Former CIA officer blows lid off libya fraud live on CNN

Former CIA officer blows lid off libya fraud live on CNN

www.infowars.com

Every once in a while, establishment control of the mainstream media cracks for a moment. In an effort to achieve higher ratings, mainstream news programs will invite guests on that promise to be “interesting”, but then they will say something that is not part of the script and the entire system will go into a state of chaos for a moment. One example of this happened recently when two CNN “infobabes” interviewed former CIA officer Michael Scheuer about the situation on the ground in Libya.

(visit the link for the full news article)

The funniest part of the interview was when Scheuer accused one of the “infobabes” of “carrying the water for Mr. Obama”. After that statement, the female anchor that Scheuer was addressing was visibly flustered and quickly went to a commercial.
Of course Scheuer was exactly right. We never should have gotten involved in the civil war in Libya. It was none of our business. When the rebels picked up arms and started shooting at government forces, they should not have been surprised when Gadhafi’s forces started shooting back.




Check out the videos on the source, pretty funny!

www.infowars.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

I also find it interesting that a point the CIA op mentioned, is that Libya was sold by the MSM under the premise of humanitarian efforts. i for one, new that was bogus.

But now the mainstream media has been trying really hard to spin the civil war in Libya into a “great humanitarian crisis”.

But instead of getting a balanced view of the war in Libya, most of the time the corporate media has focused on an endless parade of establishment Republicans and establishment Democrats that fully endorse the war.

www.corporations.org...

In 1983, 50 corporations controlled the vast majority of all news media in the U.S. At the time, Ben Bagdikian was called "alarmist" for pointing this out in his book, The Media Monopoly. In his 4th edition, published in 1992, he wrote "in the U.S., fewer than two dozen of these extraordinary creatures own and operate 90% of the mass media" -- controlling almost all of America's newspapers, magazines, TV and radio stations, books, records, movies, videos, wire services and photo agencies. He predicted then that eventually this number would fall to about half a dozen companies. This was greeted with skepticism at the time. When the 6th edition of The Media Monopoly was published in 2000, the number had fallen to six. Since then, there have been more mergers and the scope has expanded to include new media like the Internet market.

reply to post by Whereweheaded


Good job Scheuer!

Instead of sticking to the “Republican” or the “Democrat” script, Scheuer ripped both parties and he detailed many of the reasons why we should have never gone into Libya at all.

...Over the past few decades, there have been some very real genocides happening all over Africa, but the U.S. never seemed to care about any of those.

But now the mainstream media has been trying really hard to spin the civil war in Libya into a “great humanitarian crisis”.

Well, that might fool some of the American people, but as Scheuer aptly pointed out, the rest of the world sees this as just another U.S. war in the Middle East for oil (and banking).

And I especially like the article's conclusion:

Our founding fathers believed very strongly in freedom of speech for a reason. Free speech shines light in dark places and it holds people accountable. Free speech protects our freedoms and it keeps tyranny at bay.

Free speech is very precious and it is easily lost. Once free speech is gone it is incredibly difficult to get back. Let us cling to free speech and cherish it deeply, because it is absolutely central to who we are as a nation.

Great find. S&F&

reply to post by soficrow


Thank you, also if by chance you get to watch the videos, Im no fan of Trump, but he absolutely owns those bought and paid for douche bags from the " View ".

And Whoopi Goldberg is the biggest dumb ass of them all! Her lack of knowledge is mind blowing! By far one of the most uneducated people I have ever witnesses, and ( laughed at ) EVER!

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Old news

Absolutely fantastic. Thank you so much for this thread illuminating what everyone needs to know. LOL and I loved the CNN babe comment, thanks, my gut is still splitting...we Americans are the most propagandized lot on the planet...and dumber for it. After living abroad for 10 years through the 90s I saw first hand the BS that flows from every orifice of every media outlet that reaches mainstream America. I would be living a scene in Athens Greece, while talking to my mother in Ohio telling me an entirely different scenerio presented to her via TIME magazine and the newspaper. We are a bunch of do nothing, believe anything clods so long as we have our fastfood, big cars, boats and television.

Well if he wasn't X-CIA, he certainly would be tomorrow.

Nice job sir!

reply to post by jude11


Aint that the truth, but thats what we need, " whistleblowers", that bring forth the truth. ( mind you, we kinda already knew ).

"Wherever there is trouble, there is the agency".. Holy cow, this guy is laying it out there whether he knows it or not.

reply to post by SmokeandShadow


Interesting to see if this guy has an " accident"?

" whistleblowers"

I think the whistleblower definition has been around too long, a remnant of the Nixon era, and needs redefining in today's world, where whistleblowing comes in many various formats. One such format would become known as "disinformant" as the proposed whistleblower is nothing more than a propoganda tool used to make things seem like what they're not.

Another form of whistleblower would be the disgruntled extortionist type, that once upon a time was actually a part of the system or process they are exposing but for obvious reasons felt thier share of the victim's pie wasn't good enough... so after the usual behind the scenes negotiations fail they come forth with agenda and gibberish to filet those bigger fish that thought they were uncatchable. A reality check regarding this type of whistleblowing usually finds the perportraitors indeed were uncatchable, when it is realized that they never faced prosecution, or served any jail time for the acts they committed (Cheney comes to mind...)

