NYT Finally Retracts Russia-gate Canard

Exclusive: A founding Russia-gate myth is that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies agreed that Russia hacked into and distributed Democratic emails, a falsehood that The New York Times has belatedly retracted, reports Robert Parry.

By Robert Parry (Updated on July 1 with new NYT deception)

The New York Times has finally admitted that one of the favorite Russia-gate canards – that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies concurred on the assessment of Russian hacking of Democratic emails – is false.

New York Times building in New York City. (Photo from Wikipedia)

On Thursday, the Times appended a correction to a June 25 article that had repeated the false claim, which has been used by Democrats and the mainstream media for months to brush aside any doubts about the foundation of the Russia-gate scandal and portray President Trump as delusional for doubting what all 17 intelligence agencies supposedly knew to be true.

In the Times’ White House Memo of June 25, correspondent Maggie Haberman mocked Trump for “still refus[ing] to acknowledge a basic fact agreed upon by 17 American intelligence agencies that he now oversees: Russia orchestrated the attacks, and did it to help get him elected.”

However, on Thursday, the Times – while leaving most of Haberman’s ridicule of Trump in place – noted in a correction that the relevant intelligence “assessment was made by four intelligence agencies — the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency. The assessment was not approved by all 17 organizations in the American intelligence community.”

The Times’ grudging correction was vindication for some Russia-gate skeptics who had questioned the claim of a full-scale intelligence assessment, which would usually take the form of a National Intelligence Estimate (or NIE), a product that seeks out the views of the entire Intelligence Community and includes dissents.

The reality of a more narrowly based Russia-gate assessment was admitted in May by President Obama’s Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and Obama’s CIA Director John Brennan in sworn congressional testimony.

Clapper testified before a Senate Judiciary subcommittee on May 8 that the Russia-hacking claim came from a “special intelligence community assessment” (or ICA) produced by selected analysts from the CIA, NSA and FBI, “a coordinated product from three agencies – CIA, NSA, and the FBI – not all 17 components of the intelligence community,” the former DNI said.

Clapper further acknowledged that the analysts who produced the Jan. 6 assessment on alleged Russian hacking were “hand-picked” from the CIA, FBI and NSA.

Yet, as any intelligence expert will tell you, if you “hand-pick” the analysts, you are really hand-picking the conclusion. For instance, if the analysts were known to be hard-liners on Russia or supporters of Hillary Clinton, they could be expected to deliver the one-sided report that they did.

Politicized Intelligence

In the history of U.S. intelligence, we have seen how this selective approach has worked, such as the phony determination of the Reagan administration pinning the attempted assassination of Pope John Paul II and other acts of terror on the Soviet Union.

Hillary Clinton at the Code 2017 conference on May 31, 2017.

CIA Director William Casey and Deputy Director Robert Gates shepherded the desired findings through the process by putting the assessment under the control of pliable analysts and sidelining those who objected to this politicization of intelligence.

The point of enlisting the broader intelligence community – and incorporating dissents into a final report – is to guard against such “stove-piping” of intelligence that delivers the politically desired result but ultimately distorts reality.

Another painful example of politicized intelligence was President George W. Bush’s 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq’s WMD that removed State Department and other dissents from the declassified version that was given to the public.

Since Clapper’s and Brennan’s testimony in May, the Times and other mainstream news outlets have avoided a direct contradiction of their earlier acceptance of the 17-intelligence-agencies canard by simply referring to a judgment by “the intelligence community.”

That finessing of their earlier errors has allowed Hillary Clinton and other senior Democrats to continue referencing this fictional consensus without challenge, at least in the mainstream media.

For instance, on May 31 at a technology conference in California, Clinton referred to the Jan. 6 report, asserting that “Seventeen agencies, all in agreement, which I know from my experience as a Senator and Secretary of State, is hard to get. They concluded with high confidence that the Russians ran an extensive information war campaign against my campaign, to influence voters in the election.”

The failure of the major news organizations to clarify this point about the 17 agencies may have contributed to Haberman’s mistake on June 25 as she simply repeated the groupthink that nearly all the Important People in Washington just knew to be true.

Even after the correction, the Times quickly returned to its pattern of deceiving its readers regarding the U.S. intelligence assessment. On June 30, a Times article reported: “Mr. Trump has repeatedly cast doubt on the unanimous conclusion of United States intelligence agencies that Russia sought to interfere in the 2016 race.”

The phrasing “unanimous conclusion” again suggests that all 17 intelligence agencies are in accord, albeit without specifically saying so, a journalistic sleight of hand that raises further doubts about the objectivity and honesty of the Times on this issue.

The Times’ belated correction — and its new deceptive formulation — underscore the growing sense that the U.S. mainstream media has joined in a political vendetta against Trump and has cast aside professional standards to the point of repeating false claims designed to denigrate him.

That, in turn, plays into Trump’s Twitter complaints that he and his administration are the targets of a “witch hunt” led by the “fake news” media, a grievance that appears to be energizing his supporters and could discredit whatever ongoing investigations eventually conclude.

Investigative reporter Robert Parry broke many of the Iran-Contra stories for The Associated Press and Newsweek in the 1980s. You can buy his latest book, America’s Stolen Narrative, either in print here or as an e-book (from Amazon and barnesandnoble.com).

184 comments for “NYT Finally Retracts Russia-gate Canard

  1. Anonymous
    July 13, 2017 at 10:26

    There are People who would like to hear what the former British Ambassador says regarding this News Article at http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4034038/Ex-British-ambassador-WikiLeaks-operative-claims-Russia-did-NOT-provide-Clinton-emails-handed-D-C-park-intermediary-disgusted-Democratic-insiders.html .

    This is because there are several Mainstream Media News Articles that contain varying amounts of Lies, and there are Fake News Articles that are comprised Significantly or Entirely of Lies with regards to the Relevant matters of those News Articles.

    Iraq is an Example of that, where Iraq was Slandered, and where the Fake News used the Fact that Iraq is a Country, but they said Many Lies regarding Iraq, and they have said Many Lies regarding Syria.

    That News Article does mention some Known and Verifiable Facts, such as that the former British Ambassador came to America in September of 2016, and we Know that the News Article was written in December of 2016, and so it was Not designed to influence the Election, because it was Published after the Election, and this could be because the former British Ambassador may have only told the Media this in December of 2016, if he spoke to the Media and said that.

    There are only 3 ways in my opinion that a foreign Country could collude with an American Presidential Candidate, and they are to Rig the Vote with the agreement or assistance of an American Presidential Candidate, or to Give Money for their Political Campaign, or to be a Political campaign strategist and speechwriter.

    We Know the Vote was Not rigged by a foreign Country, but it Could Only be Rigged by the Republicans and the Democrats, and in 2008, Candidate Barack Obama Knew This, and he did Nothing to Ensure Democracy in America, and the Video is Titled: Obama Admits To Rigged Elections Back In 2008 at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PsVNKmb6jEc , and Obama is an Example of a Presidential Candidate who Discredited the Elections and the Election process before Voting had taken place, and so it was Not unprecedented for Candidate Donald Trump to mention the matter of Election Rigging in 2016, and Obama did Nothing to Reform the Electoral System, and Many Americans want Electoral Reform, and if No Sufficient Electoral Reform is proposed and enacted by (S)Elected Representatives, then we Know that the Corrupt System likes its Corruption.

    There was No money given to the Trump Campaign by a foreign Country, even though Hillary Clinton Accepted Dirty Foreign Money by means of the Clinton Foundation, and the Republicans have Many of their own Political campaign strategists and speechwriters, who Understand American Politics Much Better than what a foreigner does.

    If someone who is Less Establishment wanted a foreigner to be their Political campaign strategist and speechwriter, then they might ask the Experienced British Politician Nigel Farage for that, and they would give Britain a Fair Trade Deal, because Britain had Already Voted to leave the European Union with the British Referendum of June of 2016, and President Barack Obama who was speaking for his Shadow Regime Puppet Masters said months earlier that Britain would have to go to the back of the queue for a Trade Deal, if they Voted to leave the European Union at https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/apr/22/barack-obama-brexit-uk-back-of-queue-for-trade-talks , and the Video is Titled: Nigel Farage at Trump Rally in Jackson Mississippi at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n24BSZ3Inpo .

    There are People who think that Britain had a Vested Interest in the American Elections.

    They think these things because of things that were said by President Barack Obama.

    We Know that President Barack Obama was on Orders from the Shadow Regime to Collude and to Meddle in the British Referendum on the European Union, and on how that would affect Britain’s Trade Deal with America.

    There are People who Know that Britain Knows how to hack Computers, and that Britain might have those Allegedly missing Hillary Clinton Emails.

