone, such as how and where they would be detained and interrogated, and if they could be tried in civilian court or military commission, one thing is spelled out clearly: “In no event will detainees be brought to the detention facilities at the Guantanamo Bay Naval Base.”

The process laid out in the guidance is more detailed but does not differ substantially from the one described in a 2013 Defense Department Power Point presentation published by The Intercept last fall, although that document included additional information on how the military carried out its strikes in Yemen and Somalia at the time. For instance, the presentation included the detail that once a target was approved by the White House, the military had a 60-day window to pursue the operation.

“Associated Forces” and Other Limits

The newly-issued guidance does not specify how long authorities for given operations last, although it mentions that the case against individuals on the list for lethal strikes must be reviewed each year. It also notes that if “a capture option” becomes possible at any point, there should be an expedited reevaluation of the authority to kill them.

The Defense Department also released two heavily redacted documents describing its implementation of the policy guidance, along with a letter to the Senate from 2014, stating that the Pentagon considers the Taliban, the Haqqani Network, and other groups fighting alongside them against U.S. forces in Afghanistan to be “associated forces” of Al Qaeda, along with Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, which operates in Yemen. Some portions of the list of associated forces and all the groups considered “affiliates” of Al Qaeda are blacked out.

Associated forces would fall under the 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force, which became law just a week after 9/11, and which the administration has used to justify 15 years of lethal operations in many countries. Yet the White House process, the Pentagon document notes, involves a “target-by-target analysis” of legal authorities, and groups not currently identified as associated forces could still be targeted if a new situation arose. The guidance also includes a large waiver for the president to disregard it in cases of “national self-defense,” “fleeting opportunities,” or even to authorize a strike against someone who posed a threat “to another country’s persons.”

The guidance does not apply to operations in “areas of active hostilities,” which the administration currently defines as Iraq, Syria, and Afghanistan. A White House spokesman, Ned Price, pushed back on reports that strikes in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas of Pakistan, along the border, are not covered by the guidance, but would not clarify whether in some instances strikes in the border region might fall into the administration’s definition of active hostilities.

The guidance is one more exhibit in the Obama administration’s institutionalization of counterterrorism strikes, by drones and other means, far from conventional battlefields. Last month, the White House released casualty figures for such strikes during Obama’s presidency, stating that as many as 2,600 people had been killed in 473 strikes in 7 years. The administration believed that between 64 and 116 of them were civilians – a number disputed by outside observers, who put the total number of civilians harmed between 200 and 1000.

Even as the frequency of drone strikes, especially by the CIA, has declined markedly in the last years of Obama’s presidency, the practice has not ended. The U.S. military hit a Taliban leader in a strike in Pakistan in May, also killing a taxi driver. Strikes in Yemen have been more frequent, and there were two massive attacks in Yemen and Somalia in March killed dozens of alleged fighters.

https://theintercept.com/staff/cora/

cora.currier@theintercept.com

https://twitter.com/@coracurrier

William Torres
Aug. 9 2016, 5:19 a.m.
U.S.A. is Terrorist #1 at home and abroad.

↪ Reply
Seema Sapra
Aug. 9 2016, 2:25 a.m.
http://www.asianage.com/international/pak-turns-china-over-us-drone-strikes-942

“Pakistan is once again banking on its most-trusted friend, China, for help to save it from unending US dronestrikes and to support Islamabad’s case before the world, official sources said.
The latest US drone strike, that killed Afghan Taliban leader Mullah Akhtar Mansour in Balochistan, prompted Pakistan to protest stronger than usual as Islamabad feared Washington could extend such attacks to other parts of the country.
Among Pakistan’s friends, China is the sole military power whose words are given some weight by the US.
China had mentioned in its April report on the US’ human rights record that drone attacks in Pakistan were a violation of basic norms.
The report said the US still “brazenly and brutally violated human rights” in other countries, treating civilians “like dirt”.
Airstrikes launched by the US in Iraq and Syria have killed many civilians. The US also conducted drone attacks in Pakistan and Yemen, causing scores of civilian deaths.
A senior official at the foreign ministry said China was contacted at the ministerial level seeking diplomatic help against US drone attacks as Washington showed no hints of ending the strikes.
“Like always China has promised to help in whatever way it can. Diplomatic support from a potential superpower will be helpful in efforts to curtail these strikes,” he added.
Another official said Pakistan’s allies in West Asia have been contacted by Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and his diplomatic aides to make a case for Islamabad.
“If we can have a few countries with us, we can at least try to stop the US from hitting in Balochistan and (possibly) in the other provinces,” he maintained.
He said Pakistan was in contact with Washington in a bid to end the drone strikes. “Diplomatic efforts are on, but the US is still unmoved,” he maintained.
Last week, Chinese ambassador to Pakistan, Sun Weidong, said his country appreciated Pakistan for its successful efforts in fighting terrorism.
He urged the international community to acknowledge Pakistan’s sacrifices in the war against terror and extend full cooperation to completely eliminate this menace.”

↪ Reply
Nick Torrent ↪ Seema Sapra
Aug. 9 2016, 2:42 a.m.
So Pakistan is opposed to the drone strikes but is incapable of doing anything about it?

↪ Reply
Seema Sapra ↪ Nick Torrent
Aug. 9 2016, 2:45 a.m.
What do you suggest they do? Shoot down a US drone? How will the US retaliate?

Pakistan is like a battered wife when it comes to the US.

Recall, the CIA guy who murdered two Pakistanis in broad daylight? Pakistan was forced to let him go.

By the way all this was discussed by me in comments at https://theintercept.com/2016/07/18/would-turkey-be-justified-in-kidnapping-or-drone-killing-the-turkish-cleric-in-pennsylvania/

↪ Reply

Clark
Aug. 10 2016, 8:32 a.m.
“WE think the price is worth it” (emphasis added).

