De directeur van de National Intelligence (DNI), Clapper, die over alle geheime diensten gaat, zou hebben bedoeld dat het om 3 diensten ging, de CIA, de FBI en de NSA. Echter daar deze directeur over 17 diensten gaat, nam men aan, dat het de bevinding van 17 diensten was, dat Rusland de verkiezingen t.g.v. het beest Trump had beïnvloed........
De democratische kandidaat, hare kwaadaardigheid Clinton stelde dat er geen twijfel is als alle 17 diensten hetzelfde stellen..........
Eerlijk gezegd snap ik al niet, dat er nog iemand is, die ook maar gelooft wat welke geheime VS dienst dan ook verklaart, daarvoor hebben deze diensten, om het zachtjes te stellen, iets te vaak laten zien, dat liegen één van hun belangrijkste eigenschappen is..........
Het is dan ook aan politici als Koenders en Rutte en de reguliere westerse media te danken dat de leugens van de bedoelde VS diensten hier als waarheid worden verkocht.......
Hier kan nog het volgende punt bij opgeteld worden: NB de NSA heeft bewezen ingebroken in computers en telefoons van regeringen in het buitenland, zelfs van haar partners zoals Duitsland (en gegarandeerd ook in Nederland), m.a.w. de zwarte pot verwijt een niet zwarte ketel zwart te zijn!!! Daarnaast is de VS sinds 1945 verantwoordelijk voor een flink aantal staatsgrepen (ook voor 1940, 'maar goed....')......
Moet je nagaan, hoeveel onzinnige energie en hysterie er al in de valse claim is gestoken, dat Rusland alles en iedereen zou hacken en manipuleren........ Als gevolg waarvan men geen maatregelen nam, de boel beter te beveiligen, zo bleek onlangs weer met de 2 ransomware aanvallen.......
Benieuwd hoe lang figuren al Hubert Smeets, Rob de Wijk, Han ten Broeke (VVD hufter), Arend Jan Boekestijn (ook al VVD, maar dan een echte sufferd) en vele anderen uit de politiek en de reguliere westerse media, de leugen blijven volhouden dat Rusland de VS (en andere) verkiezingen heeft gemanipuleerd.......
New York Times and AP Finally Retract False Claims on Russia Hacking
July
2, 2017 at 7:54 am
Written
by Jason
Ditz
(ANTIWAR.COM) — Among
the most oft-repeated claims of the entire Russia election hacking
scandal is that of absolute unanimity among US intelligence agencies,
with media and politicians regularly claiming that “all
17 US intelligence agencies have agreed that Russia tried to
influence the 2016 election to benefit Donald Trump.”
It’s not true.
Nearly
a year into the hacking scandal, both the New
York Times and
the Associated
Press are
finally copping to the fact that this allegation is untrue, and
retracting it outright. The AP confirmed falsely making the claim in
at least four distinct articles, most
recently on Thursday.
What
actually happened? The Director of National Intelligence made the
allegation, claiming it was based on information from three US
agencies, the CIA, FBI, and NSA. The Director of National
Intelligence nominally represents all 17 intelligence agencies, and
that was quickly and incorrectly extrapolated into all 17 agencies
being in consensus.
In
practice, however, the DNI is an increasingly politicized office, and
their publications aren’t necessarily in line with actual reality,
let alone proof of a consensus among the intelligence agencies.
Indications are that the overwhelming majority of the US intelligence
agencies were never even involved in assessing the Russia hacks.
Nor
would they be expected to be. It would be bizarre if the Pentagon’s
intelligence agency, for example, was probing US elections, or if the
National Reconnaissance Office, which operates spy satellites looking
for missile launches, was chiming in on the Trump Campaign.
It
sounded better, particularly for those trying to make this into a
bigger scandal, however, to claim that “all 17” US intelligence
agencies had agreed on the narrative, because this would give the
impression that it’s indisputable fact, as opposed to a heavily
politically-motivated assertion backed up by limited circumstantial
evidence dug up by a couple of US spy agencies.
By Jason
Ditz /
Republished with permission / AntiWar.com / Report
a typo
===============================================
Hier een bericht van Information Clearting House, geschreven door Robert Parry, dat iets uitgebreider bericht over deze zaak (onder dat artikel kan u klikken voor 'een Dutch vertaling'):
That, in turn, plays into Trump’s Twitter complaints that he and his administration are the targets of a “witch hunt” led by the “fake news” media, a grievance that appears to be energizing his supporters and could discredit whatever ongoing investigations eventually conclude.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com).
===============================================
Hier een bericht van Information Clearting House, geschreven door Robert Parry, dat iets uitgebreider bericht over deze zaak (onder dat artikel kan u klikken voor 'een Dutch vertaling'):
NYT
Finally Retracts Russia-gate Canard
A founding Russia-gate myth is that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies agreed that Russia hacked into and distributed Democratic emails, a falsehood that The New York Times has belatedly retracted, reports Robert Parry.
By Robert Parry
A founding Russia-gate myth is that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies agreed that Russia hacked into and distributed Democratic emails, a falsehood that The New York Times has belatedly retracted, reports Robert Parry.
