Posts Tagged ‘CIA’

Was “Russian Hacking” a CIA Sting?

June 30, 2017

Until I found stories about FSB’s [Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation] arrest of Col.Sergei Mikhailov, I thought the claims about Russian hacking during last year’s presidential
election  were probably false.   I know  the FSB is unlikely to be as effective as the legendary KGB, but  I wouldn’t expect it to engage in the amateurish activities attributed to Russian hackers.  The CIA’s connection with Col. Mikhailov raises the possibility the CIA was operating a sting to discredit Donald Trump.
s

For example,  the KGB wouldn’t have been satisfied with using hacking to get some emails from the Democratic Party headquarters.  The old KGB would have planted an agent in Hillary Clinton’s campaign headquarters.  This agent  would have occasionally downloaded documents, including summaries of meetings,   onto a zip drive.   Russians have been planting people in American organizations for 70 years. Why would the FSB switch to  a less productive means of acquiring  information?  A human agent can overhear conversations that contain information that doesn’t get into the computer.

The CIA could have used Col. Mikhailov for more than just a  source of information about Russian activities.  The association potentially allowed the CIA to use Russian hackers to spy on Americans or on “friendly” governments like Britain or Germany.  Those detecting  the hacking would blame the Russians rather than the Americans.  European governments would complain if they caught the CIA spying on them.  Using Russian hackers potentially allowed the  CIA to gain information risk free.

CIA could also have had Mikhailov send Russian agents to try to compromise American politicians.   Spy agencies sometimes have trouble resisting an urge to become power brokers.  The CIA has a history of involvement in other countries, particularly in the Middle East.  An agent of the World War II OSS [predecessor to the CIA]  admitted before he died that he was responsible for killing American World War II General George Patton.  Many Americans believe the CIA was involved in the assassination of President John F. Kennedy in 1963.

The following statement is not intended to accuse the CIA of attempting to interfere in the process of determining who is the President of the United States.  I merely want to point out its actions are consistent with that possibility.  The CIA could have used the Russian hackers to keep Hillary Clinton from winning the election and then used other Russian agents to discredit her opponent Donald Trump and make him appear to be responsible for the Russian hackers.

Hillary Clinton Acts Guilty in Ambassador Stevens Death

April 26, 2016

There is no question that American Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens was murdered in Benghazi. The question I have been dealing with in two previous posts is whether or not Stevens was placed in Benghazi so he would be killed much like Israel’s King David ordered his general to have Uriah the Hittite assigned to a place in a battle where his death was virtually certain.

I don’t expect to prove who was responsible if Americans assigned Stevens to Benghazi to be killed. Such proof might require the investigative skills of a real life Sherlock Holmes.

Ian Fleming once observed: “Once is happenstance. Twice is coincidence. Three times is enemy action.” Prior to the 2008 presidential primaries two known homosexuals who were acquainted with Barack Obama died violent deaths. In November, 2011, Larry Sinclair who wrote a book claiming to have had an affair with Obama, was killed by a hit and run driver. Chris Stevens who was murdered by terrorists at Benghazi was also a known homosexual.

[Correction: Larry Sinclair is alive. A rumor about his death was posted on the Free Republic possibly as part of a pattern of intimidation reported by Kevin Dujan who had scheduled a radio interview with Larry Sinclair to discuss Sinclair’s allegations about Obama being homosexual and using drugs.]

Stevens wouldn’t be the first high American official whose assassination was approved by someone in the United States government. Military historian Robert Wilcox in his book “Target Patton” claims that in December, 1945, OSS head “Wild Bill” Donovan ordered OSS marksman Douglas Bazata to kill Gen. George Patton because Patton was threatening to expose what Patton considered allied collusion with the Soviets that cost American lives. The World War II era OSS was the predecessor of the CIA.

Some believe Ambassador Stevens might have been killed because he was about to blow the whistle on a questionable “gun running” scheme to send old Libyan government weapons to Syrian “Contras” [or whatever Syrian rebels are called] or some other group. A problem with this explanation is that an attack on Stevens in Benghazi would draw attention to whatever the CIA was doing there. The fact the CIA facility was located so close to the consulate could indicate that the “intelligence” officials involved weren’t very intelligent. If the CIA had an operation going in Libya, locating it in the same city as a diplomatic facility would severely hamper keeping the operation secret. The attack on the CIA compound indicates the terrorists suspected what the CIA was up to. Their abuse of Stevens’ body indicates they knew he was homosexual.