Madeleine Albright said this about the killing of over

500,000 children. So, when Morrel says “a little price”

it is because their economics

(which is central to Wall Street’s Washington)

categorizes life as small change in regard to the

acquisition of their idea of REAL money.

↪ Reply
Si1ver1ock
Aug. 10 2016, 6:51 a.m.
Plausible Deniability is dead. Stories originating from the United States government are no longer plausible.

Here is a story that provides a little background context about Syria. It was linked at Antiwar.com. Antiwar.com has been providing superior coverage of World Affairs for many years. Lots of good stuff there.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/09/spies-for-hire-now-at-war-in-syria.html

↪ Reply
raymond
Aug. 10 2016, 5:29 a.m.
Yeah !…this man is ready for any “asylum”…right now !!..with people like this one roaming free in the streets, the world is in Real Peril !!…

↪ Reply
Karma
Aug. 10 2016, 4:39 a.m.
Super Provacative! Guess it won’t be any surprise now if Russian & Iranian troops start dying ‘mysteriously’.

↪ Reply
Deschutes
Aug. 10 2016, 3:48 a.m.
Hey I have an idea: if Michael Morell is so eager to kill lots more Syrians, Russians and Iranians why doesn’t he dress his chickenshit ass up in a white T-shirt with a big U.S. flag on the front and backside, along with some stars and stripes shorts–then have the airforce airdrop his ass into ISIS controlled territory with a gun? Its time for Mikey boy to to stop bloviating and start workin’ you CIA bitch!

↪ Reply
barabbas ↪ Deschutes
Aug. 10 2016, 4:29 a.m.
yes sir. Real Americans everywhere feel the same way. We dont have leaders, we have a shitload of profiteering pirates wanting to sacifice Americans for the greed of their paymasters.

THAT MUST END.

↪ Reply
Fred Cowan
Aug. 10 2016, 3:39 a.m.
Hillary or Trump if WE the people do not step up and “check their fire” something Very bad may happen. Trump will inspire such resistance, Hillary will slide it past us and WE may end up in a bigger war than We bargained for.

↪ Reply
SignalDetected
Aug. 10 2016, 2:25 a.m.
If evolution made people look the way they behave, the creatures in Washington would have by now shark teeth coming out of their mount, eyes, ears and nose.

↪ Reply
Seema Sapra
Aug. 10 2016, 12:02 a.m.
Ex-CIA spook who whitewashed Benghazi endorses Hillary https://counterjihadreport.com/2016/08/08/ex-cia-spook-who-whitewashed-benghazi-endorses-hillary/

The very same Michael Morell

↪ Reply
Seema Sapra ↪ Seema Sapra
Aug. 10 2016, 12:06 a.m.
Here are other achievements of Michael Morell

https://counterjihadreport.com/tag/michael-morell/

↪ Reply
Seema Sapra
Aug. 9 2016, 11:43 p.m.
It would be good to find out what were Michael Morell’s CIA assignments around 9/11.

According to wikipedia:

Morell “also managed the staff that produced the Presidential Daily Briefings for President George W. Bush. Morell was Bush’s briefer during the September 11, 2001, attacks, and has been quoted as saying, “I would bet every dollar I have that it’s al Qaeda.” Later, Morell was a trusted asset to President Barack Obama in the Osama bin Laden raid on May 2, 2011.[1][2]””

↪ Reply
TimN
Aug. 9 2016, 11:38 p.m.
Wow, another dumb fuck about to be placed in a position where he will likely do real harm.

↪ Reply
photosymbiosis
Aug. 9 2016, 10:25 p.m.
This is like an ex-KGB head saying that Russia should arm Al Qaeda in Yemen to kill Saudis and Americans and Brits over the Yemen War.

And, in any case, the covert arming and financing of radical Islamic groups in Syria by the CIA, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Israel and Turkey from late 2011 through 2015 is a well-established fact, even if the media refuses to report on it.

Morrell’s op-ed is probably just a PR effort aimed at covering up this fact; a detailed investigation of CIA training camps in Turkey and Jordan would likely reveal that most of their trained fighters defected to ISIS or Al Qaeda once they entered Iraq. Morell, after all, was working under Leon Panetta when the whole Libyan-Syrian debacle was initiated; he has a lot to cover up, as does Clinton.

↪ Reply
Seema Sapra ↪ photosymbiosis
Aug. 9 2016, 11:21 p.m.
Yeah, looks like Mossad and the CIA are both very worried that their men who created ISIS and are part of ISIS might now get destroyed in Syria by the Russians.

↪ Reply
Orville ↪ Seema Sapra
Aug. 10 2016, 12:32 a.m.
One can hope the turnaround in the war will continue, so that IS, Al-Nusra, Al-Sham and their allies are defeated before Clinton gets voted in and decides to change sides in the War on Terror, like she did in Libya. The Russophobes are already pushing for a ceasefire (or intervention, like they did in Libya) so the bad guys in Aleppo won’t get wiped out by the Syrians, Iranians and Russians.

↪ Reply
rrheard
Aug. 9 2016, 9:34 p.m.
Well short of employing nuclear weapons, in which case we’re all dead, future Pres. Hillary Clinton sparking it off with eitherIran or Russia, much less both of them, would be the end of America’s little experiment in empire.

America couldn’t defeat a pallet of cheese whiz much less the Iranians or Russians. America couldn’t defeat the people of Viet Nam, couldn’t defeat the decades long sanctioned people of Iraq, and sure as shit got its ass handed to it by the various warring folks in Afghanistan.

So, I’m really trying to figure out which geniuses at the Pentagon or various other alphabet agencies think provoking the Iranians and Russians (who have just as many nukes as we do) is a smart move.

I’m all for America’s little experiment in empire ending. But I’d really prefer not to see it end at the receiving end of a bunch of mushroom clouds or the utter defeat of our military on Syrian soil with either the Iranians or Russians sending our kids home in a whole lot of body bags.

