The CIA and the Washington Post - What You’re Not Being Told

a reply to: eisegesis

Excellent OP, some juicy info in that lot.

I did a thread on ol' dodgy CIA a while back...., ties in with yours.....


www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: SparkyMcBurny

This guy gets it.

a reply to: havok

Oh and it's your taxes that pay for it! Excellent!

That's the saddest part.

originally posted by: EightAhoy
Saw that IBM lost its suit against Bezos on that CIA deal. Imagine the data Bezos has on just about every consumer in the nation after 20 years of Amazon. My skin scrawls when I think of his power, and ties. Stopped buying from Amazon about three years ago when I visited the site to search for a product. Never logged in, or put anything in a shopping cart. I closed out of the browser, and two minutes later my Email dock bounced. It was an Email from Amazon enticing me back with near-similar products as the one I had priced on its site. Simply matched my IP address to an IP address from a past purchase, and came knocking. Creepy.

But back to you OP: I agree. Once Bezos bought it, I stopped buying it, and don't consider its stories to be in the best interests of an informed public.

It was the tracking cookies that likely got you. I see it all the time, even here on ATS, Where I'm shown ads for items that are very similar to items I've searched on Google. In fact I see items that I only have spoken about, but we all know Android listens. They claim it can be shut off and I have done so in my Google profile page as well as deleted the litany of recordings there. And while that may be all good and well it assumes that I trust that Google won't be "evil".

Recently I've moved onto proton mail but managing multiple keys can be a PITA. I still use Google search though as I've yet to find a decent alternative...

Also, IIRC correctly it was either Woodward or Bernstein that came to the post straight from Naval Intelligence with no journalism experience. Which one I'll have to look into. Anyhow Watergate is blown right open shortly after. It's hard to say if this was partially the result of the alleged "fued", and I use that word lightly, between millitary Intel and CIA? When it comes to rabbit holes in the world of intelligence agencies their seem to be tunnels within tunnels within tunnels. Truth only being a philosophical construct that depends heavily on it purveyor....

a reply to: eisegesis

Just watched Kill the Messenger 2014

This disturbing, fact-based thriller is based on Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Gary Webb's involvement in revealing the CIA's secret funding and assistance for Nicaraguan Contra rebels during the 1980s.
Cast: Jeremy Renner, Rosemarie DeWitt, Ray Liotta

a reply to: eisegesis

Wow!

Great stuff eisegesis!

At the end of the day, my two quick takeaways on this are:

1- Amazon is a terrific online retailer and I will continue to use them as long as they continue to provide me with excellent service and value for my dollar. Being a Prime customer is *so* worth it.

2 - Beyond that, do not trust Bezo's nor any reporter/journalist from WaPo. As a matter of fact, be very leery of any journalist or news outlet unless and until they have proven that they care and report *only* the actual facts.

Veritas matters...today more than ever

Thanks again for the great OP. And it goes without saying S & F!

Keep those cards and letters coming amigo...

a reply to: eisegesis

Your OP confuses me...

The US Military DOD also uses AWS (Amazon Web Service)...as do most large organizations looking for a cloud service.

AWS is the most robust and reliable solution available right now.

Is the US Military some liberal plot?

You cited the Washington Post using unnamed sources as a reason not to find them credible...does that apply to all other news?

You cited Amazon founder Jeff Besos's business dealings via Amazon with the Gov. as a reason to find WaPo reporting false.

FOX's CEO literally came on board with the Trump campaign and Sean Hannity created literal Infomercials for Trump...Is all of FOX News reporting FAKE?

Help me out how you are structuring your logic here.

a reply to: Indigo5

Your OP confuses me...

Let me make it easy for you.

It's all about the money. $600 million for starters as outlined very well by the OP.

It is now, always was and always will be about the money.

If you want the truth, follow the money. Or if you prefer Latin:

Cui Bono? - Who benefits?

Take a look at some of the recent stories ;
The UFO''s that buzzed the capital in 1952 were
not real. How about when going through
Podesta's emails ? They found nothing except he is a boring dedicated
husband w a busy schedule. Oh and a story on how the full moon
does nothing weird to humans, so stop thinking it does.
All nothing to see here stories. ALWAYS ?
Sounds like WaPo is full of top notch, digging for the truth, journalists.

originally posted by: Riffrafter
a reply to: Indigo5

Your OP confuses me...

Let me make it easy for you.

It's all about the money. $600 million for starters as outlined very well by the OP.

What do you think the profit margin is on the 600M after costs?

Amazon did 107 BILLION in revenues last year...

The AWS contract you mention would make that 107.6 Billion vs. 107 Billion..

Try again...

Then explain to me why Wapo is false for reporting the same thing Mitch McConnell, John McCain, the Director of National Intelligence, the Head of CIA and FBI have all now publicly stated?

There is a campaign by the right-wing to try and discredit the fact that Russia and Putin conducted a cyber-hacking campaign to help Donald Trump win...

But the problem is that the BS you guys attempt makes no sense...

It's not complicated...

Apart from every US Intelligence Agency, plus the FBI and the Dozens of independent Cyber-Security firms...you can also use common sense..

Trump's entire campaign looked near designed by Putin himself.

Trump repeatedly praised Putin.

He hired Manafort as campaign manager, a man who had previously earned a fortune working for Putin's puppet leader in Ukraine...and a man whose name was found on secret ledgers for illegal pay-outs there.

Trump's campaign then REWROTE the Republican platform at the RNC to remove pro-Ukrainian language condemning Russia's annexation.

Trump chose as his principal foreign-policy adviser a retired general that was paid repeatedly by Russia’s state-run propaganda network, RT.

Trump himself publicly encouraged Russians to hack his opponent’s email.