Another defined whistleblower type is an actual victim of the system or process they're exposing, but for some reason don't possess the "credibility" they should to actually be telling the truth... most of the time the plain truth being right in front of everyone to see (like the actual knife sticking out of the whistleblower's back).

And finally, there's the real life whistleblower, who, as part of a larger group of people blowing on whistles while chasing or intimidating the perportraitors...

reply to post by Heyyo_yoyo


Well ok then, possibly a bad choice of the word on my part. Perhaps " insider " would be more to your liking? How bout, knowledgeable person?

Or perhaps we can discuss the topic, and not nit pick choice words?

Interesting video I watched on youtube about US media reporting on the situation in Libya
I know its RT a Russian propaganda tool but its still a subject of poignant interest.

Great interview. That really was funny at the end, even the CIA guy was smiling.

They won't be inviting that guy back.

All he said was people in the Middle east only view this as per usual, america dropping bombs on muslims in a country with oil, that is not blowing the lid off of fraud it is just stating the obvious of what idiots always think over there no matter what happens.

Then he goes on a polical witch hunt calling the UN ambasador crazy and some other name calling of Mrs. Clinton, nothing but political hack stuff.
It was only embarassing to CNN because anything that attacks their Messiah never gets put on the air.

Since this is a conspiracy site consider this,

Or maybe they did professionally vet him like they always do, and purposely put this on because their extreme leftwing controllers are trying to send Obama a message and control him some more. If the media paints him in a different light, which is so easy for them to do, there is no chance of a re-election.
I bet this scared Obama more than any real world event in his entire presidency. Getting re-elected is ALL that matters.

Originally posted by Whereweheaded
reply to post by Heyyo_yoyo

 

Well ok then, possibly a bad choice of the word on my part. Perhaps " insider " would be more to your liking? How bout, knowledgeable person?

Or perhaps we can discuss the topic, and not nit pick choice words?

I wasn't nit picking I was merely commenting on the outdated term known as 'whistleblower ', and how we need to update our cultural depiction of the whistleblower class to now accurately reflect it as a class, and no longer the lone vigilante.

I can just imagine the C.I.A. marching down Pennsylvania Ave. blowing whistles in protest like the gay community does in Frisco...

reply to post by Whereweheaded


I can't find any points to argue against, this man knows what he is talking about. Muslims all around the world are seeing the US go into nations, Muslim nations, and destabilize that place leaving a power vacuum on their way out. This makes it easier for extremists to influence people into joining their ranks in this never-ending war.

I think in the long run the US is going to go bankrupt if they keep on fighting these wars. They are using unlimited power and money against an unlimited and unseen enemy. It can't be done. You will kill one extremist and two will rise up in his place.

The thing that is so very wrong in this war against Libya is that the US might be supporting the wrong side. Since when does a small portion of a country protesting mean that their leader must be taken out? And why Libya? What about Syria, Iran, or Yemen? This is not about the people, there must be more to the story.

I would caution that looking at any motivation in military intervention in Libya as an isolated situation is going to be misinterpreted as "just another Iraq."

With that being said, when you consider the fact that the Bush administration neocon foreign policy establishment had advocated going back into Iraq for years before September 11th, a certain elephantine aspect of our involvement in Libya becomes readily apparent.

Qaddafi is a public boogeyman much like Saddam was, which makes an easier "sell" to the public. Fortunately, much of the current backlash proves that a growing number of Americans have realized that this Cowboys vs. Indians approach to foreign policy is a lot harder to clean up after than they previously thought. American patriotic nostalgia doesn't exist in the Middle East, and everyone over there has their own sectarian idea of how freedom should be spent.

If you've been paying attention, however, you'll have noticed that the mysterious "Obama Doctrine" has been nebulizing.....and it is not entirely without merit.

Whereas the US foreign policy of old (for either party) was to Back the Strongman, Obama has taken an even older cue by trying to play Back the Rebellion. Its a reboot of policy, backing the nascent revolutions that will grow into the next regional powers. I for one think it is shrewd as the shelf life of current regimes are rapidly approaching expiration, and by cautiously turning favor towards the broader revolution in the region, American foreign policy simultaneously regains its long lost "democratic" legitimacy both at home and abroad in the international community.

I thought the agent intelligently argued for a policy of isolationism or non-interventionism but still personally feel it is far too late for that kind of thinking. My major point of contention is that I think it is a worthwhile gambit to send the message that the US is willing to abandon the powers of the status quo in the Middle East when the people at large demand change. While it certainly is a gambit, it is important for the US to give up on backing outright tyranny, both for reasons of future benefit and national conscience.

In any event, the promise of all this, the silver lining, is that Europe stopped trying to play it both ways and got their hands dirty, and the Russians and Chinese stepped out of the way before staking their flags on the moral highground. Like it or not, this is a functional example of the UN stepping in to prevent a genocide, and while the motives certainly are unclear at best and underhanded at worst, it is a far cry better than the American expeditionism we have had for the better part of the last ten years. Britain and France led the charge on this campaign as well, so to oversimplify this as Iraq 2 is unnecessarily myopic.