Archive | CIA RSS feed for this section

Is the CIA too biased to run the re-education camp?

14 Dec
Published yesterday at Breitbart.

“I can see Russia from my mouse!”

Thus the epitaph for Senator Hillary Clinton’s political career (unless she follows Anthony Weiner, as some rumor she will, in running for Mayor of New York), and indeed for the Clinton dynasty is basically a line stolen from Tina Fey’s mockery of Governor Sarah Palin.
With The View’s Joy Behar telling her  audience of housekeepers and the unemployed that Donald Trump plans to put the hammer and sickle on the American flag, it is perhaps best to quote Karl Marx: “History repeats itself, first as tragedy, then as farce.”
Hillary’s tenure as Secretary of State produced many tragedies; her last campaign for president ends in farce.
Hillary has competed and been rejected twice now; more if you include the race for Bill’s affections.
Team Hillary’s latest plot is to have the Electoral College rounded up and forced to have Democratic Party approved re-education.
It seems they have been unduly influenced by the very same Russian government that in 2012 President Obama pronounced irrelevant when he mocked Mitt Romney: “The 1980’s called; they want their foreign policy back.”
For a while the Democrats were sitting back and waiting for the recounts instigated and fund raised by Green Party Presidential candidate Jill Stein to save them.  Word is still out on whether Dr. Stein will now be buying an even bigger vacation home than Senator Bernie Sanders.  But the Democrats now have proof that Dr. Jill is also a Russian agent and her recount Russian funded – after all, it actually produced bigger margins for Donald Trump!
Clinton campaign chair John Podesta, a lobbyist who profits from steering legislation (his ex wife even represents a for profit university that the federal government did not crack down on, while it did bankrupt I.T.T., a major competitor), wants the Electoral College “briefed” with the correct information about how Russia stole the election from Hillary, according to unnamed persons within the CIA.
One problem for the Clinton narrative is that a Wikileaks associate who is a former British Ambassador, Craig Murray, has now come forward and said the information that Wikileaks published about how the DNC rigged its primaries, etc, was leaked not hacked, and the leaker was not Russian.
Another problem is that the FBI and other intelligence agencies do not agree with the CIA conclusions.
A third problem, observed by independent journalists on the left, like the always informative Michael Tracey, is that the information leaked about Hillary and the Democrats was all true, even if the mainstream media did their best to hide it from the public.
This led to me to reflect on my own experiences, as a long term D.C. resident, with CIA agents and affiliates.
I live in Washington, D.C., where for many years I was a very active realtor. (I worked in both a boutique firm where I was for years the top sales agent, and also in the largest ReMax franchise where one year I won the annual award for the most sales by a sole practitioner.)
Some of my clients, including my repeat clients, were employed at the CIA.
All of my CIA clients were liberal Democrats. I liked them. (My particular CIA clients were all also either women or gay). It’s Washington, D.C., which voted over 90% for Hillary, and 4% for Donald Trump, so it’s not surprising that my CIA clients were also liberal Democrats.
One of my CIA clients bought a house from me in Foxhall Village, a neighborhood just west of Georgetown University, where I lived for a time. The night Kerry was not elected I fell asleep on an enclosed sun porch in a chair in front of the television, thinking John Kerry had been elected.
I awoke to banging on my back door. My CIA client and neighbor was beating on my door, distraught. She had a bottle of white wine. New votes were in, Bush was winning, and she needed to watch the coverage with someone and have a drink she was so upset.  (My liberal clients routinely assumed I was a liberal before I started writing about politics because I am gay.)  (Years later the same client was very proud she went to the White House and did the daily briefing on the middle east one day for President Obama.)
So I thought I’d look at the OpenSecrets site and see to which candidates CIA agents donate.

Of course, most CIA employees do not tell you that’s what they are. They usually say they work for the government. If you dig, sometimes that say they work for the Foreign Broadcast Information Service or some other agency connected to foreign affairs.
But there are people who have donated over $200 to a candidate and listed their employer as the CIA or the Central Intelligence Agency.
If you look them up by employer on OpenSecrets.org for the 2016 election cycle, what you find are donations by CIA employees or people who say they are retired from the CIA.
There is one donation to Ted Cruz.
There are a couple to Donald Trump.
There are almost a dozen to Marco Rubio.
There are a couple not to Gary Johnson but to the Libertarian National Committee.
And there are dozens both to Hillary Clinton and also to the Democratic National Committee.
Are these the people John Podesta wants to have run the re-education camps for the Electoral College?