Really and truly the dumbest fucking idea I’ve heard in my lifetime. I looked seriously into moving to Canada or South America when Shrub was elected. But if this is the sort of “advice” Hillary Clinton will consider seriously as POTUS then that makes her marginally worse then Shrub coming right out of the gate, and I better get back on the phone to those immigration attorneys in both places and start liquidating what little in retirement and other assets I have and get to steppin’. Because sparking it off with Russia and/or Iran would be borderline suicidal for the US with or with the help of the British, French, Turks and whatever other barely armed allies are part of NATO.

Mike Morell’s Performance of “Intelligence”

Eli Lake’s Portrayal of the CIA Director Campaign: Drones, Benghazi, and … ?

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58171943

CIA Director Entry Number 2: Mike Morell, Fabulist

Does this link work? If not:

"

Published August 5, 2016 | By emptywheel

As Eli Lake wrote the other day, there are three men angling to be CIA Director under President Hillary: John Brennan, Mike Morell, and Mike Vickers.

I’ve already explained what is terrifying about Vickers’ audition to be CIA Director: after laying out the Hillary as Commander-in-Chief case (which appears to be mandatory for these things), Vickers then talks about how we need to escalate our wars and belligerence.

To be sure, we will need more aggressive counterterrorism strategies, stronger support for the Syrian opposition as the only plausible counterweight to authoritarianism and extremism within Syria, more effective counters to Iranian and Russian expansion, and better strategies for deterring and competing with China over the long term.
Henceforth, I will refer to Vickers as The Escalationist.

Today, Mike Morell submitted his audition to be CIA Director.

As Vickers did (these do seem to be formulaic), Morell lays out his extensive bipartisan past (Vickers claims service under 4 Republican and 2 Democratic Presidents, Morell claims 3 of each), then talks about how serving with Hillary convinced him she has the temperament to be Commander-in-Chief.

I spent four years working with Mrs. Clinton when she was secretary of state, most often in the White House Situation Room. In these critically important meetings, I found her to be prepared, detail-oriented, thoughtful, inquisitive and willing to change her mind if presented with a compelling argument.
Like Vickers, Morell lauds Hillary’s courage in pushing for the raid that killed Osama bin Laden.

Mrs. Clinton was an early advocate of the raid that brought Bin Laden to justice, in opposition to some of her most important colleagues on the National Security Council.

[snip]

I never saw her bring politics into the Situation Room. In fact, I saw the opposite. When some wanted to delay the Bin Laden raid by one day because the White House Correspondents Dinner might be disrupted, she said, “Screw the White House Correspondents Dinner.”
Disrupting White House Correspondents Dinner to kill someone would count as politics? Really?

Also like Vickers, Morell then lays out Trump’s lack of qualification for the job, both in terms of background and temperament.

But Morell’s gimmick — the brand that sets him apart on this quest to be CIA Director — is not an explicit call for escalation, but instead the specific gloss he puts on Trump’s soft spot for Putin. After portraying Trump’s careless claims as full endorsements of Putin, Morell claims Trump has been recruited by the old KGB officer, albeit unwittingly.

Mr. Putin is a great leader, Mr. Trump says, ignoring that he has killed and jailed journalists and political opponents, has invaded two of his neighbors and is driving his economy to ruin. Mr. Trump has also taken policy positions consistent with Russian, not American, interests — endorsing Russian espionage against the United States, supporting Russia’s annexation of Crimea and giving a green light to a possible Russian invasion of the Baltic States.

In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m all in favor in making political hay out of Trump’s call on Putin to hack Hillary, especially coming as it does from someone (unlike Jake Sullivan and Leon Panetta) without a known history of mishandling classified information.

But that line? “recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation”? That’s all about the clicks, and it has been serving splendidly. Just like “Slam Dunk” was a nifty line.

In a piece auditioning to be CIA Director, I’d prefer someone stick more rigorously to the truth. Trump is an apologist for Putin, undoubtedly, but there’s no more evidence Putin has recruited Trump (unwittingly) than there is, say, the Saudis have recruited Hillary. They’re all just picking the assholes they champion, with Hillary picking the assholes we’ve long championed.

Then again, this is not the first time Morell has stretched the truth a bit — up to and including on torture, so we shouldn’t be surprised by the tactic.

So there you have it: The Escalationist versus The Fabulist, your first two contestants on CIA nomination competition.

Sadly, we probably won’t see something quite so explicit from Brennan (though it would be amusing to see if a third endorsement hewed so closely to the same script as the other two), so we’ll just have to accept Lake’s “drone warrior” brand for him."

And the article from yesterday from theintercept, guess you have read it before:

https://theintercept.com/2016/08/09/ex-cia-chief-who-endorsed-clinton-calls-for-killing-iranians-and-russians-in-syria/
Thanks I just got done reading that and also found this:

https://theintercept.com/2016/08/06/white-house-finally-releases-its-playbook-for-killing-and-capturing-terror-suspects/

http://www.asianage.com/international/pak-turns-china-over-us-drone-strikes-942

“Pakistan is once again banking on its most-trusted friend, China, for help to save it from unending US dronestrikes and to support Islamabad’s case before the world, official sources said.

The latest US drone strike, that killed Afghan Taliban leader Mullah Akhtar Mansour in Balochistan, prompted Pakistan to protest stronger than usual as Islamabad feared Washington could extend such attacks to other parts of the country.

Among Pakistan’s friends, China is the sole military power whose words are given some weight by the US.

China had mentioned in its April report on the US’ human rights record that drone attacks in Pakistan were a violation of basic norms.

The report said the US still “brazenly and brutally violated human rights” in other countries, treating civilians “like dirt”.

Airstrikes launched by the US in Iraq and Syria have killed many civilians. The US also conducted drone attacks in Pakistan and Yemen, causing scores of civilian deaths.