    There Could be People who think that Britain proved to the American Shadow Regime that they have a copy of the deleted Clinton Emails, and that they have a copy of the Anthony Weiner laptop Information, by means of American Citizens of British Ancestry, and Perhaps Britain was able to make former FBI Director James Comey Write his October 28 of 2016 Letter to Congress on the continuing Criminal Investigation of Hillary Clinton’s Unauthorized, Clandestine, and Secret Email Server, so that Candidate Donald Trump Would become President, because it has been said that Many Countries have those Emails, and Perhaps Britain is the Only Country that has those Clinton Emails, and Perhaps Britain asked Not to be mentioned as having those Emails, even though Britain has Expertise in that regard, along with People of British Ancestry working at Intelligence Agencies on Taxpayer Funded Salaries, and there are People who think that Hillary Clinton is of British Ancestry, and Perhaps Hillary Clinton and the DNC were Blackmailed to make Hillary Clinton the Democratic Party nominee, because Senator Sanders may not have given Britain a Fair Trade Deal, and Perhaps Hillary Clinton was Blackmailed to lose the Election, and to Pretend that she wanted to be President, because Britain Knows that Hillary Clinton has Parkinson’s Disease, and would have had to have Retired if she became President, and Tim Kaine would Not have given Britain a Fair Trade Deal, because Tim Kaine wanted the Trans Pacific Partnership, and that would mean that America could Not have given Britain a Fair Trade Deal.

    It appears that the former British Ambassador is Scottish, and we Know that Julian Assange is an Australian, who was a Member of the Australian Journalists Union, and we Know that Kim Dotcom is a Citizen of New Zealand, and these are Regions of the British Empire.

    We Know that the Shadow Regime has Compromised some People, but that should Not be seen as insinuating something without evidence, and where the Presumption of Honesty is given, and what it Does Suggest is that such matters Need to be considered Carefully and Methodically, before coming to an opinion.

    There are People who want the former British Ambassador to give his account of that News Article, and how much, if any of the Relevant matters of that News Article he agrees with, and to say that in a Video or as the Author of an Article.

    These People want to Know if the former British Ambassador will say if he received or did not receive any material from a Person claiming to be a Democrat in September of 2016, and if he did, then on what date or approximate date did he receive that material, and WikiLeaks does Not reveal its sources, and People Understand and Respect that, and if the former British Ambassador did receive any material, then what are the more Significant Emails or other Material of that Leak, and have they been published by WikiLeaks, and on what date were they published, if it has been published by WikiLeaks, and there Could be some People who think that Britain could be Questioned by Robert Mueller as a possible suspect for meddling in America’s Election, but Britain should Not have to Pay Compensation for Slander, because Britain has Not accused anyone of meddling in America’s Election.

    We Know that President Barack Obama Continued to Deny any Election rigging or meddling on October 18 of 2016, where he said that the Election would be Free and Fair, and that was 3 weeks before the Election, and the Video is Titled: Obama To Trump: Stop Whining About A Rigged Election at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZPpt7-QOGKc , and President Barack Obama said that it would be a Free and Fair Election, because he Knew that Russia did Not meddle in the Election, but did he suspect that Britain may have influenced that Election, because President Donald Trump said that it was possible that several Countries could have meddled in the Election, but he did Not mention Britain, and Obviously Obama Lied regarding the matter that there has never been Electoral Fraud committed by the Republicans and the Democrats with their Electronic Voting Machines, and Russia did Not meddle in the Election, and Further tailor made Lies had to be Manufactured to try to justify the Improper Spying on an Opposition Political Party by the Clinton Campaign, by means of their Partisan Puppet Obama Administration, and President Barack Obama said that Candidate Donald Trump and his Vice Presidential running mate along with Candidate Hillary Clinton and her Vice Presidential running mate Received Daily Top Secret Information during the Election Campaign, and we Know that Hillary Clinton Could Lie, if she was asked if President Barack Obama told her that Russia was trying to rig the Election for Candidate Donald Trump, and only 3 of the 17 Intelligence Agencies said that they were either moderately to highly confident that Russia meddled in the Election, and that Translates in plain English as they do Not know, because the FBI has Not examined the DNC Server, and those 3 Intelligence Agencies were Politicized and they Lie if they Need to or if they Want to, and Many Countries have had Umbrage Vault 7 for some time, and it Completely Disguises who hacked a Computer.

    I think that if President Barack Obama had Proven to Candidate Donald Trump that the Russians were rigging the Election for him, then I think that Candidate Donald Trump would have tried to lose that Election, by promising Verbally during the Election Campaign to Increase Taxes, and to commit Genocide in Syria, and some other Known Democratic Party and Shadow Regime Policies, while we Know that there are some Politicians who do Not keep their Election promises.

    This is because President Donald Trump said that he is a Patriot, and I do Not think that Hillary Clinton is a Patriot, and she would have Accepted help from anyone to become the President if she really wanted to be President, and regardless if it was in a Treasonous and Undemocratic way, and we saw that, with how she Usurped the Democratic Party nomination, along with the actions of the Democratic National Committee, and the Undemocratic Bias of the Puppet Mainstream Media, and was it because she did Not want Senator Sanders to become President, because Senator Sanders may have put Britain at the back of the queue for a Trade Deal.

    The American Shadow Regime and their Puppets are Undemocratic, and they did Not ask Saudi Arabia to have Elections, and they want to overthrow the Democratically Elected Legitimate President of Syria, and to commit Genocide in Syria and to Steal Territory that belongs to the Country of Syria, and to Promote Ethnic Divisions among the Traditional Ethnic Groups who are Syrian Citizens, and that is Also Genocide at http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-dirty-war-on-syria/5491859 , and America and the European Union have placed Economic Sanctions on Innocent Syria, because they want to commit Genocide on the Syrian People, and the situation in Syria is complicated because America is promoting Ethnic Divisions, and considerations for Turkey’s Interests has to be given for the wording of the Syrian Constitution, and where Turkey does Not want Autonomy for the Kurds, and the situation in Ukraine is that America is supporting the Ukrainians who have a long History of being Racist Nazis, and so the Ethnic Minorities want a New Constitution, and the Citizens of Ukraine can Negotiate Autonomy for Eastern Ukraine, which Protects them from the Nazi Characteristic of Many Ethnic Ukrainians, and America says it is Western Civilization, and People can follow how the Syrian People are Defending Themselves from Terrorists at the South Front Website at https://southfront.org/ , and America does Not want the Syrian People to Defend themselves against Terrorism, which they have a Human Right to do under International Law, and America does this because America says that they are Exceptional.

    There are Many Americans who want Voter Identification and Paper Ballots for Elections, given that the Republicans and the Democrats Rig Elections, and Americans have seen how several States are Opposed to President Donald Trump’s Commission on Election Integrity, because they want to Rig their Elections, and this is Why there are Many Americans who want America to be a Constitutional Republic and a Constitutional Democracy.

  2. walt kovacs
    July 8, 2017 at 00:08

    you cannot use iraq as an example, because it wasnt the intel agencies that played with the intel, it was cheney

  3. July 7, 2017 at 15:20

    So what is the critical issue to you. The fact that it was 16, 15, or 4 or the fact that that the Russians hacked us and influenced our democratic processes. Let’s be real and stop the media bashing. Has the buffoon admitted that he did anything wrong ever!!!

  4. July 7, 2017 at 13:18

    Canard? Let’s just call it what it is, a LIE

  5. T Keune
    July 4, 2017 at 01:19

    However looking at the list of the 17 Agencies compared to the four that were listed as contributing to the assessment (ODNI, CIA, NSA, and FBI) I am hard pressed to see which other significant agency is missing from the assessment.

    DIA, ONI, USMC IA, and USA (all very useful but focused on the concerns of specific military services). DHS (maybe but the Obama Administration effort to make voting a DHS issue was rejected). NRO (Spy Satellites), DEA (Drug enforcement not really an issue), DOE (Not relevant), NGIA (Mapping and GIS – not relevant), State Dept BIR (focused on Diplomatic issues (highly marginal issue). Maybe the Coast Guard. Sounds like a distinction without a difference.

    Cyber command would be the one that is most likely significant but they are coupled to NSA. Again Distinction without a difference. The most relevant members of the US Intel Community appear to have agreed.

    • Skip Scott
      July 4, 2017 at 06:32

      T Keune

      The distinction is that they originally stated 17 agencies as a propaganda ploy to prove the strength of their so-called assessment. Just like the assessment itself, it is a lie. They hand picked the analysts to pre-determine the result. And none of the three agencies examined the server itself. They relied on Crowdstrike, which is far from a neutral player. Hillary endlessly parroting the “17 agencies” is stuck in the mind of the public as verification that the assessment must be true. It is the propaganda effect that is the “distinction with a difference.” Do you work for the same guys as Michael Kenny?

  6. July 3, 2017 at 02:33

    Uh- oh…..the elephant has left the room.

  7. Carroll Price
    July 2, 2017 at 10:43

    From day one, I never bought the story. Not one thing about it ever rang true.

  8. TWenner
    July 1, 2017 at 20:56

    And the NSA only had medium confidence when they made their conclusion, while the FBI never looked at the DNC servers.