On tortured reasoning

11 Dec
A note for liberaltarians on the politically motivated and timed release of the Congressional hearings on the CIA:

“Do you seriously think torturing people is funny?”

No but I don’t think water boarding is torture.

I think torture is something that leaves permanent physical, or perhaps mental, damage. Not pain or emotional distress. And it doesn’t matter if the UN or national governments or treaties have some other definition.
I think that’s why they have to use equivocal phrases like enhanced interrogation techniques – it’s not actually torture. Loud music and sleep deprivation aren’t torture. If these people were innocents or not captured on a battlefield then even detaining them would be a crime. But they are part of a terrorist cell, so detaining them and playing loud music at them is not criminal if they are guilty.
So if you liberaltarians want me to take you seriously you have to do two things: 1) don’t complain that bloodthirsty savage Islamofascists are being made uncomfortable, complain only that you want them to be tried first; and 2) denounce the retarded Obamanoid and leftover memes that go on and on about the terrible torture of these bastards while overlooking Obama drones that kill suspected terrorists instead of detaining them and “torturing” them, drones that also kill entire families, wedding parties, bazaars etc of innocent people near them.
I hear statistics often on what high percentages of those released have returned to working with terrorist groups. I understand some of them may be attracted to those groups because their experience with the U.S. military has made them anti-imperialist. If they join groups that behead humanitarian aid workers I feel nothing for them, even with that explanation.
Virtually all “progressive” memes on this overlook Obama droning even when the question is put to them as it was at yesterday’s White House press conference. Additionally, to the charge that some innocents have been “renditioned,” which would be horrific, I would ask if legal and penal systems should be scrapped (as opposed to reformed) because sometimes an innocent person is convicted. And also if not having interrogation means the regime uses drones instead and kills more innocent people than it would if it instead detained and interrogated its targets.

By the way, one curious aspect of the allegation that numerous detainees were innocent and not part of terrorist groups originally, even if they joined them after being released – why have so few of them appeared in interviews after release on MSNBC, Al Jazeera, or RT describing their ordeal?

Before Obama Wagged the Dog Today: Whistleblower James Bamford on the History of the NSA

17 Jan
President Obama just finished a long, long disquisition on the NSA, which most critics viewed as an attempt to distract from this week’s revelations about his Benghazi cover up, the continued economic crisis, and Obama’s plummet in the polls.


James Bamford, an earlier NSA whisteblower, gave a great talk about the NSA at the National Press Club last night. In questions afterwards he stated that Obama was worse than Bush on civil liberties, we now live in a turnkey totalitarian state where everything is set up to turn on totalitarian control at any time, and that the left is mainly silent because Democrats are elected. It will be on C Span soon.

 
Local Libertarian Jason Scheurer is writing it up for publication later today maybe at Breitbart.  Here is Jason asking a question.

(If you are still seeing this note, we are still uploading video so come back again later.)





Government Failure and 9/11

11 Sep
(The author is a personal friend.)

Pipeline News ^ | 10 July 2004 | Janet McElligott 


Washington, DC – PipeLineNews – Bill Clinton’s My Life memoir is being hawked as part confessional and part policy tome. I had hoped that, at least as far as the historical reflections on terrorism and his eight-year presidency was concerned, it would at least be partly factual.

Instead, “My Life,” which The New York Times described as, “sloppy, self- indulgent and eye-crossingly dull” is at odds with the record as it is developing. The book contradicts the findings of the Sept. 11 commission, Clinton’s own prior admissions on a myriad of issues and, using my own knowledge of his administration’s dealings – or lack thereof – with the Sudanese regarding Osama bin-Laden case.

I know the last point to be true because I witnessed it firsthand.

In 1996, I became what Vanity Fair magazine called in January 2002, the bin-Laden case’s “accidental emissary,” because I ended up in the position of shuttling between the FBI and representatives of the Sudanese intelligence service.