A senior official at the foreign ministry said China was contacted at the ministerial level seeking diplomatic help against US drone attacks as Washington showed no hints of ending the strikes.

“Like always China has promised to help in whatever way it can. Diplomatic support from a potential superpower will be helpful in efforts to curtail these strikes,” he added.

Another official said Pakistan’s allies in West Asia have been contacted by Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and his diplomatic aides to make a case for Islamabad.

“If we can have a few countries with us, we can at least try to stop the US from hitting in Balochistan and (possibly) in the other provinces,” he maintained.

He said Pakistan was in contact with Washington in a bid to end the drone strikes. “Diplomatic efforts are on, but the US is still unmoved,” he maintained.

Last week, Chinese ambassador to Pakistan, Sun Weidong, said his country appreciated Pakistan for its successful efforts in fighting terrorism.

He urged the international community to acknowledge Pakistan’s sacrifices in the war against terror and extend full cooperation to completely eliminate this menace.”

Madeleine Albright said this about the killing of over

500,000 children. So, when Morrel says “a little price”

it is because their economics

(which is central to Wall Street’s Washington)

categorizes life as small change in regard to the

acquisition of their idea of REAL money.

Here is a story that provides a little background context about Syria. It was linked at Antiwar.com. Antiwar.com has been providing superior coverage of World Affairs for many years. Lots of good stuff there.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/09/spies-for-hire-now-at-war-in-syria.html

His views on torture resemble Trump far more than the candidate he's endorsing- ironic huh?

CIA Director Entry Number 2: Mike Morell, Fabulist

Does this link work? If not:

"

Published August 5, 2016 | By emptywheel

As Eli Lake wrote the other day, there are three men angling to be CIA Director under President Hillary: John Brennan, Mike Morell, and Mike Vickers.

I’ve already explained what is terrifying about Vickers’ audition to be CIA Director: after laying out the Hillary as Commander-in-Chief case (which appears to be mandatory for these things), Vickers then talks about how we need to escalate our wars and belligerence.

To be sure, we will need more aggressive counterterrorism strategies, stronger support for the Syrian opposition as the only plausible counterweight to authoritarianism and extremism within Syria, more effective counters to Iranian and Russian expansion, and better strategies for deterring and competing with China over the long term.
Henceforth, I will refer to Vickers as The Escalationist.

Today, Mike Morell submitted his audition to be CIA Director.

As Vickers did (these do seem to be formulaic), Morell lays out his extensive bipartisan past (Vickers claims service under 4 Republican and 2 Democratic Presidents, Morell claims 3 of each), then talks about how serving with Hillary convinced him she has the temperament to be Commander-in-Chief.

I spent four years working with Mrs. Clinton when she was secretary of state, most often in the White House Situation Room. In these critically important meetings, I found her to be prepared, detail-oriented, thoughtful, inquisitive and willing to change her mind if presented with a compelling argument.
Like Vickers, Morell lauds Hillary’s courage in pushing for the raid that killed Osama bin Laden.

Mrs. Clinton was an early advocate of the raid that brought Bin Laden to justice, in opposition to some of her most important colleagues on the National Security Council.

[snip]

I never saw her bring politics into the Situation Room. In fact, I saw the opposite. When some wanted to delay the Bin Laden raid by one day because the White House Correspondents Dinner might be disrupted, she said, “Screw the White House Correspondents Dinner.”
Disrupting White House Correspondents Dinner to kill someone would count as politics? Really?

Also like Vickers, Morell then lays out Trump’s lack of qualification for the job, both in terms of background and temperament.

But Morell’s gimmick — the brand that sets him apart on this quest to be CIA Director — is not an explicit call for escalation, but instead the specific gloss he puts on Trump’s soft spot for Putin. After portraying Trump’s careless claims as full endorsements of Putin, Morell claims Trump has been recruited by the old KGB officer, albeit unwittingly.

Mr. Putin is a great leader, Mr. Trump says, ignoring that he has killed and jailed journalists and political opponents, has invaded two of his neighbors and is driving his economy to ruin. Mr. Trump has also taken policy positions consistent with Russian, not American, interests — endorsing Russian espionage against the United States, supporting Russia’s annexation of Crimea and giving a green light to a possible Russian invasion of the Baltic States.

In the intelligence business, we would say that Mr. Putin had recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation.
Don’t get me wrong. I’m all in favor in making political hay out of Trump’s call on Putin to hack Hillary, especially coming as it does from someone (unlike Jake Sullivan and Leon Panetta) without a known history of mishandling classified information.

But that line? “recruited Mr. Trump as an unwitting agent of the Russian Federation”? That’s all about the clicks, and it has been serving splendidly. Just like “Slam Dunk” was a nifty line.

In a piece auditioning to be CIA Director, I’d prefer someone stick more rigorously to the truth. Trump is an apologist for Putin, undoubtedly, but there’s no more evidence Putin has recruited Trump (unwittingly) than there is, say, the Saudis have recruited Hillary. They’re all just picking the assholes they champion, with Hillary picking the assholes we’ve long championed.

Then again, this is not the first time Morell has stretched the truth a bit — up to and including on torture, so we shouldn’t be surprised by the tactic.

So there you have it: The Escalationist versus The Fabulist, your first two contestants on CIA nomination competition.

Sadly, we probably won’t see something quite so explicit from Brennan (though it would be amusing to see if a third endorsement hewed so closely to the same script as the other two), so we’ll just have to accept Lake’s “drone warrior” brand for him."

And the article from yesterday from theintercept, guess you have read it before:

https://theintercept.com/2016/08/09/ex-cia-chief-who-endorsed-clinton-calls-for-killing-iranians-and-russians-in-syria/
Thanks I just got done reading that and also found this:

https://theintercept.com/2016/08/06/white-house-finally-releases-its-playbook-for-killing-and-capturing-terror-suspects/

http://www.asianage.com/international/pak-turns-china-over-us-drone-strikes-942

“Pakistan is once again banking on its most-trusted friend, China, for help to save it from unending US dronestrikes and to support Islamabad’s case before the world, official sources said.

