***Fundraising - Fundraising
begins today, the 15th and believe me when I say we need it, due to
serious harassment. I am now on my third computer so far this month.
If not for the generosity of my computer guy who reads the blog, I would
probably be out of business with it. He has absorbed all costs so far
to these problems. He has secured our current computer cryptically and
so far we are still in business.
Our deficit is $350 and is needed by the first
of the month. If you can afford it and wish to aid us as a team to
take on exposing the underbelly of the NWO beast, then we ask that you
donate to the cause off to the right of the blog at the pay pal button
showing. We appreciate you support in reading, distributing and
contributing financially to this blog.
Vatic Note: They not only "appreciate" the dangers of escalating but planned it so that they could do as the Bilderbergs instructed them to do and that was to continue on with WW III preparations and justifications using false flags, just like the Bay of Tonkin and most other wars false flags. This is nothing new and one of the Internationalist khazar Zionist Rothschild Bankers favorite tools or I should say "Deceptions" for starting wars that can be blamed on someone else.
If they start WW III, then that should be our signal to begin fighting these bankers in every single country on the planet. Grassroots should not fight any other victimed grassroots of any other country, since all leaders are in on it, rather they should fight those doggone bankers. That would stop this farce from happening every so many decades used to bail out the fiat currency system and make the bankers rich.
As we have shown on here many times, we, the United States, are the designated losers of WW III. Israel, as our ally is also the designated loser of WW III and that is why they bought up Petagonia in South America. This is what happens when everyone on both sides are in on the decision in advance as to who will win the war. They did this in WW I, WW II, and now WW III.
Remember, for this to work, the "people" had to overthrow their government and did so, and then proceeded to lose the war. Rape and pillage of the nations wealth came next after losing the war. That is what is planned to happen to us.
Lets fool them and not revolt, rather lets start our own government under the Constitution and use our unorganized militia as our military. Then we can defend the Constitution and clean out the foreign occupiers of our government, and get back to being the once great country we once were. Only this time we best do what is morally right and pay attention better than we have in the past.
Veteran US Intelligence Analysts to Obama: Provide Evidence or Stop Lying About Malaysia Plane Crash
http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2014/july/31/veteran-us-intelligence-analysts-to-obama-provide-evidence-or-stop-lying-about-malaysia-plane-crash.aspx
by Ron Paul Institute, July 31, 2014
MEMORANDUM FOR: The President
FROM: Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS)
SUBJECT: Intelligence on Shoot-Down of Malaysian Plane
Executive Summary
U.S.–Russian intensions are building in a precarious way over Ukraine,
and we are far from certain that your advisers fully appreciate the
danger of escalation. The New York Times and other media outlets are
treating sensitive issues in dispute as flat-fact, taking their cue from
U.S. government sources.
Twelve days after the shoot-down of
Malaysian Airlines Flight 17, your administration still has issued no
coordinated intelligence assessment summarizing what evidence exists to
determine
who was responsible – much less to
convincingly support repeated claims that the plane was downed by a
Russian-supplied missile in the hands of Ukrainian separatists.
Your administration has not provided any satellite imagery showing that
the separatists had such weaponry, and there are several other “dogs
that have not barked.”
Washington’s credibility, and your own,
will continue to erode, should you be unwilling – or unable – to present
more tangible evidence behind administration claims. In what
follows, we put this in the perspective of former intelligence
professionals with a cumulative total of 260 years in various parts of
U.S. intelligence:
We, the undersigned former intelligence
officers want to share with you our concern about the evidence adduced
so far to blame Russia for the July 17 downing of Malaysian Airlines
Flight 17. We are retired from government service and none of us is on
the payroll of CNN, Fox News, or any other outlet. We intend this
memorandum to provide a fresh, different perspective.
As
veteran intelligence analysts accustomed to waiting, except in emergency
circumstances, for conclusive information before rushing to judgment,
we believe that the charges against Russia should be rooted in solid,
far more convincing evidence.
And that goes in spades with respect to inflammatory incidents like the
shoot-down of an airliner. We are also troubled by the
amateurish manner in which fuzzy and flimsy evidence has been served up – some it via “social media.”
As intelligence professionals we are embarrassed by the unprofessional use of partial intelligence information.
As Americans, we find ourselves hoping that, if you indeed have more
conclusive evidence, you will find a way to make it public without
further delay. In charging Russia with being directly or indirectly
responsible, Secretary of State John Kerry has been particularly
definitive. Not so the evidence. His statements seem premature and bear
earmarks of an
attempt to “poison the jury pool.”