This was not a role I sought; rather, it all came about because I was in Sudan trying to arrange to bring its ancient treasures from the Meroe pyramids – known as the Gold of Queen Amanishakhete – to the United States for a public tour.

Queen Amanishakhete lived during Sudan’s Kush period, in 4th century B.C. At the end of the 19th century, European explorers uncovered artifacts to what may be the world’s most powerful matriarchal dynasties, which is what drew me to Sudan initially.

What kept me coming back was trying to stop Osama bin-Laden.

Gutbi el Mahdi, the chief of Sudanese intelligence, had placed bin-Laden and all his guests under close surveillance when they began developing close ties with known Egyptian terrorist groups.
Gutbi personally read every fax, phone transcript and daily report on activities where bin-Laden was concerned.

When the Clinton administration demanded that Sudan expel bin-Laden – which took place on May 18, 1996 – the Sudanese knew that a refusal to cooperate could have dire consequences. The demand for expulsion had first been raised in early 1996 by U.S. Ambassador Tim Carney, a respected career diplomat.

On Carney’s last night in Sudan – Feb. 6, 1996 – he was invited to the home of Foreign Minister Ali Osman M. Taha, who asked Carney what could be done to dissuade the United States from its hard-line view on Sudan.

It was at this dinner that a substantive discussion between the two countries on terrorism occurred. This resulted in the Sudanese government beginning, for the first time, to consider handing Osama bin-Laden over to the U.S. authorities.

Seeking to pursue this option, the Sudanese sent their State Minister of Defense, Maj. Gen. Elfatih Erwa, to Washington in March 1996.

Erwa believed he could reason with the administration. At a hotel in Rosslyn, Va., just across the river from Georgetown, he participated in a meeting with David Shinn, chief of the State Department’s Africa Desk, Carney and other U.S. government officials.

Unfortunately, they were not – as Erwa hoped – willing to listen. Instead, they handed him a memorandum dated March 8, 1996, that outlined a list of U.S. demands of the Sudanese.

Item No. 2 on the list was a demand for information about bin-Laden.

Intead, Erwa offered to hand bin-Laden to the United States on a silver platter – just as the Sudanese had done when the gave Carlos the Jackal to the French – but the representatives of the United States told Erwa the United States only wanted bin-Laden out of Sudan.

Clinton himself confirmed this on Feb. 15, 2002, while speaking in Woodbury, N.Y. Asked about terrorism, Clinton said: “We tried to be quite aggressive with (terrorists). We got — uh — well, Mr. bin-Laden used to live in Sudan. He was expelled from Saudi Arabia in 1991, and then he went to Sudan. And we’d been hearing that the Sudanese wanted America to start dealing with them again.

“They released him. At the time, 1996, he had committed no crime against America so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him, though we knew he wanted to commit crimes against America. So I pleaded with the Saudis to take him, ’cause they could have. But they thought it was a hot potato and they didn’t and that’s how he wound up in Afghanistan.”

After the United States bombed Sudan’s only pharmaceutical plant, El Shifa, in August of 1998 in response to the leveling of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania by al-Qaida, I flew to Khartoum with Dr. Bob Arnott, then the chief medical correspondent for NBC.

We landed in Khartoum with a German cameraman, an Egyptian soundman and plenty of questions for the Sudanese about Clinton’s accusations that El Shifa was a chemical weapons facility with connections to bin-Laden.

We found that the United States had fired six cruise missiles at the El Shifra facility. One hit the administration building, one the loading dock, one the bottling plant, one the storeroom, one the hallway and one was a dud.

The plant was still burning when we arrived. Surveying the damage, Sudanese Interior Minister Abdul Rahim M. Hussein said to us: “It is amazing what America can do. I wish we could do this, we might be able to end our civil war, but we can’t fight this. Mr. Clinton could kill every Sudanese and we could do nothing to stop him.”

Days before the two U.S. embassies in Africa were destroyed, two men deplaned from Kenya Air Flight 322, traveling between Nairobi and Cairo, when it landed in Khartoum. Gutbi had the two men watched because they used the name of bin-Laden’s former tannery manager as the reference on their visa applications.