    • July 3, 2017 at 02:34

      ‘Medium confidence’, that’s like being half pregnant.

  9. July 1, 2017 at 12:45

    Nothing to see here, folks. We were just Beta testing.

  10. Mark Thomason
    July 1, 2017 at 11:11

    The AP just issued the same retraction, and more accurately, noting only three agencies, plus the Director’s conclusions from them.

  11. Andy Wilcoxson
    July 1, 2017 at 10:52

    The NYT retraction didn’t go nearly far enough. Even those four intelligence agencies never definitively said that the Russians did anything.

    Read their report very carefully: https://www.dni.gov/files/documents/ICA_2017_01.pdf

    Notice Annex B, which defines the language used by the intelligence agencies to describe their findings. It says: “High confidence in a judgment does not imply that the assessment is a fact or a certainty; such judgments might be wrong.” Let that sink in. Read it again: “High confidence in a judgment does not imply that the assessment is a fact or a certainty; such judgments might be wrong.”

    Now look at the conclusions they make in their report:

    “We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We have HIGH CONFIDENCE in these judgments.

    “We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him. All three agencies agree with this judgment. CIA and FBI have HIGH CONFIDENCE in this judgment; NSA has MODERATE CONFIDENCE.

    “We assess with HIGH CONFIDENCE that Russian military intelligence (General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate or GRU) used the Guccifer 2.0 persona and DCLeaks.com to release US victim data obtained in cyber operations publicly and in exclusives to media outlets and relayed material to WikiLeaks.”

    It sort of puts their findings in a different light when you understand that “high confidence” is being used as a term of art that really means “might be wrong”.

    • Skip Scott
      July 1, 2017 at 14:44

      You have to remember that the intelligence agencies are not neutral investigators. They have become rulers of Presidents rather than servers. Same goes for the Pentagon. Deception is the name of their game. In 2012 propaganda became legal, it is called Psyops or Stratcom, and they target the American public through the MSM. Trolls like Michael Kenny are probably part of the program.
      Check this out:

  12. Michael Kenny
    July 1, 2017 at 09:07

    Does this really change much? Nobody seems to be claiming that any of the 13 agencies in question produced assessments disagreeing with the other four. All that’s being claimed is that they didn’t produce any assessment at all on that subject. A person is accused of murder. It is initially claimed that 17 witnesses saw him commit the crime. It turns out that only four witnesses saw him and none of the other 13 was present when the crime was committed.That doesn’t prove the accused innocent. In addition, MacronLeaks proves Russiagate, so it is established that there was Russian interference in both elections. The only questions to be resolved are what did Putin know and when did he know it and what did Trump know and when did he know it.

    • Skip Scott
      July 1, 2017 at 09:45

      Right on time, Michael Kenny. Been waiting for you to think the coast was clear. You keep saying the same BS, and posting it at the bottom. When are you going to give up. MacronLeaks does not prove Russia-gate. Just like the MSM, you think if you repeat it enough it will be taken as true. The “17 intelligence agencies” lie was for propaganda effect, just like the s**t you spew here. The analysts were hand-picked to hand pick the result. Vault 7 releases show the intel agencies can fake point of origin. They can say anything and pin it on anyone. Therefore there is no “proof” coming from them that is believable by anyone with two working brain cells. Your sponsors are over-paying you, your arguments are lame.

    • Andy Wilcoxson
      July 1, 2017 at 11:33

      The Macron leaks don’t prove Russiagate. The French Government say they have no evidence that the Russians hacked Marcron: https://www.apnews.com/fc570e4b400f4c7db3b0d739e9dc5d4d

      Moreover, our own intelligence agencies didn’t definitively say that the Russians did anything. What they said was that they had “high confidence,” not that they were certain. In their report accusing Russia they clearly say “High confidence in a judgment does not imply that the assessment is a fact or a certainty; such judgments might be wrong.”

      It hasn’t been established that the Russians did anything. Nothing has been proven. If there were proof of Russian interference, then they would tell us who gave the DNC and Podesta e-mails to Wikileaks. We would know their name(s) were and we would know what their connection to the Russian Government was, but we don’t have any of that information.

  13. erik thorne
    July 1, 2017 at 07:11

    h here is the October 6th press release: “The U.S. Intelligence Community (USIC) is confident that the Russian Government directed the recent compromises of e-mails from US persons and institutions, including from US political organizations. The recent disclosures of alleged hacked e-mails on sites like DCLeaks.com and WikiLeaks and by the Guccifer 2.0 online persona are consistent with the methods and motivations of Russian-directed efforts. These thefts and disclosures are intended to interfere with the US election process. Such activity is not new to Moscow—the Russians have used similar tactics and techniques across Europe and Eurasia, for example, to influence public opinion there. We believe, based on the scope and sensitivity of these efforts, that only Russia’s senior-most officials could have authorized these activities.” https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/10/21/17-intelligence-agencies-russia-behind-hacking/92514592/ They have been citing this correctly all along. A

  14. John
    July 1, 2017 at 06:26

    “Judgments are not intended to imply that we have proof that shows something to be a fact. Assessments are based on collected information, which is often incomplete or fragmentary, as well as logic, argumentation, and precedents.” Jan. 6, 2017 ICA

  15. Tedx
    July 1, 2017 at 01:47

    When Bill Clinton was hesitant to bomb Serbia the Monica Lewinski scandal forced him to Wag the Dog and sideline American attention on his impeachment. During his entire career at the White House, whenever Obama did not rally to the commands of the Deep State Neocons, court cases emerged from various sources, accusing Obama of having false birth certificate or SS number or otherwise challenging his US citizenship and eligibility to be president. When he did what the Neocons wanted, these cases were thrown out of court. Already in Trump’s presidency, when he resists the Neocon’s agenda to challenge Assad, Iran, Russia and China, the media attacks him with outrageous claims that only severely mentally-challenged people (Americans) could possibly take seriously. When Trump concedes to the Neocons, breaking his campaign promises, the press praises him. So, what’s new?

    • Skip Scott
      July 1, 2017 at 07:45

      Nothing new, Tedx. No President has been in control of his foreign policy since they off’d JFK. Some are willing co-conspirators, and some need a “trip to the woodshed” now and then.

  16. John Moore
    June 30, 2017 at 22:27

    Each of the news agency’s should be ashamed of themselves! You are making the United States look like a bunch of loosers and liars. If you attack your own President because you’re a vindictive looser and can’t stand it because your candidate didn’t win causes me to now want to hear any of your broadcasts/TV presentations because everything might be another lie just to make someone you don’t like .

  17. Jenifer
    June 30, 2017 at 21:15

    We told you so.

  18. David
    June 30, 2017 at 19:20

    The NYT retraction is still incorrect. There weren’t 4 agencies that agreed with it, but select hand-picked individual from 3 agencies: The CIA, the FBI, and the NSA.

  19. Larry Motuz
    June 30, 2017 at 19:13

    “Fake News” from the New York times.

    Oh, gosh! Whoda thunk?

  20. Randall Hart
    June 30, 2017 at 17:23

    The nyt,CNN, etc should be held accountable for these lies that are costing us tax payers millions for a rack investigation.

  21. Abe
    June 30, 2017 at 14:07

    “In a report released by the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW), the OPCW Fact-Finding Mission (FFM) confirmed that people were exposed to sarin, a chemical weapon, on 4 April 2017 in the Khan Shaykhun area, Idlib Province in the Syrian Arab Republic.

    “The FFM’s mandate is to determine whether chemical weapons or toxic chemicals as weapons have been used in Syria; it does not include identifying who is responsible for alleged attacks. […]

    “The report has also been sent to the United Nations Security Council through the UN Secretary-General and the OPCW-UN Joint Investigative Mechanism.”


    It is important to note that the OPCW FFM never visited Khan Shaykhun to take direct samples, and had no control over the chain of custody (CoC) of autopsied bodies and biological-environmental substances from the alleged chemical incident.

  22. Tom
    June 30, 2017 at 13:53

    Remember that Haberman was the one who laughed her arrogant ass off when Cenk Uygar said on-air that Trump would win. No f*****g chnace in hell of that. Now, this “correction” was probably in really tiny print and buried somewhere in the back.

  23. Abe
    June 30, 2017 at 12:50

    Contrary to Eliot Higgins, the New York Times, and the US State Department, the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW) Fact Finding Mission (FFM) recent report “confirming” that sarin or a sarin-like substance was used in the 4 April 2017 incident in Khan Shaykhun, Syria does not show that the incident involved chemical weapons use by the Syrian government.

    Nor does the OPCW FFM report invalidate the claims of investigative journalist Seymour Hersh in his recent article in die Welt.

    Higgins is jumping up and down, shrieking and gesticulating wildly

    What is clear from the previous reports of the OPCW FFM in Syria (hosted within the United Nations Documentation System) is that the OPCW did not take direct samples and had no control over the chain of custody (CoC) to establish that autopsied bodies and biological-environmental substances in evidence were in fact from the alleged chemical incident.