Trump endorsed Putin’s tactics and agenda in Syria.

Trump repeatedly suggested that he would not honor NATO commitments against Russian recent aggressions.

He first denied the Russians had invaded Crimea and then condoned the invasion and annexation of Crimea.

And now he publicly questioned the credibility of his own Central Intelligence Agency for reporting the Russian hacking.

AND has nominated for secretary of state a close friend of Putin and recipient of the "Medal Of Friendship" from Putin himself.

You don't need top secret clearance to recognize reality...

a reply to: Indigo5

I'm pretty sure that you entirely missed the premise of the OP.

Or you didn't, and are purposefully being obtuse

originally posted by: essentialtremors
a reply to: Indigo5

I'm pretty sure that you entirely missed the premise of the OP.

Or you didn't, and are purposefully being obtuse

That the CIA and WaPo are in cahoots to lie to people that the Russians hacked the DNC with the intent of assisting Trump?

Perhaps you can clarify?

originally posted by: essentialtremors
a reply to: Indigo5

I'm pretty sure that you entirely missed the premise of the OP.

Or you didn't, and are purposefully being obtuse

What is that premise specifically, and how does it relate to the current situation?

The Washington Post has always been the endpoint of leaks from the intelligence community, not just since Bezos bought it.

Who else would they leak it to?

There are specific reporters that the IC has long relationships with and trusts, and vice versa. The better reporters attempt to verify the information if they can. The leaks are not always lies, they are often truths which can't be officially acknowledged for classification and political reasons. You may not believe it, but historically the CIA---below the politically appointed director---is less politically biased to going along with the political needs of government in power than other agencies.

See for example: www.mcclatchydc.com...

About the Iraq 200x war. CIA was much more skeptical of such fabricating duplicitous losers as Chalabi than the necon-true believers. Most of the 200x intelligence and diplomatic community thought that the rebuilding was going to be difficult and expensive, and this was also overridden by Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld and their ideological followers.

I'm concerned about the same thing happening now: Trump's people are their own kind of ideological true believers and ignore unpleasant realities that the long-time workers in the intelligence & state departments say.

Regarding Trump & Putin: I have to wonder if Putin has some blackmail dirt on him. It doesn't make sense to me otherwise.

originally posted by: mbkennel

Regarding Trump & Putin: I have to wonder if Putin has some blackmail dirt on him. It doesn't make sense to me otherwise.

There are running theories that Trump was "compromised" when he visited Moscow in 2012 for the Miss USA Pageant..

A former high-ranking CIA official, who asked not to be identified, says in an email:


It is nearly certain that [Russian intelligence] would have done some sort of surveillance on him. Could have been low-key physical surveillance (following etc) or deeper surveillance, such as video/audio of hotel room and monitoring of electronics (your [communications] while [in Moscow] is on their network).

James Lewis, a cybersecurity expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, points out,
"It's safe to assume that high-profile public figures and billionaires attract the attention of the Russian security services, including bugging any hotel rooms."

And Malcolm Nance, a terrorism and intelligence expert and author of The Plot to Hack America, says the Russian version of the National Security Agency, the Spetssvyaz, manages specialized technical teams that would have been all over Trump:


These communications intercept units are designated for high-importance personages of political and diplomatic standing, such as Donald Trump.

These units would've employed the most advanced intelligence collection systems in the nation. Anything short of a highly encrypted communications suite using military-grade technology would be simple for Russian intelligence to exploit.

Donald Trump's mobile phone would be among the easiest to exploit. His mobile phone, Bluetooth, and laptops were most likely not shielded and could have been intercepted and exploited any number of ways.

This means virtually everything he said, everything he texted, everything he wrote, and every communication he had in the electronic spectrum would be in the possession of Russian intelligence then and now.

His guest rooms in Moscow could have had virtually undetectable voice and video communications intercept devices planted in such a way that nothing could be done by Trump in private and would defy detection.

The Spetssvyaz would also employ Russian military intelligence subunits as well as Federal Security Service (FSB) surveillance units which could follow him anywhere that he goes with seemingly normal people and detect, document, and provide a record of anything and anyone he met.

www.motherjones.com...

a reply to: ColdWisdom

I don't believe the CIA is "fond of the left these days." The CIA is fond of the CIA. Throughout its history, whether there was a Republican or Democrat in the White House, the CIA carried on, interfering in other countries and overthrowing foreign leaders (and conducting illegal domestic operations). That leads me to believe that, either the story that Russia was interfering is true (I believe this to be the case, though not in vote rigging or any such nonsense), or that the CIA did not want Trump to be president (but this does not necessarily imply a fondness for the left. Or a third, possibility (and one I consider to also be likely), the agency was itself involved in the hacking and release of information to sabotage Clinton. I am no Trump fan, but I think Clinton would have been far worse for the country and the world had she won. I believe Trump's bark is worse than his bite, as evidenced by his walking back on much of his pre-election rhetoric.

Very well presented, S&F. Hope people really digest this.

a reply to: eisegesis

At best it presents a conflict of interest, especially when the WaPo is the outlet reporting unnamed CIA officials. At worst, the Washington Post is a propaganda arm of the CIA.

Thanks for the info.

a reply to: Indigo5

Feel free to keep your head in the sand, amigo.

I live in the real world. And like it or not for me - veritas matters.

So, some days you eat the bear, and some days the bear eats you, but I always try and keep an open mind and not let my intellectual judgement get clouded by my feelings or emotions about something.

I do better some days than others. But I keep trying...

This may be off topic, I don't know (you never know with the CIA), but what do the two red "bulls eye" dots on these flags represent? Does anyone know?

a reply to: AnkhMorpork

It's the State Flag of Ohio...Suspect the pic is in Ohio.