The latest US drone strike, that killed Afghan Taliban leader Mullah Akhtar Mansour in Balochistan, prompted Pakistan to protest stronger than usual as Islamabad feared Washington could extend such attacks to other parts of the country.

Among Pakistan’s friends, China is the sole military power whose words are given some weight by the US.

China had mentioned in its April report on the US’ human rights record that drone attacks in Pakistan were a violation of basic norms.

The report said the US still “brazenly and brutally violated human rights” in other countries, treating civilians “like dirt”.

Airstrikes launched by the US in Iraq and Syria have killed many civilians. The US also conducted drone attacks in Pakistan and Yemen, causing scores of civilian deaths.

A senior official at the foreign ministry said China was contacted at the ministerial level seeking diplomatic help against US drone attacks as Washington showed no hints of ending the strikes.

“Like always China has promised to help in whatever way it can. Diplomatic support from a potential superpower will be helpful in efforts to curtail these strikes,” he added.

Another official said Pakistan’s allies in West Asia have been contacted by Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif and his diplomatic aides to make a case for Islamabad.

“If we can have a few countries with us, we can at least try to stop the US from hitting in Balochistan and (possibly) in the other provinces,” he maintained.

He said Pakistan was in contact with Washington in a bid to end the drone strikes. “Diplomatic efforts are on, but the US is still unmoved,” he maintained.

Last week, Chinese ambassador to Pakistan, Sun Weidong, said his country appreciated Pakistan for its successful efforts in fighting terrorism.

He urged the international community to acknowledge Pakistan’s sacrifices in the war against terror and extend full cooperation to completely eliminate this menace.”

Madeleine Albright said this about the killing of over

500,000 children. So, when Morrel says “a little price”

it is because their economics

(which is central to Wall Street’s Washington)

categorizes life as small change in regard to the

acquisition of their idea of REAL money.

Here is a story that provides a little background context about Syria. It was linked at Antiwar.com. Antiwar.com has been providing superior coverage of World Affairs for many years. Lots of good stuff there.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2016/08/09/spies-for-hire-now-at-war-in-syria.html

His views on torture resemble Trump far more than the candidate he's endorsing- ironic huh?

Not surpised what the Pakistanis are doing, they were unhappy with the dronekillings since a longer time. http://www.dw.com/en/pakistan-accuses-us-of-violating-national-sovereignty-with-taliban-drone-strike/a-19276393

Concerning your dailybeast link, have seen it somewhere else today (I guess you know where) and read it, so thanks for sharing it.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58171979

The only one I'm supporting is Dr. Jill Stein and the Green Party. I've had enough of the pro-war pro-torture antics of both the Republicans and the Democrats. I hope they both lose- because if either of them win- the American people lose but especially the people of the world who will suffer unnecessary casualties and deaths in decades of wars. And don't be surprised when these wars cause more terrorist attacks rather than less. How else can one expect people to respond when they get their lives ruined?

Violence only begets more violence.
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58171613

Jamesie wrote:

Sure, the English do have reputation to defend as racists, but oh boy, think of some of the others!

The Spaniards and Portuguese wouldn't p*ss on a dark skinned guy if he was on fire -- and in fact, they had a nasty reputation for setting them on fire (and yes, I know they did burn some of their own, but still).

The Portuguese held East Timor for 400 years. At the end of that time, 1975, there was no educational institution in East Timor that was higher than high (secondary) school, nd there were only a couple of them to serve 400,000 people. There was a handful of university graduates, possibly all of mixed race. In the 60s, they were still exiling people of the "wrong" political views. Oh -- that was the ultra right wing dictatorship, of course.

The Belgians cut off the hands and feet of recalcitrant workers in the Congo and when they left, they took everything with them, even the chalk out of the (few) classrooms.

The French? They're like Roger the Lodger -- once in, you can't get rid of them. The Vietnamese had to fight a protracted and very, very bloody war against them, as did the Algerians.

The white elite in Brazil (Portuguese language) and Argentina (Spanish) provided homes away from home to surviving Nazi bigwigs at the end of WW II. 'nuff said, I think.

The Japanese saw (see?) themselves as a superior race, and the Chinese are not backwards in coming forwards in such matters either.

Sleep a little easier, anglophones are not alone.
Yes, humans of every ilk have a portion of their number who tend to the tribal, some of which tribalism expresses itself as racism. However, we anglos do seem to find ways to allow our own variety of racist traditions to survive, one way or another, within institutions such as prisons, the police and other authoritative organisations; and despite a lot of successful effort to make racism less endemic elsewhere in our various cultures and behaviours.

Racism has also morphed into other forms, such as the Islamophobia of Pap-types, as well as other hatreds based in different "ethnicity".

SirLataxe
Jamesie wrote:

Sure, the English do have reputation to defend as racists, but oh boy, think of some of the others!

The Spaniards and Portuguese wouldn't p*ss on a dark skinned guy if he was on fire -- and in fact, they had a nasty reputation for setting them on fire (and yes, I know they did burn some of their own, but still).

The Portuguese held East Timor for 400 years. At the end of that time, 1975, there was no educational institution in East Timor that was higher than high (secondary) school, nd there were only a couple of them to serve 400,000 people. There was a handful of university graduates, possibly all of mixed race. In the 60s, they were still exiling people of the "wrong" political views. Oh -- that was the ultra right wing dictatorship, of course.

The Belgians cut off the hands and feet of recalcitrant workers in the Congo and when they left, they took everything with them, even the chalk out of the (few) classrooms.

The French? They're like Roger the Lodger -- once in, you can't get rid of them. The Vietnamese had to fight a protracted and very, very bloody war against them, as did the Algerians.