    The most recent status update letter dated 18 May 2017 from the Secretary-General addressed to the President of the Security Council clearly stated that the OPCW FFM team members merely “attended autopsies” of bodies presented as alleged “victims” of the incident.

    In addition, the May 2017 update from the OPCW FFM stated that “At the time of handover, the team was informed that all samples were taken by Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs)” and that videos and photographs from the scene of the alleged incident were provided by a “representative from an NGO”.

    Western-backed NGOs such as the White Helmets organizations are known collaborators with the Al Qaeda terrorists forces occupying territory in Idlib, Aleppo, and other areas of Syria.

  24. steve robinson
    June 30, 2017 at 12:26

    I read the NYT daily…also read the WSJ daily…also read other news outlets from Drudge to Fox…….but it never ceases to amaze me….the utter bias in which the NYT spins what it calls….News….jusy amazing what so called journalists have “morfed” into….

    • Gregory Herr
      June 30, 2017 at 15:51

      NYT used to be utter bias…now it’s utter fabrication.

  25. Stefan
    June 30, 2017 at 11:44

    The paper of record …amount of lies

  26. Rob
    June 30, 2017 at 11:08

    Did anyone notice the NYT article from June 29 entitled “Report Confirms That Chemical Arms Were Used on Syrian Villagers?” Very significantly, the article does not blame the attack on the Syrian government but rather says that “It did not answer the question of who was responsible for the attack.” This certainly represents a change in the Times narrative of that event. Perhaps the recent story by Seymour Hersh in the Welt has shamed them into opening their eyes to other possible explanations.


  27. Bill
    June 30, 2017 at 10:41

    Read the intelligence assessment, it stinks badly. They were probably told to make it a certain length, and they didn’t have enough material to fill up all the pages. it’s a total amateur job too. The assessment is just total garbage and not believable.

    Who was it that ordered it to be produced? President Obama. He’s in on the Big Lie.

  28. Patricia Victour
    June 30, 2017 at 10:20

    Reminds me of a couple of other fairytales: “Little Boy Who Cried Wolf,” and “Emperor Has No Clothes.” Our entire government and the MSM have fallen into the rabbit hole and are trying to take us with them.

  29. Mildly - Facetious
    June 30, 2017 at 09:38

    An overview of the company Reality Leigh Winner worked for.
    Take a look. Could they by culpable in a H-A-C-K?
    What’s our history of false flag operations?


  30. Peter Van Erp
    June 30, 2017 at 09:19

    The New York Times: house organ of the American Empire.

  31. Jason Kibby
    June 30, 2017 at 08:54

    So journalism DOES exist. This is written with facts, authority and a reasonable conclusion.

  32. June 30, 2017 at 08:43

    All these fake stories should be investigated papers have to be held accountable far to many incidents of retraction months later Americans deserve to rely on the American Journalist instead we see their complete utter laziness and arrogance they have been degraded and we Will never Trust this paper or Washington post they need to apologize and be fined

  33. F. G. Sanford
    June 30, 2017 at 07:35

    Roto-Intel Election Retrieval Service: When Russians rig your election, we’re standing by, and our switchboards are open. Take advantage of our special offer while supplies last. Buy four, get thirteen more!

    Is your election down the drain?
    Did Russians screw up your campaign?
    Don’t waste your time get on the phone-
    We’re here for you, you’re not alone!
    Intel bargains, that’s our game-
    Cherry picking lays the blame.
    Don’t let leakers claim the fame,
    We’ll make those Russians take the blame-
    Call 1-800-4-NSA,
    We’ll make your troubles go away!
    We’ve got an intel deal for you:
    Our hand-picked spies decide what’s true!
    All our spooks are standing by-
    So call right now, no need to cry!
    If you buy three get seventeen,
    We’ll wipe your hard-drive squeaky clean-
    If you buy four get thirteen more-
    Your emails vanish, that’s for sure!
    If your server’s plugged or clogged,
    And you got phished because you blogged-
    If you lost then don’t delay,
    Just call Jim Clapper right away!
    Roto-Intel that’s our name,
    And away go Russians down the drain!
    And away go Russians, down the drain!

    • Mildly - Facetious
      June 30, 2017 at 08:56

      What a sharp, fertile mind you possess, F.G. Sanford.
      What a distinct pleasure it is to read your poetic words first thing in the morning…

      Thank You!

    • mike k
      June 30, 2017 at 09:52

      The truth goes down so much more easily in a good poem.

      • F. G. Sanford
        June 30, 2017 at 11:01

        Thanks both of you – if I had it to do again, I would have called it “Intel-Rooter”, but the challenge is always to crank it out in time to capture the moment. Not often I laugh at my own stuff, but this one is still cracking me up!

        • Gregory Herr
          June 30, 2017 at 15:48

          That jingle always was catchy! Cracks me up too.

  34. Michael Morrissey
    June 30, 2017 at 05:56

    I just googled

    “17 intelligence agencies” Trump Russian hacking

    and got 25,600 hits. That’s a measure of how loud the CIA’s “mighty Wurlitzer” is. Some of them might be in critical articles, but you can bet that the huge majority are telling us that this fake news is the truth.

    Robert Parry, Ray McGovern, William Binney, Stephen Cohen and a very few others have been the lone voices telling us from the beginning that this was all a CIA/MSM hoax, with of course the NYT leading the way. It has become so ingrained that I doubt that this retraction will have much effect.

    • Michael Morrissey
      June 30, 2017 at 08:48

      For what it’s worth (and just as an example of what we would have to do every day to set “the record” straight, here is my deconstruction of the distortions and misleading innuendos embedded within the language of this “retraction”:

      1. Labeling this opinion piece a “White House Memo,” as if it were something official, is misleading. If you think about it, of course, it will become clear that this is only something written about Trump by a woman named Maggie, but propaganda does not depend on “thinking.” It depends on fleeting connotations and innuendo and misperceptions that stick in the mind, like s* in a toilet bowl. It has to be scrubbed out if you want to get rid of it, and that is a dirty and time-consuming task — much more so, in fact, than this metaphor implies! It is what I am trying to do here. Who wants to spend their time doing this? More likely, we prefer to ignore it, but the danger, and what the propagandists count on, is that with time and repetition, enough of the s* will stick that it becomes permanent.art of us. (Sorry for comparing the mind with a toilet bowl — not a perfect metaphor, but I hope the idea comes across!

      2. To say the article is “about Trump’s deflections and denials about Russia” contains the almost imperceptible presumption that T actually did “deflect” and “deny” something or other “about Russia,” which simply repeats and gives NYT institutional support, with no further justification, to Haberman’s opinion, which of course can be questioned and disputed. The honest and properly journalistic way to refer to the article would be “about what Haberman calls..” or at least to put her words in quotes, i.e., “article about President Trump’s ‘deflections and denials.'”

      3. As pointed out above, to say “the assessment was made by four intelligence agencies” is simply wrong because of the numbers, and because the implication that “assessment” was a consensus within each agency is also wrong.

      4. This false implication is repeated and strengthened in the next sentence, saying that the “assessment was not approved by all 17 organizations,” where “not all” actually means “only 4 — that is, 3 — out of 17”; “not all” usually is understood to mean “most.” “Approved by” implies even more strongly than “made by” that the agencies somehow formally backed the assessments that in fact were only endorsed by a few hand-picked representations of those agencies.

      So we can see that what Parry very generously calls a “grudging correction” is in fact 8 lines of propaganda-packed BS.

  35. LongGoneJohn
    June 30, 2017 at 04:26

    John’s the name. Hate it when this happens.

  36. Lurline Erwin
    June 30, 2017 at 04:26

    Thhankyou Wikeleaks. I share all your posts! “Conscious in an unconcious world”

  37. Country Over Party
    June 30, 2017 at 03:31

    Fake news article. When the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, the Central Intelligence Agency, the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the National Security Agency all support the fact Russia interfered with the election, what else does an intelligent, loyal citizen of the United States need? The dog catcher and postal service support to make it true?

    • LongGoneJogn
      June 30, 2017 at 04:25

      Evidence would be nice.

    • Skip Scott
      June 30, 2017 at 07:04

      Wow. I hope you’re trying to be funny. “Country over Party”? How about “Truth and Peace over Lies and Armageddon.”

    • Gregory Herr
      June 30, 2017 at 15:42

      There’s little in the way of support for facts. Look at it…it’s innuendo and “judgement”.

  38. Joe Tedesky
    June 29, 2017 at 23:10

    I just saw this….


    Apparently not only is the NYT bad at delivering truthful news, it’s not a good place to work either. The truth of the matter is the NYT is a dying dinosaur. Everyone is blaming the demise of the NYT to the free news offered on the internet, bug along with that this sites comment board has had many one time NYT readers sight their contempt for the low grade news value which the NYT has become the messenger of. This loss of credibility only comes as a result of the NYT lossing sight of it’s core mission. That core mission is to report the news, as it is, and not so much as you wish it to be.