Painting Russia Black
We see an
eerie resemblance to
an earlier exercise in U.S. “public diplomacy” from which valuable
lessons can be learned by those more interested in the truth than in
exploiting tragic incidents for propaganda advantage. We refer to the
behavior of the Reagan administration in the immediate aftermath of the
shoot-down of Korean Airlines Flight 007 over Siberia on August 30, 1983.
We sketch out below a short summary of that tragic affair, since we
suspect you have not been adequately briefed on it. The parallels will
be obvious to you.
An advantage of our long tenure as
intelligence officers is that we remember what we have witnessed first
hand; seldom do we forget key events in which we played an analyst or
other role. To put it another way, most of us “know exactly where we
were” when a Soviet fighter aircraft shot down Korean Airlines passenger
flight 007 over Siberia on August 30, 1983, over 30 years ago. At the
time, we were intelligence officers on “active duty.” You were 21; many
of those around you today were still younger.
Thus, it seems
possible that you may be learning how the KAL007 affair went down, so to
speak, for the first time; that you may now become more aware of the
serious implications for U.S.-Russian relations regarding how the
downing of Flight 17 goes down; and that you will come to see merit in
preventing ties with Moscow from falling into a state of complete
disrepair. In our view,
the strategic danger here dwarfs all other considerations.
Hours after the tragic shoot-down on Aug. 30, 1983, the Reagan
administration used its very accomplished propaganda machine to twist
the available intelligence on Soviet culpability for the killing of all
269 people aboard KAL007. The airliner was shot down after it strayed
hundreds of miles off course and penetrated Russia’s airspace over
sensitive military facilities in Kamchatka and Sakhalin Island. The
Soviet pilot tried to signal the plane to land, but the KAL pilots did
not respond to the repeated warnings. Amid confusion about the plane’s
identity – a U.S. spy plane had been in the vicinity hours earlier –
Soviet ground control ordered the pilot to fire.
The Soviets
soon realized they had made a horrendous mistake. U.S. intelligence also
knew from sensitive intercepts that the tragedy had resulted from a
blunder, not from a willful act of murder (much as on July 3, 1988, the
USS Vincennes shot down an Iranian civilian airliner over the Persian
Gulf, killing 290 people, an act which President Ronald Reagan
dismissively explained as an “understandable accident”).
To make the very blackest case against Moscow for shooting down the KAL airliner, the Reagan administration s
uppressed exculpatory evidence from U.S. electronic intercepts. Washington’s mantra became “Moscow’s deliberate downing of a civilian passenger plane.”
Newsweek ran a cover emblazoned with the headline “Murder in the Sky.” (Apparently, not much has changed;
Time’s cover
this week features “Cold War II” and “Putin’s dangerous game.” The
cover story by Simon Shuster, “In Russia, Crime Without Punishment,”
would merit an A-plus in William Randolph Hearst’s course “
Yellow Journalism 101.”)
When KAL007 was shot down, Alvin A. Snyder, director of the U.S.
Information Agency’s television and film division, was enlisted in a
concerted effort to “heap as much abuse on the Soviet Union as
possible,” as Snyder writes in his 1995 book, “Warriors of
Disinformation.”
He and his colleagues also earned an A-plus
for bringing the “mainstream media” along. For example, ABC’s Ted Koppel
noted with patriotic pride, “This has been one of those occasions when
there is very little difference between what is churned out by the U.S.
government propaganda organs and by the commercial broadcasting
networks.”
“Fixing” the Intelligence Around the Policy
“The perception we wanted to convey was that the Soviet Union had
cold-bloodedly carried out a barbaric act,” wrote Snyder, adding that
the Reagan administration went so far as to present a doctored
transcript of the intercepts to the United Nations Security Council on
September 6, 1983.
Only a decade later, when Snyder saw the
complete transcripts — including the portions that the Reagan
administration had hidden — would he fully realize how many of the
central elements of the U.S. presentation were false.
The
intercepts showed that the Soviet fighter pilot believed he was pursuing
a U.S. spy aircraft and that he was having trouble in the dark
identifying the plane. Per instructions from ground control, the pilot
had circled the KAL airliner and tilted his wings to order the aircraft
to land. The pilot said he fired warning shots, as well. This
information “was not on the tape we were provided,” Snyder wrote.
It became abundantly clear to Snyder that, in smearing the Soviets, the
Reagan
administration had presented false accusations to the United Nations,
as well as to the people of the United States and the world. In
his book, Snyder acknowledged his own role in the deception, but drew a
cynical conclusion. He wrote, “The moral of the story is that all
governments, including our own, lie when it suits their purposes. The
key is to lie first.”