Those who don’t understand government would likely say if the government wanted Stevens dead, President Barack Obama would have ordered the killing. However, unless the situation was similar to the murder of the Archbishop of Canterbury, Obama probably wasn’t involved. Archbishop Thomas Becket was killed in 1170 by followers of King Henry II of England who believed the King wanted him killed. President Harry Truman probably did not know about the killing of General Patton.

Then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton could have been responsible, but I doubt she’s intelligent enough to come up with such a plot. It would be more likely that she went along with a plan developed. by someone else. Her behavior before and after the incident implies she is guilty of something. Her use of a private email service implies she was doing something improper, if not illegal. Her attempt to avoid responsibility for the incident by inventing a easily disproved story about a riot caused by an anti-Muslim video implies she was covering up something, particularly considering that she came up with the story so soon after the incident.

Clinton’s use of a private email server could have allowed terrorists to monitor her email. If so they would have known the United States wouldn’t protect its diplomats in Benghazi. They might have also learned Stevens was homosexual which could have provided an added incentive to want to kill him.

If the murder of Stevens was part of a pattern that included the murders of Obama’s homosexual acquaintances, the person in charge was probably someone associated with Obama’s financial backers. They might have assigned someone to “protect their investment” by eliminating those who could pose a threat to Obama’s election chances by raising the homosexual issue.

Before I started this series I thought it was more likely that Stevens’ death was the result of incompetence. Now, I think it is more likely someone wanted him to be killed. I believe the test Sen. Saw Erwin used for President Richard Nixon and Watergate applies to Secretary of State Clinton and Benghazi. If she knew Stevens was likely to be killed she is a crook. If she didn’t she is incompetent.

WWWCD? What Would Walter Cronkite Do?

May 13, 2013

Reporters covering the investigation of the major al Qaeda victory at Benghazi should ask themselves: “what would Walter Cronkite do” if he were covering the story.

Let’s consider the facts. Most people familiar with the War on Terror knew in September, 2012, that there was a heightened risk of an al Qaeda attack in the U.S. or at American installations outside the U.S. on or about the anniversary of the original 9/11 attack.

The danger was particularly high at American facilities in Libya because of the very unstable situation there and the presence of al Qaeda personnel who were trying to take over the country. Military and CIA personnel in Libya should have been on a high state of alert and prepared to back up personnel at any facility that might be attacked. Their orders should have been to respond immediately to any attack without requesting authorization from Washington. Security should have been particularly tight in Benghazi with the Ambassador in the building.

With modern cell phone technology, personnel should have been calling the State Department as they took cover, grabbed weapons, etc. Both the Secretary of State and President should have been notified immediately. State Department protocol should have required the Secretary, or least the top undersecretary for the region, to monitor the situation using both audio and video from the site, possibly using devices such as smart phones . If a satellite was in position to monitor the situation someone in Washington should have monitored its video. Keep in mind the government has better quality cameras than Google on its satellites.

The Obama administration’s initial claim that the facility fell to a rag tag mob of demonstrators implies the facility essentially had no security. Any decent security protocol should have been prepared for the type of attack that Iranian students had used to take over the American embassy in Tehran during the Carter administration. An attack by trained military personnel would have been more easily explained, although security personnel should have been prepared to handle such an attack.

Determining the significance of the successful al Qaeda attack is difficult because of the nature of the War on Terror. Significant battles haven’t involved large groups. Although the American casualty toll in the 9/11 attack was high, barely a dozen men conducted the attack. A similar sized American force killed Osama bin Laden. Much of the killing by both sides is done by remote control. Americans use aerial drones. Al Qaeda uses road side bombs.

The attack is at least as significant as the temporary Viet Cong capture of the American embassy in Saigon during the 1968 Tet Offensive. The attack indicates that al Qaeda has successfully broadened the war and is now able to defeat the Americans in Libya and possibly elsewhere. The size of the victory isn’t as important as the fact that the attack was an al Qaeda victory. Al Qaeda may not be “winning” the war yet, but as a football sportscaster might say, al Qaeda “has taken the momentum”, as demonstrated by the recent successful bombing of the Boston Marathon. Al Qaeda can use its success as a recruitment argument.

The failure of the Americans to come to the rescue during the attack could be interpreted by al Qaeda as proving bin Laden was right when he said the Americans would eventually tire of the fighting.