    • Sam F
      June 30, 2017 at 14:23

      Yes, I noticed that the larger group of editors threatening to resign are just copy editors, but NYT has apparently halved their number to 55, indicating budget cuts. Perhaps the oligarchy will see diminishing returns, and sell out to CN with owner financing. Then dump the print version after a few years, let Mr. Parry and the VIPs run the show with just one copy editor, and turn a profit.

    • Typingperson
      July 1, 2017 at 02:37

      The NYT has been a complicit propaganda agency for the US establishment since time immemorial. This is not new.

      I’m a newspaper reporter. I get and appreciate the anger of the Times copyeditors. They feel they upholded a public trust and now they’re getting screwed. This is true. They are.

      That said, the NYT is not a public trust. It’s a shitty Zionist pro-Israel propaganda organ for the deep state, so I don’t know what they’re on about. ??

      NYT reporting on foreign policy, politics, national security is false and corrupt. Despite all these conscientious, dedicated copy-editors. That, plus the tedious lifestyle porn, caused me to bag the NYT years ago. I was a dedicated reader from age 14. I’m 49 now. Bagged the NYT at least 10 years ago.

      At least they have the Guild. To possibly protect their interests.

      I work for a non-union paper. ALM. Legal trade news. Owned by a private equity company–Wasserstein. Total shitshow. Incompetent clueless mananagement. Dysfunctional technology. Private equity owners sucking the money and the life out of the papers. Screwing the readers and the reporters.

      15 percent carried interest tax loophole, cause they’re private equity. Instead of normal 40 percent corporate income tax. They suck the money out and screw the workers. Vampire squids. All perfectly legal under the tax codes.

      Reporters have no recourse.

      Unlike the copyeditors at the NYT, who are members of the Guild.

      I’m sorry they’re getting screwed. That said, I could give shit. They work for a shitty, Zionist, pro-Israel, pro-war, pro-regime change, pro-Russophobia, lying, racist paper. Own it, NYT copyeditors.

      You’re not part of the so-called public trust.

  39. Michael
    June 29, 2017 at 22:43

    The statement about 17 agencies was ridiculous from the beginning.

    Coast Guard intelligence (one of 17) says Russians hacked DNC? Give me a break.
    Drug Enforcement Administration intelligence division concurs? And so do National Reconnaissance Office and National Geospatial Intelligence Agency? This is all laughable. Analyzing satellite pictures has nothing to do with analyzing electronic communications or servers.
    The 17 include other equally irrelevant agencies: Army intelligence, Navy intelligence etc.
    (And as others pointed out, only a private company paid by DNC got access to the servers, not any intelligence agency.)

    • Typingperson
      July 1, 2017 at 01:21


  40. Mildly - Facetious
    June 29, 2017 at 22:26

    All of this accusation/propaganda will become a Hollywood blockbuster movie in the next 5 or 10 years.

    A new report raises some big questions about Michael Flynn and Russian hackers

    The Wall Street Journal describes how one Trump supporter reached out to hackers — and dropped Flynn’s name.

    Jun 29, 2017, 7:35pm EDT

    A tantalizing new report from Shane Harris of the Wall Street Journal gives the strongest indication yet that collusion may have occurred — or was at least attempted — between supporters of Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign and Russian (or unknown others) hackers who targeted Democrats’ emails.

    And it raises serious questions about whether fired National Security Adviser Michael Flynn was involved in these efforts to contact hackers.

    Harris describes an effort by Peter Smith, a Trump-supporting GOP operative and private equity executive, to track down Hillary Clinton’s infamous 30,000 or so deleted emails during the fall of 2016.

    How this story fits into the timeline of the hackings
    It’s no secret that Trump wanted someone to find Clinton’s deleted emails — he said as much publicly.

    Harris’s story changes that somewhat. Now we know of Smith’s outreach to Russian hackers — and, more importantly, his claims that Flynn (who was close to Trump) may have known too. And there’s that other claim that US intelligence suggests Russian hackers were discussing giving hacked emails to Flynn. Where would they get that idea?

    Any involvement from Flynn could be quite significant. He’s known to have had many contacts with Russian officials, and he advised Trump on foreign policy matters during the presidential campaign.

    Afterward, Trump named him national security adviser. But he didn’t last long in the post, resigning in February due to controversy over whether he falsely described his contacts with Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak during the transition.

    By then, the White House had been told that Flynn was under federal investigation. And then-FBI Director James Comey has since testified that the day after Flynn’s firing, President Trump took him aside and told him, “I hope you can see your way clear to letting this go, to letting Flynn go. He is a good guy. I hope you can let this go.”

    So Trump has already been trying to shield Flynn from investigators — making the question of just what Flynn might know ever more interesting, and one that will certainly be on special counsel Robert Mueller’s mind.

    Read Full Report > http://www.vox.com/2017/6/29/15896582/trump_russia_michael_flynn_wsj

  41. C
    June 29, 2017 at 21:57

    The plan was formed when it became apparent Trump was going to win. To try impeachment first. Then if that didn’t stick, to bog him down with frivolous lawsuits in court. This came straight from the dem party. Of course as much vilification as possible along the way.

    • Typingperson
      July 1, 2017 at 01:14

      Nope. The DNC and the Hillary Campaign had no idea Trump was going to win until Election Day in November. Hillary was whining re Russia hacking before that–back in the summer of 2016–when the FBI was criminally investigating her for her illegal use of a private server as Secretary of State.

  42. Howard Mettee
    June 29, 2017 at 21:09

    Is it required to blame the Intelligence Services when their work is “politicized” by axe-to-grind politicians, who are the ones behaving as the spin doctors? Somehow the mixing of true intelligence and propaganda is something that all nations – transparent and deceptive – are hereditarily unable to prevent. But we can be sure that the longer the truth lies fallow in the fields of fiction, the more lies become the historically accepted reality.

    In this way 17 intelligence agencies will generally be accepted as having produced the report that actually only 4 contributed to. Other examples come to mind as the report of “Russian aggression” and “Crimean Annexation” that are now baked-in characterizations of Russia’s defensive response to NATO expansion and the Kiev Putsch, and our failure to accept the results of the certified referendum representing the preferences of 86% of the Crimeans. This is how our history books are written. Is there ever a time for truth? Yes – Now!

  43. Mildly - Facetious
    June 29, 2017 at 19:28

    Is Reality Leigh Winner a Psyops goon? Will she vanish into history’s nebula?


    June 29, 2017 at 19:27

    Anybody with half a brain knew that Hillary Clinton was lying about “17 agencies” when she said it.

    Just because the head of 17 agencies says something doesn’t mean that they all investigated it, and that would have been practically impossible only a month or so after the Democrats invented their phony Russia-Wikileaks connection.

    And one of those agencies is the Coast Guard – not exactly known for their cyber-security expertise.

    • June 29, 2017 at 21:23

      Anybody with half a brain. That must be close to 10 percent of all Americans.. Someone referred to that Nuland broad do you all know who Victoria Nulands husband is? Robert Kagan! You want to make your country a better place send the whole Kagan Klan back to the country they all have dual citizenship with. Tomorrow would be fast enough. Start thinking do your research and stop wasting your time talking about Russia and hope your politicians start talking with Russians , Chinese and any other people in the world that are interested in getting along. You all have a nice Peacefull day.

      • Typingperson
        July 1, 2017 at 01:07

        Thanks for this. Israel is the elephant in the room–and all the USA-ians are laming about Russia.

        * “Laming” is a new verb that I just invented. Lame + blame.

  45. Mild-ly Facetious
    June 29, 2017 at 19:22

    So is Reality Leigh Winner a psyops goon? Will she evaporate into history’s nebula, never to be seen or heard from again?


    I’m on record here as suspecting Israeli Intel is the culprit behind such hacking — there obviously WAS some hacking — the question, for me is Who Really Done IT ? !

  46. William McQuaid
    June 29, 2017 at 19:10

    From 17 down to four agencies but was the entire story debunked? It wasn’t clear to me in your article.

    This is thoughtful writing on the agencies. thank you.

    • Rob Roy
      June 29, 2017 at 19:32

      I wish everyone on this site would watch the Putin interviews. Putin is smarter than all our Congress put together. So is Assad, actually, who has never used chemicals on Syrians; yet the USA has used it in every war. My nephew is dying from it as I speak. Of course Putin didn’t hack our elections. He knows it doesn’t matter who is in office; foreign policy will continue as before. (Except now, at home, the James Buchanan and Milton Friedman economics will be carried to the furthest degree possible. Hence all Trump’s appointees are to destroy whatever agency they are assigned to.) Every reason for the US to attack another country is a false flag. Guess there are too many who still think there were WMDs. How many times does Julian Assange have to say Russia hacking emails to Wikileaks did NOT happen, it was leaks from the DNC. But here’s newsflash, Iran is on the hit list even before Russia.