The tortured attempts by your
administration and stenographers in the media to blame Russia for the
downing of Flight 17, together with John Kerry’s unenviable record for
credibility, lead us to the reluctant conclusion that the syndrome
Snyder describes may also be at work in your own administration; that
is, that
an ethos of “getting your own lie out first” has replaced “ye shall know the truth.” At a minimum, we believe Secretary Kerry displayed unseemly haste in his determination to be first out of the starting gate.
Both Sides Cannot Be Telling the Truth
We have always taken pride in not shooting from the hip, but rather in
doing intelligence analysis that is evidence-based. The evidence
released to date does not bear close scrutiny; it does not permit a
judgment as to which side is lying about the shoot-down of Flight 17.
Our
entire professional experience would incline us to suspect the Russians
– almost instinctively. Our more recent experience, particularly
observing Secretary Kerry injudiciousness in latching onto one spurious
report after another as “evidence,” has gone a long way toward balancing
our earlier predispositions.
It seems that whenever Kerry does cite supposed “evidence” that can be checked –
like the forged anti-Semitic fliers distributed in eastern Ukraine or
the photos of alleged Russian special forces soldiers who allegedly
slipped into Ukraine –
the “proof” goes “poof” as Kerry once said in a different context. Still, these misrepresentations seem small peccadillos compared with
bigger whoppers like
the claim Kerry made on Aug. 30, 2013, no fewer than 35 times, that “we
know” the government of Bashar al-Assad was responsible for the
chemical incidents near Damascus nine days before.
On September
3, 2013 – following your decision to call off the attack on Syria in
order to await Congressional authorization – Kerry was still pushing for
an attack in testimony before a thoroughly sympathetic Senate Foreign
Affairs Committee. On the following day Kerry drew highly unusual
personal criticism from President Putin, who said: “He is lying, and he
knows he is lying. It is sad.”
Equally serious, during the
first week of September 2013, as you and President Vladimir Putin were
putting the final touches to the deal whereby Syrian chemical weapons
would be given up for destruction, John Kerry said something that
puzzles us to this day. On September 9, 2013, Kerry was in London, still
promoting a U.S. attack on Syria for having crossed the “Red Line” you
had set against Syria’s using chemical weapons.
At a formal
press conference, Kerry abruptly dismissed the possibility that Bashar
al-Assad would ever give up his chemical weapons, saying, “He isn’t
about to do that; it can’t be done.” Just a few hours later, the
Russians and Syrians announced Syria’s agreement to do precisely what
Kerry had ruled out as impossible. You sent him back to Geneva to sign
the agreement, and it was formally concluded on September 14.
Regarding the Malaysia Airlines shoot-down of July 17,
we
believe Kerry has typically rushed to judgment and that his incredible
record for credibility poses a huge disadvantage in the diplomatic and
propaganda maneuvering vis-a-vis Russia. We suggest you call a
halt to this misbegotten “public diplomacy” offensive. If, however, you
decide to press on anyway, we suggest you try to find a less tarnished
statesman or woman.
A Choice Between Two
If the intelligence on the shoot-down is as weak as it appears judging from the fuzzy scraps that have been released,
we strongly suggest you call off the propaganda war and await the findings of those charged with investigating the
shoot-down. If, on the other hand, your administration has more
concrete, probative intelligence, we strongly suggest that you consider
approving it for release,
even if there may be some risk of
damage to “sources and methods.” Too often this consideration is used to
prevent information from entering the public domain where, as in this
case, it belongs.
There have been critical junctures
in the past in which presidents have recognized the need to waive
secrecy in order to show what one might call “a decent respect for the
opinions of mankind” or even to justify military action.
As senior CIA veteran Milton Bearden has put it,
there
are occasions when more damage is done to U.S. national security by
“protecting” sources and methods than by revealing them. For
instance, Bearden noted that Ronald Reagan exposed a sensitive
intelligence source in showing a skeptical world the reason for the U.S.
attack on Libya in retaliation for the April 5, 1986 bombing at the La
Belle Disco in West Berlin. That bombing killed two U.S. servicemen and a
Turkish woman, and injured over 200 people, including 79 U.S.
servicemen.
Intercepted messages between Tripoli and agents in
Europe made it clear that Libya was behind the attack. Here’s an
excerpt: “At 1:30 in the morning one of the acts was carried out with
success, without leaving a trace behind.”