Gutbi had them followed and, when they attempted to rent an apartment overlooking the empty U.S. Embassy in Khartoum, had them arrested.

During their interrogations, the Sudanese learned the men were Afghan Arabs traveling on illegal Pakistani passports who had just come from the Hilltop Hotel in Kenya, where the operatives who attacked the U.S. Embassy in Nairobi had stayed. The men were carrying lots of cash and their passports were full of stamps indicating they had been in and out of the world’s major banking centers.

All the pieces fell into place, Gutbi told me later, after the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were demolished. He called me and said, “Tell your people we have something for them but they have to go to Khartoum to get it.”

By “your people,” he meant only one thing, the FBI.

I contacted an agent who, coincidentally enough, had been selected for the team being sent to Nairobi to investigate the embassy bombings. He said he would “run it up the flagpole.” He wanted more details, specifically what I thought the message really meant. I could only tell him that the head of Sudanese intelligence didn’t call me everyday. It had to be something “big,” because Gutbi had risked a phone call.

In spite of the rather cryptic invitation, the FBI was eager to go to Khartoum, my agent contact said, because its objective was to follow every lead and bring the terrorists to justice.

The effort ground to a halt, however, when – unbelievably – the U.S. State Department refused to permit the FBI to travel to Khartoum.

It was not one of the United States’ brighter moments.

FBI Director Louis Freeh was on the outs with the Clinton White House because he had pushed ahead with an investigation of campaign fundraising. No one in the administration was going to go out on a limb for the FBI.

Shortly after the request was denied, Secretary of State Madeline Albright declared, “We do not deal with terrorists,” publicly referring the Sudanese who were, at that time, on the department’s list of state terror sponsors.

Gutbi held onto the two al-Qaida members in his custody while others in the government would not let him engage in an attempt to hand them over to the United States directly. They remained in Sudanese custody until Sept. 4, 1998, when they were handed over to the ISI, the Pakistani intelligence service, at the Karachi airport.

Gutbi later found them – this time well out of reach – in bin-Laden’s Afghan terrorist training camps.
The next time he and I met it was after I finished work in Kazakhstan. He told me about the embassy bombing suspects, showed me the files compiled during their interrogations, and let me examine a virtual treasure trove of other information in the hands of the Sudanese pertaining to al-Qaida.

“I can give these to the FBI,” Gutbi told me referring to the information spread out before me, “if only they will talk to me.”

“We don’t trust the CIA. They are listening to liars and fabricators, but the FBI is based on law. We can deal with them. Go back to Washington and help us. I will give you something to convince them,” he said.

As I left for the airport that night, an armed courier arrived at my hotel with an envelope. Inside was a six-page, handwritten note to FBI Director Louis Freeh detailing the movements of the two suspects they’d caught coming in from Nairobi. He told Freeh their names, movements, and much more — information that could possibly get me killed if anyone else knew I had it in my possession.

I met with my “people,” as the Sudanese continued to call them, at the FBI. They told me they again wanted to meet with the Sudanese. From January through May of 1999, I shuttled Washington, Khartoum and Cairo, trying to arrange the meeting.

In May – while in Khartoum putting the last pieces in place – I received word from the FBI that the State Department had stopped the meeting. What’s more, the U.S. Department of the Treasury had previously issued a “cease and desist” order with my name on it, commanding that I cease all contact with the Sudanese government.

Additionally, Steven Schwartz, of the State Department’s Sudan Desk, acting – I was told – on orders from above, threatened to have me arrested for “running around the world conducting personal diplomacy.”
That summer I gave up. I’d been run ragged but no one seemed to believe me. Soon afterward Gutbi moved on to a different, more senior position within the Sudanese government, putting an end to the urgency of the whole thing.

I was advised to forget the whole thing and, until Sept. 11, 2001, I tried.

After the planes hit the towers, it all came racing back in one phone call from a staff aide working for the Bush National Security Council. Diligently – in my view – they were digging under every rock they could find for information about al-Qaida. They had reached out to me because, I thought, they wanted help getting the bin-Laden files that had several times been offered to but not accepted by the previous administration.