      • Lisa
        June 30, 2017 at 05:41

        Finally the alternative to hacking, – leaking – , appeared among the comments. It is so much more probable that it was an inside leak (Seth Rich, Craig Murray). The terminology “Russia hacked the elections” is so vague and even untrue, however, it has stuck to peoples’ minds and the news media practice.

      • RobRoyisaliar
        June 30, 2017 at 16:32

        Ole RR thinks he knows more than the US IC. Trump has hosted Russian dignitaries while trying hide the ambassador, allowed Russians to run free around America is going to give the houses President Obama took from them for sanctions for interfering. Strange that Trump has not even brought up collusion to the other members of the GOP and that McConnell refused a bipartisan report to Congress on it. We would have known about back in August if he hadn’t stepped on the report. Presiedent Obama also left cyber bombs for Trump to drop into Russian infrastructure, he couldn’t be bothered. The obstruction and the lies trying to discredit the IC community should be enough for even YOU to see Trump is hiding his collusion. No matter, he’ll be taken down by RICO charges, not obstruction. BTW- still hiding your attraction to other men? Come on out of the closet, no one will think less of you than they already do.

        • Skip Scott
          June 30, 2017 at 17:40

          The intelligence agencies are the biggest liars on the planet. They discredit themselves.
          Read John Perkins’ “Confession of an Economic Hit Man.”
          James Clapper lied to congress and the American people and got off, while Snowden had to flee and got stuck in Russia.
          There is NO PROOF of Russian interference, however there is a tremendous amount of proof of Israeli interference. Should we go after Israel?
          The vault 7 releases from wikileaks show that our intelligence communities can fake point of origin. They can say anything and pin it on anyone. They are the single greatest force for evil on the planet, and you are a stooge.

          • Ramaski
            July 1, 2017 at 01:10

            I agree. But I suggest that those of us who know these things should refuse to fall for the “intelligence community” newspeak label. When you look at all the mass murder and mayhem that the CIA has unleashed, they are arguably the least community minded entity on the planet. Would we countenance terms like “KGB Community” or “Gestapo Community”? Such nice people in these communities.

        • Gregory Herr
          June 30, 2017 at 20:00

          I noticed at least twelve salient points Rob Roy made in his intelligently expressed and insightful comment. Your comment, however, says absolutely nothing worth the contemplation of a single moment and ends on a disgustingly pathetic note that could only come from an emotionally stunted and twisted mind. And I don’t know where you get the temerity to think you can speak for what “others” think of Rob Roy, but I will tell YOU something: I think it’s a safe bet that people who generally post comments here, including Rob, are ethically and intellectually above your grade.

      • Typingperson
        July 1, 2017 at 01:00

        Spot on, Rob Roy. I am so sorry about your nephew.

        I want so much for this country to stop making war. Our biggest export, as best I can tell.

  47. Jessejea
    June 29, 2017 at 18:27

    Right. And that we have done in the past. And didn’t we make sure Yeltson the alkie would be their Pres back in the day? And didn’t we make sure that Yanakovitch would NOT be Ukraines Pres, even tho he was as elected as T-rump was. And why don’t we focus more on that Nuland broad if we’re looking for who started the Russia-gate lies.

  48. George
    June 29, 2017 at 17:56

    To wit, they didn’t even proffer that Russia did the hack, the assessment was just that the hack was of the type that they’ve done in the past.

  49. June 29, 2017 at 17:53

    Americans (mostly the deceiders) will use any possible trick to fool Russians or any other people that they want to dominate. Beside they have a cash-register instead of brain. Let all of us who are not US Citizen embargo that country, until its people will have put America back in order…

  50. M. Proust
    June 29, 2017 at 17:37

    This is your big victory? “Only *four* intelligence agencies have caught Russia helping us steal the election!”

    • Typingperson
      July 1, 2017 at 00:57

      Go back and read the story again. That’s not what Parry said–and not the conclusion of the story. Reading comprehension is important.

  51. Jessejean
    June 29, 2017 at 17:35

    Robert–well done and congratulations. I’m guessing the NYT got tired of your relentless “feet-to-fire” focus on them. Martha would be proud of you. But how do we know that the media “witch hunt ” is energizing T-rump’s supporters? Thank you again for all you do.

  52. Cal
    June 29, 2017 at 17:25

    Hardly anyone reads corrections.

    Retracting the “17′ is intended to ‘pretend honesty’ so it can continue with the 3 major intel’s propaganda.

    • mike k
      June 29, 2017 at 17:29


    • Desert Dave
      June 29, 2017 at 22:00

      For the next step, we get NYT to admit that all 3 (or 4) got their info from a single source – Crowdstrike.

  53. Abe
    June 29, 2017 at 16:55

    “According to [investigative journalist Seymour] Hersh, the information he obtain from US intelligence and military circles shows that they would warn the US president about the absence of any evidence against Damascus when the attack was ordered. Yet, the White House chose to follow the version proposed by the Western media.

    “Under these conditions, in bid to somehow justify its military presence in Syria, the United States got engaged in a new round of information wars, while preparing new provocations against Syrian authorities.

    “As it’s been reported by the New York Times, the White House said late Monday that President Bashar al-Assad of Syria appeared to be ‘preparing another chemical attack’, and warned that he would ‘pay a heavy price’ if one took place.

    “According to the BuzzFeed News that contacted a total of five US defense officials, the US military doesn’t know where the potential chemical attack would come from, including one US Central Command official who had ‘no idea’ about its origin. The officials said they were unaware the White House was planning to release its statement; usually such statements are coordinated across the national security agencies and departments before they are released.

    “However, the US ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley has recently tweeted that Russia and Iran would share the blame of any future attack by Assad against the Syrian people.

    “It’s curious that the executive director of the Arms Control Association, Daryl Kimball has recently said that he had not heard of Syrian moves toward actual chemical attacks. He also added that he did not recall such a precise, pre-emptive public warning against a foreign government regarding banned weapons ‘in at least the last 20 years.’ More often, such matters are handled in private diplomatic or intelligence communications, he said.

    “The New York Times is convinced that Monday’s message must be designed to set the stage for another possible military strike.

    “There’s little doubt that such ‘warnings’ show that the United States are planning to conduct yet another act of military aggression against Syria. The United States has already reached a certain final stage in its attempts to bring down Assad and his administration. And it’s safe to say that such attempts are going to get even more outrageous, if the international community doesn’t stop the US.”

    Would Yet Another False Flag Attack Allow the US to Go All In Against Syria?
    By Jean Perier

    • mike k
      June 29, 2017 at 17:24

      We can’t really say just how crazy this US government is that has invaded Syria against all international and UN law. When people are demonstratedly this insane, you can only hold your breath and wait for their next insane gesture.

      • Jessejea
        June 29, 2017 at 18:20

        Mike–demonstrably. But I like yours too. ?

        • Jessejean
          June 29, 2017 at 18:29

          Question mark was s’posed to be an emoji.

  54. Jj
    June 29, 2017 at 16:46

    The reason this was said at all is because the original statement was put out by the group that includes all those agencies. It didn’t specifically say that all the agencies investigated and agreed, but since they are all part of the group that put out the statement that’s why it was understood that way.

    • mike k
      June 29, 2017 at 17:18

      Why is it that trolls always seem to swim in schools?

      • mike k
        June 29, 2017 at 17:28

        And by the way, that is not why it was put out that way, it was done for propaganda effect. Why do people lie? It is usually for a reason.

    • chris moffatt
      June 29, 2017 at 17:22

      The main point is that none of the ’17 agencies’ did an investigation because the DNC would only let the dubious Crowd Strike have access to the “evidence”.

      • Gregory Herr
        June 30, 2017 at 15:27

        And then there’s the crap “filler” about RT.

    • Typingperson
      July 1, 2017 at 00:43

      Hillary Clinton said all 17 intelligence agencies concurred on Russia hacking–and the corporate media / MSM dutifully repeated her spurious claim.That’s why it was understood that way.

      Clinton refused to turn over her (illegal) private server to the FBI–and FBI, headed by Comey, did not subpoena it. Why?

      So the only say-so we have on Russia hacking is the discredited Ukraine and US neocon /regime-change-affiliated outfit, Crowdstrike.

      Why wouldn’t Hillary turn over the private server that she illegally used to do government business as Secretary of State to the FBI?

      Why was she using a private server, in violation of the law? She’s a lawyer. She knows better.

      Could it be to avoid FOIA requests from the press and the American people into pay to play schemes she carried out as Secretary of State, approving arms deals to shitty countries in exchange for their quid pro quo payments to Clinton Foundation?

      Was that all getting a bit too close to the surface? She was under a criminal investigation by the FBI over the private server use at the time. (Which she lied about. Said it was a routine security review.)

      Is that why she started bleating about Russia hacking, confirmed by all 17 US intelligence agencies–to deflect attention away from her use of a private server to avoid FOIA and hide her pay to play arms deals with kickbacks to Clinton Foundation? ??