Ten days after the
bombing the U.S. retaliated, sending over 60 Air Force fighters to
strike the Libyan capital of Tripoli and the city of Benghazi. The
operation was widely seen as an attempt to kill Colonel Muammar Gaddafi,
who survived, but his adopted 15-month-old daughter was killed in the
bombing, along with at least 15 other civilians.
Three decades
ago, there was more shame attached to the killing of children. As world
abhorrence grew after the U.S. bombing strikes, the Reagan
administration produced the intercepted, decoded message sent by the
Libyan Peoples Bureau in East Berlin acknowledging the “success” of the
attack on the disco, and adding the ironically inaccurate boast “without
leaving a trace behind.”
The Reagan administration made the
decision to give up a highly sensitive intelligence source, its ability
to intercept and decipher Libyan communications. But once the rest of
the world absorbed this evidence, international grumbling subsided and
many considered the retaliation against Tripoli justified.
If You’ve Got the Goods…
If the U.S. has more convincing evidence than what has so far been
adduced concerning responsibility for shooting down Flight 17, we
believe it would be best to find a way to make that intelligence public –
even at the risk of compromising “sources and methods.” Moreover, we
suggest you instruct your subordinates
not to cheapen U.S. credibility by releasing key information via social medialike Twitter and Facebook.
The reputation of the messenger for credibility is also key in this
area of “public diplomacy.” As is by now clear to you, in our view
Secretary Kerry is more liability than asset in this regard. Similarly,
with regard to Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, his
March 12, 2013 Congressional testimony under oath to what he later
admitted were “clearly erroneous” things regarding NSA collection should
disqualify him.
Clapper should be kept at far remove from the Flight 17 affair.
What is needed, if you’ve got the goods, is an Interagency Intelligence
Assessment – the genre used in the past to lay out the intelligence.
We
are hearing indirectly from some of our former colleagues that what
Secretary Kerry is peddling does not square with the real intelligence.
Such was the case late last August, when Kerry created a unique vehicle
he called a “Government (not Intelligence) Assessment” blaming, with no
verifiable evidence, Bashar al-Assad for the chemical attacks near
Damascus, as honest intelligence analysts refused to go along and,
instead, held their noses.
We believe you need to seek out
honest intelligence analysts now and hear them out. Then, you may be
persuaded to take steps to
curb the risk that relations with Russia might escalate from “Cold War II” into an armed confrontation.
In all candor, we see little reason to believe that Secretary Kerry and
your other advisers appreciate the enormity of that danger.
In our most recent (May 4)
memorandum to
you, Mr. President, we cautioned that if the U.S. wished “to stop a
bloody civil war between east and west Ukraine and avert Russian
military intervention in eastern Ukraine, you may be able to do so
before the violence hurtles completely out of control.” On July 17, you
joined the top leaders of Germany, France, and Russia in calling for a
ceasefire. Most informed observers believe you have it in your power to
get Ukrainian leaders to agree. The longer Kiev continues its offensive
against separatists in eastern Ukraine, the more such U.S. statements
appear hypocritical.
We reiterate our recommendations of May 4,
that you remove the seeds of this confrontation by publicly disavowing
any wish to incorporate Ukraine into NATO and that you make it clear
that you are prepared to meet personally with Russian President Putin
without delay to discuss ways to defuse the crisis and recognize the
legitimate interests of the various parties. The suggestion of an early
summit got extraordinary resonance in controlled and independent Russian
media. Not so in “mainstream” media in the U.S. Nor did we hear back
from you.
The courtesy of a reply is requested.
Prepared by VIPS Steering Group
William Binney, former Technical Director, World Geopolitical &
Military Analysis, NSA; co-founder, SIGINT Automation Research Center
(ret.)
Larry Johnson, CIA & State Department (ret.)
Edward Loomis, NSA, Cryptologic Computer Scientist (ret.)
David MacMichael, National Intelligence Council (ret.)
Ray McGovern, former US Army infantry/intelligence officer & CIA analyst (ret.)
Elizabeth Murray, Deputy National Intelligence Officer for Middle East (ret.)
Coleen Rowley, Division Counsel & Special Agent, FBI (ret.)
Peter Van Buren, U.S. Department of State, Foreign Service Officer (ret)
Ann Wright, Col., US Army (ret); Foreign Service Officer (ret.)
The article is reproduced in accordance with Section 107 of title 17 of the Copyright Law of the United States relating to fair-use and is for the purposes of criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research.
INSTITUTE FOR HISTORICAL REVIEW 