By Robert Parry
June
30, 2017 "Information
Clearing House" - The New York Times has finally admitted
that one of the favorite Russia-gate canards – that all 17 U.S.
intelligence agencies concurred on the assessment of Russian hacking
of Democratic emails – is false.
On
Thursday, the Times appended a
correction to a June 25 article that
had repeated the false claim, which has been used by Democrats and
the mainstream media for months to brush aside any doubts about the
foundation of the Russia-gate scandal and portray President Trump as
delusional for doubting what all 17 intelligence agencies supposedly
knew to be true.
In
the Times’ White House Memo of June 25, correspondent Maggie
Haberman mocked Trump for “still refus[ing] to acknowledge a basic
fact agreed upon by 17 American intelligence agencies that he now
oversees: Russia orchestrated the attacks, and did it to help get him
elected.”
However,
on Thursday, the Times – while leaving most of Haberman’s
ridicule of Trump in place – noted in a correction that the
relevant intelligence “assessment was made by four intelligence
agencies — the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the
Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and
the National Security Agency. The assessment was not approved by all
17 organizations in the American intelligence community.”
The
Times’ grudging correction was vindication for some Russia-gate
skeptics who had questioned the claim of a full-scale intelligence
assessment, which would usually take the form of a National
Intelligence Estimate (or NIE), a product that seeks out the views of
the entire Intelligence Community and includes dissents.
The
reality of a more narrowly based Russia-gate assessment
was admitted in
May by President Obama’s Director of National Intelligence James
Clapper and Obama’s CIA Director John Brennan in sworn
congressional testimony.
Clapper testified before
a Senate Judiciary subcommittee on May 8 that the Russia-hacking
claim came from a “special intelligence community assessment” (or
ICA) produced by selected analysts from the CIA, NSA and FBI, “a
coordinated product from three agencies – CIA, NSA, and the FBI –
not all 17 components of the intelligence community,” the former
DNI said.
Clapper
further acknowledged that the analysts who produced the Jan. 6
assessment on alleged Russian hacking were “hand-picked” from the
CIA, FBI and NSA.
Yet,
as any intelligence expert will tell you, if you “hand-pick” the
analysts, you are really hand-picking the conclusion. For instance,
if the analysts were known to be hard-liners on Russia or supporters
of Hillary Clinton, they could be expected to deliver the one-sided
report that
they did.
Politicized
Intelligence
In
the history of U.S. intelligence, we have seen how this selective
approach has worked, such as the phony determination of the Reagan
administration pinning the attempted assassination of Pope John Paul
II and other acts of terror on the Soviet Union.
CIA
Director William Casey and Deputy Director Robert Gates shepherded
the desired findings through the process by
putting the assessment under the control of pliable analysts and
sidelining those who objected to this politicization of intelligence.
The
point of enlisting the broader intelligence community – and
incorporating dissents into a final report – is to guard against
such “stove-piping” of intelligence that delivers the politically
desired result but ultimately distorts reality.
Another
painful example of politicized intelligence was President George W.
Bush’s 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq’s WMD
that removed
State Department and other dissents from
the declassified version that was given to the public.
Since
Clapper’s and Brennan’s testimony in May, the Times and other
mainstream news outlets have avoided a direct contradiction of their
earlier acceptance of the 17-intelligence-agencies canard by simply
referring to a judgment by “the intelligence community.”
That
finessing of their earlier errors has allowed Hillary Clinton and
other senior Democrats to continue referencing this fictional
consensus without challenge, at least in the mainstream media.
For
instance, on May 31 at a technology conference in California, Clinton
referred to
the Jan. 6 report,
asserting that “Seventeen agencies, all in agreement, which I know
from my experience as a Senator and Secretary of State, is hard to
get. They concluded with high confidence that the Russians ran an
extensive information war campaign against my campaign, to influence
voters in the election.”
The
failure of the major news organizations to clarify this point about
the 17 agencies may have contributed to Haberman’s mistake on June
25 as she simply repeated the groupthink that nearly all the
Important People in Washington just knew to be true.
But
the Times’ belated correction also underscores the growing sense
that the U.S. mainstream media has joined in a political vendetta
against Trump and has cast aside professional standards to the point
of repeating false claims designed to denigrate him.
That, in turn, plays into Trump’s Twitter complaints that he and his administration are the targets of a “witch hunt” led by the “fake news” media, a grievance that appears to be energizing his supporters and could discredit whatever ongoing investigations eventually conclude.
Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com).
Click
for Spanish, German, Dutch, Danish, French,
translation- Note- Translation
may take a moment to load
==============================
Op 18 december 2017 heb ik de kop en een het label AP aangepast. Waar eerder AP stond, staat nu Ass. Press, (Associated Press), daar de letters 'AP' al werden gebruikt voor de Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens.
==============================
Op 18 december 2017 heb ik de kop en een het label AP aangepast. Waar eerder AP stond, staat nu Ass. Press, (Associated Press), daar de letters 'AP' al werden gebruikt voor de Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens.
Geen opmerkingen:
Een reactie posten