The white elite in Brazil (Portuguese language) and Argentina (Spanish) provided homes away from home to surviving Nazi bigwigs at the end of WW II. 'nuff said, I think.

The Japanese saw (see?) themselves as a superior race, and the Chinese are not backwards in coming forwards in such matters either.

Sleep a little easier, anglophones are not alone.
Yes, humans of every ilk have a portion of their number who tend to the tribal, some of which tribalism expresses itself as racism. However, we anglos do seem to find ways to allow our own variety of racist traditions to survive, one way or another, within institutions such as prisons, the police and other authoritative organisations; and despite a lot of successful effort to make racism less endemic elsewhere in our various cultures and behaviours.

Racism has also morphed into other forms, such as the Islamophobia of Pap-types, as well as other hatreds based in different "ethnicity".

SirLataxe

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58171788

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/08/10/assange-implies-murdered-dnc-staffer-was-wikileaks-source.html

WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange implied in an interview that a murdered Democratic National Committee staffer was the source of a trove of damaging emails the rogue website posted just days before the party's convention.

Speaking to Dutch television program Nieuswsuur Tuesday after earlier announcing a $20,000 reward for information leading to the arrest of Seth Rich's killer, Assange said the July 10 murder of Rich in Northwest Washington was an example of the risk leakers undertake.
"Whistle-blowers go to significant efforts to get us material and often very significant risks," Assange said. "As a 27-year-old, works for the DNC, was shot in the back, murdered just a few weeks ago for unknown reasons as he was walking down the street in Washington."

When the interviewer interjected that the murder may have been a robbery, Assange pushed back.

Follow
WikiLeaks ✔ @wikileaks
ANNOUNCE: WikiLeaks has decided to issue a US$20k reward for information leading to conviction for the murder of DNC staffer Seth Rich.
11:58 AM - 9 Aug 2016
8,737 8,737 Retweets 9,126 9,126 likes
"No," he said. "There’s no finding. So… I’m suggesting that our sources take risks."

When pressed as to whether Rich was, in fact, the leaker, Assange stated that the organization does not reveal its sources.

2016 Election Headquarters
The latest headlines on the 2016 elections from the biggest name in politics.
See Latest Coverage →
Police have said they believe the motive was robbery, and that there is no evidence Rich's murder was connected to his work. But Rich's father has said the 4 a.m. murder, in which Rich was shot several times from behind, did not appear to be a robbery, as his son's wallet and watch were not taken.
Related Image

dncmurderExpand / Contract
Police say no witnesses to Rich's murder have come forward.
When police found Rich, he was still conscious and breathing. He was transported to a hospital where he later died. No witnesses have come forward and police have no suspects. The WikiLeaks reward adds to a $25,000 reward posted by Washington police.
WikiLeaks’ email dump of DNC files, which embarrassed the party and showed possible collusion to block Bernie Sanders from the nomination, occurred 12 days after his death. Rich was the DNC’s director of voter expansion.

Washington Police Assistant Chief Peter Newsham said the department appreciates WikiLeaks offering of a reward.

“We're very pleased if anyone is going to assist us with giving reward money," Newsham added.

The 45-year-old Assange is founder and editor-in-chief of WikiLeaks, which touts itself as a nonprofit journalistic organization. WikiLeaks specializes in publishing online leaked documents and classified information gleaned from an international network of secret sources.

The Australian has been subject to extradition to Sweden since 2010, wher he is wanted for questioning in a rape case that his supporters claim is a pretext to muzzle his efforts. He has been holed up in Ecuador's United Kingdom embassy since he was granted asylum there in August 2012.

Assange participated in the interview from inside the embassy.
108New CommentsRefresh
straigthline
straigthline 5 minutes ago
Seth Rich said "If something happens to me, it was murder"

FlagShare3LikeReply
mtorsd
mtorsd 2 minutes ago
@straigthline

Well, obviously it was murder.
FlagShareLikeReply
rdixonshell
rdixonshell 5 minutes ago
Someday this is all going to make a great movie ! Get Tarantino to direct it.

FlagShareLikeReply
1new reply
TheHonorableEagle
TheHonorableEagle 2 minutes ago
@rdixonshell F Tarantino. I hope he chokes on a hot dog.

FlagShare2LikeReply
shiitake
shiitake 5 minutes ago
The Clintons, Obama and the DNC just want Americans to go back to sleep.

Pay no attention people.
FlagShare4LikeReply
MauiAl
MauiAl 5 minutes ago
And very soon: Assange - 3, Clinton - 0, just before the debates,,, yum

108New CommentsRefresh
straigthline
straigthline 5 minutes ago
Seth Rich said "If something happens to me, it was murder"

FlagShare3LikeReply
mtorsd
mtorsd 2 minutes ago
@straigthline

Well, obviously it was murder.
FlagShareLikeReply
rdixonshell
rdixonshell 5 minutes ago
Someday this is all going to make a great movie ! Get Tarantino to direct it.

FlagShareLikeReply
1new reply
TheHonorableEagle
TheHonorableEagle 2 minutes ago
@rdixonshell F Tarantino. I hope he chokes on a hot dog.

FlagShare2LikeReply
shiitake
shiitake 5 minutes ago
The Clintons, Obama and the DNC just want Americans to go back to sleep.

Pay no attention people.
FlagShare4LikeReply
MauiAl
MauiAl 5 minutes ago
And very soon: Assange - 3, Clinton - 0, just before the debates,,, yum

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/08/10/clinton-accused-aiding-moscow-ops-with-push-for-russian-silicon-valley.html

A 2010 program headed by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to help Moscow develop a “Russian Silicon Valley” may instead have drawn some of America’s biggest tech companies into “industrial espionage” – even advancing the country’s military and spying operations, according to a new report by Clinton critic Peter Schweizer’s Government Accountability Institute.

“There are serious national security questions that have been raised,” the report said.