Walter Cronkite began questioning the American handling of the Vietnam after the attack on the American Embassy in Saigon during the 1968 Tet Offensive. I’m sure he would have asked questions about the War on Terror after the fall of the American consulate in Benghazi, particularly considering the allegations that someone in Washington prevented sending a rescue force. Cronkite knew that Presidents are sometimes mislead by their subordinates and it is the duty of journalists to learn the truth.

Obama’s Silly Conspiracy Theory

May 27, 2011

President Barack Obama suffers from the delusion that there must have been some massive conspiracy to hide Osama bin Laden from the U.S.

President Barack Obama apparently thinks that the fact that he needed an army of attorneys to keep his stupid birth certificate secret means that bin Laden must have had a large group helping him stay hidden. Or, maybe Obama doesn’t believe that an Arab could be smart enough to hide from the U.S. without help, even an Arab smart enough to be responsible for the 9/11 attack. .

Obama should know better because the CIA has already said that the most any of the al Qaeda members they captured knew was that there was some mysterious courier who might have direct access to bin Laden. If bin Laden didn’t trust members of his own organization with his hiding place, why would he trust Pakistani government agencies which he certainly was aware could have been infiltrated by agents working for the CIA or other intelligence agencies particularly Mossad (Israel) and MI6 (Britain) .

There is a claim that India’s RAW and Mossad have combined efforts to infiltrate Pakistan government agencies. Even if a foreign agent didn’t learn where he was hiding, someone in the government might have found the $25 million reward too tempting to pass up.

Any ability al Qaeda might have to obtain inside information from Pakistani agencies would not be the same as those agencies helping al Qaeda anymore than an ability to obtain inside information from American agencies would indicate those agencies were helping al Qaeda.

Al Qaeda likely has agents planted in governments in Pakistan and Afghanistan, as well as on some NATO bases in Afghanistan, much like the Viet Cong had agents planted in the South Vietnamese government and on American bases during the Vietnam War. If al Queda/Taliban can plant potential suicide bombers on American base they can plant spies. In Vietnam, the Viet Cong often had radios capable of eavesdropping on American radio traffic.

The Wikileaks situation demonstrates that the Obama administration has poor information security. The administration has alleged that an army PFC in Iraq was able to place documents on the web he should not have been able to access. The leaking of the fact that the U.S. was attempting to track bin Laden’s cell phone in 2001 came from Americans rather than Pakistanis.

If Pakistani agencies were supposedly helping bin Laden stay hidden what were they doing while the SEALS were at his compound. Military or intelligence officials would have been aware of the possibility of Americans coming in by helicopter.

Why wasn’t the compound surrounded by command detonated mines in case that happened? Why wasn’t someone in a protected position with a weapon capable of disabling a helicopter? Why, in a military area well inside Pakistan, didn’t his “protectors” call for a force to keep the Americans from leaving?

The ease with which the SEALS got in and out indicates that bin Laden had no support from individuals in the Pakistan government. If Pakistan’s forces were involved their role was to allow the Americans to leave without interference while pretending to be unaware of what was happening.

Obama cannot understand the obvious fact that the best way to keep something secret is to limit the number of people who know the secret. If you had a $25 million buried treasure that you didn’t want someone else to dig up, you wouldn’t tell anyone you had any doubts about, particularly strangers in a government agency.

Many fiction writers recognize that keeping locations secret involves limiting who knows the location. On the old “Batman” tv series even Batgirl and the police commissioner didn’t know the location of the bat cave. Limiting who knows a secret hideout reduces the chances of someone inadvertently revealing the location or revealing the location under torture. One way to get someone to reveal a hideout is to trick him into going to the hideout while he’s being followed.

Bin Laden’s choice of a hiding place was brilliant. The last place anyone would expect to find him would be in an area away from his supporters. Living in a mansion sized compound would create the impression that the occupant was wealthy, possibly with a fear of being robbed or kidnapped, or someone involved with drugs or smuggling.

The presence of cannabis plants in the area would be consistent with a drug dealer as the resident of the compound. The media have referred to the plants as marijuana, but they were more likely being grown for production of hashish which has been used in the Middle East for centuries. Marco Polo and others suggested it was used by members of the Medieval Order of Assassins from which al Qaeda is descended.

Osama bin Laden probably wasn’t familiar with American masked avengers but his choice of accommodations is similar to Batman and Zorro. When Batman wasn’t running around catching criminals he was the liberal wealthy philanthropist Bruce Wayne. When Zorro wasn’t riding around carving a “Z” with his sword he was wealthy foppish Don Diego de la Vega.