  55. Bob Dreyfuss
    June 29, 2017 at 16:41

    The “17 agencies” thing isn’t a “lie.” The usual practice is for an IC assessment to be a product of the entire IC, i.e., all 17. In this case, it was a smaller group of core agencies, but it’s not unreasonable — before the recent revelation — to have accepted that it was a product of the whole IC. (By the way, some of those 17 are minor and thus irrelevant.) The problem with Bob’s analysis here is that he has no evidence whatsoever that the ICA’s conclusions were skewed or politically predetermined.

    • mike k
      June 29, 2017 at 17:17

      You just don’t get it, do you Bob. Did you actually read the article? In terms of what was stated in the article, your comments are irrelevant.

      • Roy G Biv
        June 30, 2017 at 11:28

        Actually what BD said is purely logical. Totally relevant. Maybe you didn’t read the article Mike.

        • Gregory Herr
          June 30, 2017 at 15:22

          Do you understand “cherry picking “. Sure you do. It’s what you do. But then I may be giving you the benefit of the doubt on reading comprehension.

    • Gregory Herr
      June 30, 2017 at 15:19

      Here’s a link to the actual document. NSA, CIA, FBI.

  56. Joe Tedesky
    June 29, 2017 at 16:40

    Please somebody tell Bill Maher this about the 17 intelligence agencies. Back in May Maher got in the face of Boris Epshteyn on his HBO show, because Epshteyn was reluctant to accept the 17 intelligence agencies so called report.

    watch this….


    I’m no fan of Trump, but I still would like to know the truth. For this reason, and mostly because of Robert Parry’s fantastic reporting I bless the day I found consortiumnews. Between the many fine authors who write for this site, and especially for the many great comments there is to read on this site, I have found this site to be a ‘god send’ gift for keeping my sanity. We only want the truth, but the truth in today’s world is a commodity to be desired for sure, if it can even be found in the first place. So hooray for Robert Parry, a truth teller we can believe in. Thank You Mr Parry Joe

    • Virginia
      June 30, 2017 at 08:07

      Joe, I agree. Consortium News has been a God-send for me, too. I feel I’ve come into a community of such elevated thinking and sharing, a community of folk who care about others and for the good of the world more than they care about themselves. Folk who will not be compromised by what is expedient but will persist against great odds in finding truth — a commodity more important to us than any other. And folk who know that without truth we perish.

      I join you, also, in praising and thanking Mr. Parry for starting, providing and staying with this prized, special, heart warming, cheering, protective, sometimes witty, very precious community.

      Obviously I can’t say enough about it!

  57. James
    June 29, 2017 at 15:48

    “For instance, *if the analysts* were known to be hard-liners on Russia or supporters of Hillary Clinton, they could be expected to deliver the one-sided report that they did.” So, you state as a fact that the report is one-sided and imply that IF THE ANALYSTS were biased then of course they would deliver the report they did. And if they were not biased, would they have delivered a different report? You seem to be engaging in a priori reasoning. However, the point of the article is not the number of intelligence agencies claiming evidence of Russian hacking but the President’s shifting opinion on whether there was Russian hacking based on which position would make his opposition look the most ridiculous or culpable.
    “In the span of 72 hours, President Trump described the email hacking that roiled the 2016 campaign as a Democratic “hoax” and as clear aggression by Russia that his predecessor, President Barack Obama, failed to address.
    “Other times, Mr. Trump has said the hacking might have been done by China.
    “Or, as he claimed during the first general election debate, the hacking could have been the work of a lone wolf weighing 400 pounds, sitting on his bed at home.
    “Then there was the time Mr. Trump blamed ‘some guy in his home in New Jersey.’
    “Or, as Mr. Trump has also suggested, there might not even have been hacking at all…
    “On Saturday, Mr. Trump tried again to focus attention on Mr. Obama.
    ” ‘Since the Obama Administration was told way before the 2016 Election that the Russians were meddling, why no action?’ Mr. Trump wrote on Twitter. ‘Focus on them, not T!’ ”
    Of course, if the Obama administration warned the American public in August 2016 that there was credible evidence from sources that couldn’t be revealed without jeopardizing nation security, then Trump would be shouting, with some justification, that Obama was “rigging” the election in Clinton’s favor. What does President Trump actually suspect or believes happened during the 2016 election? It would be interesting to get a definitive answer, but, it would seem, that his answer depends on what would play to his base on any given moment and not objective facts.

    Your subhead says: “A founding Russia-gate myth is that all 17 U.S. intelligence agencies agreed that Russia hacked into and distributed Democratic emails, a falsehood that The New York Times has belatedly retracted” is sadly misleading as the retraction seems to be referring to the original June 25 article and not all their previous reporting.

    • mike k
      June 29, 2017 at 17:12

      What Trump said or did not say had nothing to do with the point of the article. Your feeble attempt to throw dust in our eyes is not going to sell in this venue.

      • Rob Roy
        June 29, 2017 at 19:14

        Mike, right.

      • James
        June 29, 2017 at 19:56

        Yes, Mike K, that is correct; what Trump did or did not say is not the point Robert Parry’s article–just as Parry missed the point of the NYT article. I am not throwing dust and I wasn’t aware that consortiumnews.com was a venue for only one point of view. I thought Consortium for Independent Journalism (CIJ) was a 21-year-old independent investigative news site where following the facts lead to the story. You seem to be implying something else.

    • Skip Scott
      June 29, 2017 at 20:07


      We welcome various points of view. However like the article stated, when you pick the analysts you pick the results. I think you give the Intelligence agencies too much credit to not be co-opted. See veteran intelligence professional Ray McGovern’s comment above. To try to paint the picture that this process has been fair and unbiased regarding Russia-gate is laughable. You’re welcome here, but you can’t keep me from chuckling.

      Your hatred for Trump is blinding you to the facts of the case. Yes, he is a buffoon. But the Deep State is going to get us all killed.

      • James
        June 29, 2017 at 21:53

        “Clapper further acknowledged that the analysts who produced the Jan. 6 assessment on alleged Russian hacking were ‘hand-picked’ from the CIA, FBI and NSA.” Do you think that Clapper was saying by “hand-picking” the analysts, we are really hand-picking the conclusion to Senate Judiciary subcommittee? Either he’s awfully honest or awfully naive. “…if the analysts were known to be hard-liners on Russia or supporters of Hillary Clinton, they could be expected to deliver the one-sided report that they did” is conjecture on Parry’s part–note the word “if”. He is not report that the analysts were bias–it would be nice if there were the hard reporting proving that. That past bias in intelligence led to tragic results is undeniable. That the difference between 3 and 17 intelligence agencies say that there is evidence does not negate the 3. That the President believes both that there is and isn’t evidence of Russian hacking depending on the needs of his spin is in his tweets. “Your hatred for Trump is blinding you to the facts of the case” is an assumption based on no evidence: I never said nor implied I hate the President and the facts of the case are in dispute. One can find facts both for and against Russian hacking, which is why an informed citizen seeks out more than one side, especially in an important news story such as this

        • Dave P.
          June 30, 2017 at 00:55

          James, do you know what the U.S. has been doing all over the world since the CIA orchestrated overthrow of democratically elected prime minister Mosaddegh of Iran in 1953? How many Countries Leaders we have gone after? How many coups CIA has been involved in? What the U.S. did in Russia during 1991-2000, including making sure that Yeltsin is declared the winner in1996. The latest was just in 2014, in Ukraine, where according to Victoria Nuland, we spent $5 billion to overthrow a democratically elected president.

          And we are talking about who (Russia!) hacked the Podesta and Hillary’s emails, DNC emails. It only shows to the rest of the world that how ignorant the majority of U.S. people must be to believe in this garbage fed to them 24/7 by Media and The Ruling Establishment. It is not people’s fault. With this neoliberal world economy the Country’s Rulers have forced on the population, not many people have steady, and secure jobs. All their news comes from TV as it is a struggle just to keep up. There is no time to read anything beyond what is fed by MSM.

          To any well informed person, this Hillary’s Emails Hacking news should be just a non-issue. Here, the Country has spent a year discussing this nonsense. Russia hacked Hillary’s emails? If there was any evidence, it was Obama in the white House ? They would have published it right away. One does not have to be a genius to understand it.

        • Skip Scott
          June 30, 2017 at 06:52

          You are ignoring a ton of evidence and nitpicking to make your point. Are you a lawyer, by chance? Crowdstrike was the only one who actually examined the DNC servers. None of the three (not 17) agencies actually examined the first hand evidence. Yet they can come to an assessment? As for hacking, I would presume that Russia hacks, as does every country capable of it. The real question is who supplied Wikileaks. Assange, Craig Murray, and the man who wrote the code that scoops up everything for the NSA William Binny all dispute Russian hacking as the source to wikileaks and say it was a leak, not a hack. Furthermore, the more recent vault7 releases from wikileaks show that the CIA is capable of faking point of origin. Considering their past actions in countries around the globe, do you really expect a man like James Clapper to be a truth teller? He’s already been caught lying to Congress, and suffered no consequences as a result. If you really think of yourself as an informed citizen, I suggest you research the credibility of your sources. Balancing truth with lies is a disservice to yourself and others. And yes, I did make an assumption that you are a Trump hater, not that I like the guy. So are you? Or would that be giving away too much?