The program was pitched as a partnership involving U.S. and Russian government entities and companies. Major U.S. corporations like Boeing, Google, General Electric, Cisco and Microsoft – also generous donors to the Clinton’s family foundation – were solicited by Clinton to invest more than a billion dollars in the Skolkovo tech park outside Moscow, formally called the Skolkovo Innovation Center. The goal, Clinton said in speeches and to Russian media, was to “break down barriers with Russia,” create “more free flow of people and information” between the two countries, and ultimately strengthen Russia.

“We want to help because we think that it’s in everyone’s interest do so,” Clinton said in a 2010 speech at a U.S.-Russia summit, as she discussed building a technology center “right outside Moscow.”

However, the project may have inadvertently launched some of these companies into risky terrain. The FBI issued an “extraordinary warning” in 2014 to companies doing business with the Skolkovo Foundation that “Skolkovo could draw them unwittingly into industrial espionage,” noting Skolkovo was a crucial part of Dmitry Medvedev’s plan to modernize Russia’s military.

The FBI also said Skolkovo “may be a means for the Russian government to access our nation’s sensitive or classified research, development facilities and dual-use technologies with military and commercial applications.”

Author Peter Schweizer shares latest adaptation of his work
2016 Election Headquarters
The latest headlines on the 2016 elections from the biggest name in politics.
See Latest Coverage →
Jeff Bechdel, communications director for the anti-Clinton America Rising PAC, said the Democratic presidential nominee effectively “put our national security at risk” with the project.

“Leveraging Clinton Foundation donors, Clinton assisted in speeding up the Russians’ weaponized technology sector, and in so doing, demonstrated she lacks the judgment necessary to determine friend from foe on the international stage,” he said in a statement.

The Clinton campaign is pushing back on the latest report from Schweizer’s group. Schweizer also authored the anti-Clinton book “Clinton Cash” and is a longtime adversary of the family.

“This report is just the latest false attack by Republican operative and friend of the Koch brothers, Peter Schweizer, who was widely discredited for making baseless accusations in his debunked Clinton Cash book, that even he admitted was not backed up by any evidence,” campaign spokesman Josh Schwerin said in a statement.

The campaign also rejected the group’s claim that the FBI and Army found the project substantially enhanced Russia’s military tech capabilities, citing a 2014 article in which the FBI acknowledged it did not have hard evidence of such activity.

The partnership itself stemmed from President Obama and the Clinton State Department’s efforts to “reset” relations with Russia early in the Obama administration. This included a plan to “identify areas of cooperation and pursuing joint projects and actions that strengthen strategic stability, international security, economic well-being, and the development of ties between the Russian and American people.”

The State Department paid for a delegation of 22 private tech entrepreneurs to go to Russia in May 2010, which led to an exclusive arrangement with Russia allowing entrance into what would become an industry tech park accommodating some 30,000 people.

“The State Department actively and aggressively encouraged American firms to participate in Skolkovo,” the Government Accountability Institute report said. “Indeed, many of the Memorandums of Understanding signed by U.S. companies to invest and cooperate in Skolkovo were signed under the auspices of Hillary Clinton’s State Department.”

Many of the key figures in the Skolkovo tech park development had major financial ties to the Clintons, the report said, noting 17 of 28 companies, both Russian and American, made financial commitments to the Clinton Foundation or sponsored speeches by Bill Clinton.

“During the Russian reset, these figures and entities provided the Clintons with tens of millions of dollars, including contributions to the Clinton Foundation, paid for speeches by Bill Clinton, or investments in small start-up companies with deep Clinton ties,” the report said.

Margaret E. Kosal, an associate professor at Georgia Tech’s Sam Nunn School of International Affairs, said while the project might have seemed a good opportunity to work in an emerging market, there are challenges working in Russia including dealing with cronyism and government bureaucracy.

But from a national security perspective, Kosal said the biggest concern is the ability of the Russian military to obtain, misuse, or develop nanotechnology for an application that catches the U.S. by surprise.

Relations with Russia have since become a focal point in the 2016 presidential election, with Clinton criticizing Republican opponent Donald Trump for both his campaign manager’s reported business ties to Russia and supposed lack of knowledge about international affairs. But Bechdel said history shows it is Clinton’s connections and relations that should be scrutinized.

"Clinton may talk a big game against Russia now, but when it mattered most and she had the opportunity to hold Russia accountable as Secretary of State, Clinton’s priority was aiding Russian efforts to accelerate their technology sector, not keeping America safe,” Bechdel said.

The Clinton Foundation did not respond to a media inquiry from FoxNews.com.

A spokeswoman for Skolkovo told the Irish-based Independent news that all allegations of Kremlin spying were false, claiming it is "an international project and all our operations are fully transparent for our Russian and international partners".

http://www.g-a-i.org/u/2016/07/Report-Skolkvovo-.pdf
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58172250

Yes, that's a bit much but like I said, the US has nothing to brag about either. If the US really cared about stopping Russia, they should have stopped the genocide the Russians were doing in Chechnya. The fact that they led it happen enraged me. The US only cares when its profits are in question- come on, Siobhan, you already know this! And this is true of both Republicans and Democrats. And then they wonder why terrorism happens lol.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58172223

yes and stop the US atrocities at the same time.

Why didn't America stop the atrocities being done in Chechnya? That enraged me. If America actually cared they would have stopped Russia then and there. America only cares when its money is in danger. THAT is what war is all about. And THAT is why you have terrorism here.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58172158

You know that America is causing many/most of these atrocities with their drone strikes that kill thousands of innocent civilians right? And lying about it afterwards.