The aide had no idea what I was talking about when I said, “Finally, someone cares. So, do you want the bin-Laden files?” My name had only surfaced because of the Treasury Department’s attempt to sanction me for dealing with the Sudanese government, not because of what those dealings had been about.
Incredibly, in my view, the information from the Clinton White House about the Sudanese offers of information about al-Qaida had not been passed along to the incoming Bush administration.

I told my story yet again to the Bush aide, who thanked me for my time and input. This time, however, the government acted – and swiftly.

Only minutes later, the phone rang again. This time it was Ambassador Robert Oakley, the head of the counter terrorism office inside the State Department. He introduced himself and said, “I understand you may be able to help us.”

I said I would call the new head of the Sudanese intelligence service, Yahia Hussein Babiker, and attempt to persuade him to call Oakley, since official U.S. protocol prohibited Oakley from reach out to the Sudanese government.

Less than an hour after I hung up with Yahia , my phone rang again. It was Oakley. “I called to thank you,” he told me. “I think we may be on the right track with this.” Almost before I could say anything, my cell phone rang. It was Yahia, calling to tell me that he had done as I had asked.

Oakley laughed and said, “In my 40 years in government I don’t think I’ve met anyone quite like you. I know I’ve never met anyone so efficient.”

If only that were true. It had taken five years for me to get someone, anyone at the higher levels of the U.S. government to take the Sudanese offer of assistance seriously. And I know because, as I said at the beginning, I was there throughout the process. Even today I can’t let go of the images of people trapped in the towers and wonder if I could have done more. Rightly or wrongly I carry with me the thought of “what if.”

Clinton’s book tells a different story, one that I do not recognize. And nowhere close to what I witnessed, firsthand, as a participant in the events as they occurred. I can only conclude that Clinton did not tell the American people the truth about what happened with the Sudanese — he probably didn’t tell the Bush administration the whole truth either. And I sincerely doubt he feels my pain.

(Janet McElligott is president of McElligott Associates, an international consulting company. She served on the staff of three members of the U.S. Senate and on the White House staff in the administration of George H.W. Bush. In 1997, she was a registered foreign agent for the Sudanese government and in 1998 for the government of Kazakhstan. She most recently served as spokeswoman for the Intergovernmental Governmental Agency for Development-sponsored Sudan Peace talks.) 

Rand Paul right on Benghazi

3 Aug

 Jake Tapper

Recall H Clinton answer when Sen Paul asked about gun-running: “you’ll have to direct that question to the agency that ran the annex.”


Breaking: CNN Reports CIA Engaged in Massive Intimidation Campaign to Keep Benghazi a Secret — This is HUGE. Basically the CIA is reportedly giving polygraph tests EVERY MONTH to more than a dozen CIA employees that were on the ground in Benghazi during the attack, to ensure that none of them talk about what happened that night. CNN — CNN has uncovered exclusive new information about what is allegedly happening at the CIA, in the wake of the deadly Benghazi terror attack.

Four Americans, including Ambassador Christopher Stevens, were killed in the assault by armed militants last September 11 in eastern Libya.
Sources now tell CNN dozens of people working for the CIA were on the ground that night, and that the agency is going to great lengths to make sure whatever it was doing, remains a secret.
Since January, some CIA operatives involved in the agency’s missions in Libya, have been subjected to frequent, even monthly polygraph examinations, according to a source with deep inside knowledge of the agency’s workings.
The goal of the questioning, according to sources, is to find out if anyone is talking to the media or Congress.
It is being described as pure intimidation, with the threat that any unauthorized CIA employee who leaks information could face the end of his or her career.
In exclusive communications obtained by CNN, one insider writes, “You don’t jeopardize yourself, you jeopardize your family as well.”
(Side note: Remember, Michael Hastings was working on a “big story” involving the CIA before his demise. It makes you wonder…)

Additionally, The Telegraph is reporting that a “CIA team was working in an annex near the consulate on a project to supply missiles from Libyan armouries to Syrian rebels. Sources said that more Americans were hurt in the assault spearheaded by suspected Islamic radicals than had been previously reported.”
Did you like this? Share it: