US Corporate Press Selectively Publicizes Disagreements between CIA, President

The US corporate press was abuzz with front page, top stories today about the disagreement between incoming president Trump and some figures from the CIA and other intelligence agencies regarding the leaking of facts about Hillary Clinton, which some in the US speculate caused her to lose the election.

Some US establishment figures claim the information was stolen and released by Russia.  Wikileaks and other have denied this, and Trump has expressed agreement with Wikileaks and has indicated claims of Russian involvement are baseless.

London’s The Independent today also reported on a discrepancy between the US president and the CIA.  However, this one was from 2003 and was between the CIA and the Bush regime.  In this case, a CIA team had obtained information that Saddam Hussein did not possess Weapons of Mass Destruction.  (Hussein’s supposed possession of WMD was the pretext for the illegal US invasion of Iraq, which ended up killing hundreds of thousands if not millions of people.)

The Bush regime thus refused to be debriefed by this CIA team until 2008, causing disgust among CIA agents.

The 2003 disagreement between a president and an intelligence agency appears to have been far less publicized by the US corporate press and establishment than the one between Trump and intelligence figures today.  It was not plastered across front pages.

One of the biggest differences between the two disagreements seems to be that widely publicizing the one from 2003 would have undermined the hostile and aggressive atmosphere that was being promoted in the US (in that case towards Iraq), whereas widely publicizing the disagreement today promotes hostility and aggression towards Russia.

Julian Assange and others have pointed out that the corporate press today has barely even made mention of the counter-arguments to the claims that Russia released the facts about Hillary Clinton that are said to have caused her to lose the election.  Instead, it continues to say Russia ‘hacked the election’, causing many who identify as Democrats to believe Russia hacked into voting machines and changed the outcome, which officials are not saying occurred.

Robert J. Barsocchini is an independent researcher and reporter who focuses on global force dynamics and has served as a cross-cultural intermediary for the film and Television industry. His work has been cited, published, or followed by numerous professors, economists, lawyers, military and intelligence veterans, and journalists. Updates on Twitter.

Facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
  • Josh Stern

    All the reports from the CIA that the public hears anything about are pre-politicized. Releasing true or, more often false info primarily for some political objective is normal way of CIA things.

    One should note that lots of stories indicate this happens within the CIA itself. In other words, there is a political filter within the CIA itself about whether a low level analyst report ever gets mentioned higher up in the power circles of the CIA, another filter on whether it gets mentioned to the exec branch, another filter on whether it gets mentioned to the POTUS (Rice and Cheney screened lots of things from even reaching Bush), another filter on whether it gets mentioned to the press, and another filter on whether the press choices to print or highlight the info.

    In the story above, a lower level analyst report was clearly unpopular with the higher ups and got muted.

    Here are some links to a story about Benghazi incident intelligence where the higher ups ignored the analysts in Libya because they wanted a different politics:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hPrFeO-xI9I
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/02/former-cia-chief-accused-helping-white-house-give-false-narrative-on-benghazi.html

    Then that admission by Worrell was mostly only highlighted in the right wing US press because they were hyped up to use it against Hillary.

    Likewise, it was mostly the liberal press that reported the eventual release of what the CIA claimed it knew and didn’t know about Iraq’s WMD when the decision to go to war was made, and how the Bush adm. oversold that: https://news.vice.com/article/the-cia-just-declassified-the-document-that-supposedly-justified-the-iraq-invasion

    They said the, and when the more redacted version was released – http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB254/ – that the Bush adm had started to make it’s PR case before receiving the CIA intel and then went beyond it.

    But before that, the CIA allowed the Bush admin to build a PR case while relying on a bad informant, Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi Most the Western intel services already suspected Mr. Cuverball was telling fibs back in 1999. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curveball_%28informant%29

    The final Intel report the public got to see – redacted in 2008, and then in a fuller version later – which the Bush adm. chose to go beyond, was already, itself, biased by the task of trying to make a case for war with Iraq along with the Bush adm.

    This Eichenwald/Newsweek article is kind of a 2015 summary of that:
    http://www.newsweek.com/2015/05/29/dick-cheneys-biggest-lie-333097.html

    …which, of course, we get to here after Bush & Cheney are long gone from power, and Obama is 7 years into ignoring his 2008 campaign promises to end those unpopular wars, which, naturally, he ignored in office.