Not sitting back, but there are other ways to go about this that don't involve so much killing, torture, corrupt corporate mercenaries like Blackwater (yes all this started with Bush and Cheney but those who came later didn't exactly stop it) or "30 year wars" like what Leon Panetta wants. The fact is these groups arose because of America interventionism in the first place- even Saddam Hussein himself got into power because of the U.S. The whole war in Iraq was a farce, the consequences of which the world is paying for now. So learn a lesson about what intervening in the politics of other countries does and do not behave that way in the future.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58172073

See neither side can be trusted in that respect. One reason I like hactivists is that they bring out the truth- like Trump's connections to the mafia. Clinton is just as corrupt. Just not as dumb.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58172055

There is a reason both Trump and Clinton have the lowest ratings in candidate history. They're both awful. Of course Trump is wrong, but so is Clinton for being a war mongering pig. They have that in common.

The only one I'm supporting is Dr. Jill Stein and the Green Party. I've had enough of the pro-war pro-torture antics of both the Republicans and the Democrats. I hope they both lose- because if either of them win- the American people lose but especially the people of the world who will suffer unnecessary casualties and deaths in decades of wars. And don't be surprised when these wars cause more terrorist attacks rather than less. How else can one expect people to respond when they get their lives ruined?

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58171981

That's ironic of you to say that considering you completely missed my point. When I said there is no Russian propaganda to spread, I meant that everyone generally understands how horrible of an authoritarian regime that is- no amount of propaganda could change their minds. You, as usual, Siobhan, are trying to change the argument. No one is going to argue about Putin and Trump being bad, what you're missing is that the Clintons and the Democratic party in general are just as bad as they are. They have hired and have been endorsed by pro-war pro-torture schills - which makes them just as bad as Trump.

Violence only begets more violence.

I'm now a Green Party supporter, although I'm beginning to realize that George Washington was right for his disdain of ANY political party.

The questions concerning Clinton's warhawkism are real- and dispeccable Leon Panetta lies at the core of it with his "30 years war" propaganda and his trying to cover up torture at Gitmo and the shouting down of "No More War" chanters with faux-"patriotic" "USA" chants at the convention.

The funny thing is the DNC honored Panetta and yet Panetta spoke out against Obama in his book. If you want to find out why terrorism happens, it is a direct result of what America does overseas- and Panetta is part of the problem not part of the solution.

Putin is the reincarnation of Stalin. Wikileaks has leaked info on Trump too. I'd compare Trump to Hitler, except that would be insulting Hitler because Hitler was far smarter than Trump appears to be. Anonymous even made a video about Trump that included his personal information (including social security number) and info about Trump's tax returns that indicate the reason he won't release them is because it shows a link between Trump's real estate business and the mafia.

I love groups like Anonymous, Wikileaks, Greenpeace and Snowden; they show you what's really going on and how some bend over backwards for a buck.

I knew the instant that Clinton was backtracking from some of her progressive statements and saying she would "jail" Snowden (even though he warned the NSA 10 different times about what was going on) that she had something to hide and was afraid of getting "released." She shows it to this day even after Wasserman-Schultz was kicked out of the DNC by supporting her candidacy and hiring her. Bernie (who had nothing to hide) was much more direct. But the Democratic Party did him wrong and since both of these shams of political parties are corrupt, the Green Party is the best choice for people who actually have a conscience.

Answer: Clinton was there to support Wasserman-Schultz. That's enough for me to disavow HER. Go Green Party Go!

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58172266
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58172266

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58172194

A shill, also called a plant or a stooge, is a person who publicly helps or gives credibility to a person or organization that they have a close relationship with the person or organization. Shills can carry out their operations in the areas of media, journalism, marketing or other business areas. A shill may also act to discredit opponents or critics of the person or organization in which they have a vested interest through character assassination or other means.
Oh then you must also be referring to the paid Clinton schills who were attacking Bernie supporters online. Like I said, she's just as bad as the one's you're referring to.
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58172182

The chances of Trump ever winning are about 1 in 1 billion if that. As a matter of fact, considering how close he and the Clintons were just prior to the election, it's quite possible there is an agreement between them that led him to run in the first place and now he's acting like a crackpot to make sure that Clinton wins. Trump was never qualified to lead, but even he can't be this dumb to say the things he's been saying.

The chances of Trump ever winning are about 1 in 1 billion if that. As a matter of fact, considering how close he and the Clintons were just prior to the election, it's quite possible there is an agreement between them that led him to run in the first place and now he's acting like a crackpot to make sure that Clinton wins. Trump was never qualified to lead, but even he can't be this dumb to say the things he's been saying.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58172216

In the article, the police praised the actions of Assange in raising reward money. If anything they are left wingers, since Clinton is a pseudo-right winger lol.

The dad seems to agree with them:

Police have said they believe the motive was robbery, and that there is no evidence Rich's murder was connected to his work. But Rich's father has said the 4 a.m. murder, in which Rich was shot several times from behind, did not appear to be a robbery, as his son's wallet and watch were not taken.

When police found Rich, he was still conscious and breathing. He was transported to a hospital where he later died. No witnesses have come forward and police have no suspects. The WikiLeaks reward adds to a $25,000 reward posted by Washington police.

WikiLeaks’ email dump of DNC files, which embarrassed the party and showed possible collusion to block Bernie Sanders from the nomination, occurred 12 days after his death. Rich was the DNC’s director of voter expansion.

Washington Police Assistant Chief Peter Newsham said the department appreciates WikiLeaks offering of a reward.

“We're very pleased if anyone is going to assist us with giving reward money," Newsham added.

https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58172440

What Trump is doing is reducing the political process to that of some Banana Republic, with a Caudillo fixation. I can't believe how any American can still say that this creature should be allowed anywhere near the levers of power.
J

He may really have sunk himself this time. No one can say for sure what he meant, but the media has already condemned him.

Sadly we will likely be stuck with the scandalous and dishonest establishment Democrat as president. What a sad state of affairs.
I wouldn't be surprised if this was the Clinton-Trump plan all along. Like I said before, besides their suspicious friendship and reports of Clinton encouraging Trump to run in a phone call prior to the primary process, no one this rich could possibly be that dumb to say things like that.

 

 

Advertisements