          • James
            July 2, 2017 at 11:24

            Skip–I do not hate the President. In 2016, the voters had a Sophie’s Choice between “Crooked Hillery” (per Trump) or Buffoon Donald (per you). If Hillery is crooked, then the adage “keep you friends close but your enemies closer” applies, especially with both Houses in opposition control. While flawed, our democracy and our Constitution will protect us from high crimes and misdemeanors. However, buffonery was accepted by the founders as a consequence of freedom; they, however, gave the people too much credit not to elect a buffoon and not enough protection from one. I would rather have a crook in the White House (what’s one more?) than a buffoon steering the ship of state. Perhaps that’s a minority opinion.

            As to Dave P.’s point; I am well aware of US history in other’s free(-ish) elections and I am not willing to take a “oh well, that’s karma” approach to interference by others. As a by-the-way, I believe that Trump’s presidency is a legitimate refection of an untainted vote, that if there were not evidence of Russian hacking, history would have played out as it did.

            “Furthermore, the more recent vault7 releases from wikileaks show that the CIA is capable of faking point of origin.” What one man can invent another can discover, Otherwise, we live in a Matrix reality, and thus this free speech dialog we’re engaged in is moot. Nothing can be known, no facts can be demonstrated to be true and life is a simulacrum.

          • Skip Scott
            July 2, 2017 at 19:28

            I am honestly trying to understand your position. You say that you think Trump’s presidency was the reflection of an untainted vote. So you accept that the Russians didn’t hack the voting machines. Also you have the view that our actions subverting others’ elections doesn’t excuse Russia’s alleged interference. Unless you think that the contents of the emails were fabricated, you are saying that it’s more important to you that Russia shouldn’t have interfered by divulging truthful information to the American public, than it is that the DNC subverted Sander’s candidacy and that Hillary felt she needed to have “public views” different from “private views”, as she said to her banker friends. I propose that if the Russians were the source (which I strongly doubt, per our previous exchanges) they did the public a favor by giving them more complete and more truthful information.

            As for the vault 7 releases, that you live inside the matrix is exactly my point. If you look through unclassified documents, it is easy to see that propaganda, false flag attacks, assassinations, and coups, have been SOP for our intelligence agencies for decades. In 2012 under the NDAA it became legal to use propaganda on the American public. Nowadays they call it Stratcom or Psyops. You say “what one man can invent another man can discover.” Julian Assange unearthed the fact that the CIA can falsely attribute an email or hack via vault 7. Basically he discovered what the CIA invented. My point is that truth from this point on is going to be harder to come by than ever before. IMHO, James Clapper and the Intelligence agencies are not the people to count on to deliver truth. I think we should listen to interviews and speeches from all the world’s leaders and judge their words for ourselves. That’s our best chance for arriving at the truth. I hope you take the time to watch Stone’s Putin interviews, and keep an open mind.

          • James
            July 2, 2017 at 22:33

            “So you accept that the Russians didn’t hack the voting machines.” Yes, but that doesn’t mean they did not try to affect the outcome of the election. “Also you have the view that our actions subverting others’ elections doesn’t excuse Russia’s alleged interference.” Being a victim of a crime does not excuse the victim from committing a similar crime. “Unless you think that the contents of the emails were fabricated, you are saying that it’s more important to you that Russia shouldn’t have interfered by divulging truthful information to the American public, than it is that the DNC subverted Sander’s candidacy and that Hillary felt she needed to have “public views” different from “private views”, as she said to her banker friends. I propose that if the Russians were the source (which I strongly doubt, per our previous exchanges) they did the public a favor by giving them more complete and more truthful information.” Whether the information was truthful or not, if the Russians arrange for wikileaks to release the DNC emails, that was not through altruism but an attempt to affect the opinion of voters against Clinton, someone for whom Putin has a healthy respect and a huge dose of dislike. The DNC emails were just one part of a supposed plan. If you want to give more credence to Assange than to the NYT or WP and more credence to vault7 than to the FBI, CIA and NSA, then that’s fine. I like to believe there are uncoopted members of the mainstream press and US Government. Call me a Pollyanna but after all you say, “If you look through unclassified documents…”; unclassified by who and published by who?

        • Skip Scott
          July 3, 2017 at 08:23


          Thank you for continuing to reply.
          Well, It’s easy to start with the Pentagon Papers and Operation Gladio. Also Operation Northwoods that was rejected by JFK, and may have been part of the reason he was assassinated. I would also recommend “Confessions of an Economic Hit Man”, by John Perkins to get an understanding of the dirty underbelly of our intelligence agencies. I have no doubt that there are un-coopted members of the mainstream press and the US government, but they are not in charge. People like Ray McGovern, William Binny, Tom Drake, Jeffrey Sterling, John Kiriakou, and Scott Ritter were all never coopted. Now they are gone from the Intelligence community. James Clapper not only doesn’t get arrested for lying to Congress, he’s still on the MSM and has a cushy think tank job, and is believed by the public. As for the press: Robert Parry, Phil Donahue, Dan Rather, and Gary Webb were never coopted. They all became persona non-grata in the MSM. I think this makes a pretty good case that the institutions themselves have been utterly corrupted. Those that don’t toe the line are eventually weeded out. What one “likes to believe” and what is true are often entirely different.

    • Roy G Biv
      June 30, 2017 at 11:20

      Thank you James. Keep trying. But these Parry readers are as inured as Fox News viewers.

      • Skip Scott
        June 30, 2017 at 13:03

        Speaking of inured, take a look in the mirror. All the evidence presented here, and you spout MSM BS? Try a reasoned argument with real evidence.

      • James
        July 2, 2017 at 22:38

        Thanks, Roy. I’m disappointed that this particular “news story” by Parry was nothing more that well-written clickbait. I expect better.

  58. Skip Scott
    June 29, 2017 at 15:43

    My question is who started the 17 intelligence agencies lie? Finding out who the liar is and holding them to account is what’s really required to get to the bottom of this.

    • Rob Roy
      June 29, 2017 at 17:45

      Skip, the first time I heard the lie about 17 agencies was from the lips of Hillary Clinton. I venture to say that’s ground zero. So, unlike lots of people, I didn’t believe it right off because she’s as much a liar as Trump.

      • Jessejea
        June 29, 2017 at 18:16

        I agree. In fact this smear campaign looks and feels a lot like what Missy Swillery did to Bernie, but on stilts. And if she’d won the presidency, it would be what she’d level at any Leftie “resistance” to her war mongering policies. At least now, with T-rump, the Left can be the yappy little dog at his heels, every time he tries some crap. And I like yappy little dogs–they are very close to the Achilles’ tendon.

      • Skip Scott
        June 30, 2017 at 06:22

        I wonder. I think Hillary got it from somewhere. Was there an initial news release that mentioned 17 agencies from the DNI? Anyway, I still think it’s key to uncover the propagandist that started this. I remember it being constantly repeated as gospel, and of course retractions never carry the weight that the original lie does. The only way to get it into the public’s head that they’re being lied to is make a big stink and expose the liar.

      • Perry Logan
        July 1, 2017 at 11:48

        You’ve been misinformed about Hillary’s truthfulness. Politifact determined that Hillary is the most truthful of all of the candidates who ran in 2016, and ranks 2nd overall in a field of 20 presidential candidates, since 2007.

    • Typingperson
      June 30, 2017 at 22:42

      Hillary Clinton

    • A. Karnitz
      July 1, 2017 at 16:28

      It’s not a lie. It’s a confusion of the macro with the micro. The Times corrected its claim that 17 agencies agreed that Russia was behind the DNC hacking. It has NOT corrected the claim that 17 agencies agreed that Russia was attempting to influence the election. That’s a very important distinction.

      • A. Karnitz
        July 1, 2017 at 16:35

        And to correct myself: The Times corrected its claim that 17 agencies agreed that Russia was behind hacking attempts.

  59. Stiv
    June 29, 2017 at 15:36

    A whole article about this? When there is so much going on? The real question is…when will Parry finally break free of his own “:groupthink” and find something worthy to obsess over. Taken to extreme, he could go on the rest of his days talking of nothing but.

    If he spent 10% of his time exposing the outright lies, told by “pro administration” outlets and believed by a large portion of the populace, then I’d have more room for his constant rehashing of old “issues” he has with “Liberal” outlets. But frankly, I’d prefer he finds a way into real “investigative” work and gets away from the rehash commentary.

    We all know Clinton’s issues and we know some, if not most, reporters on the national scene dislike Trump. I HATE the guy and hope he finds a quick demise but also realize that not everything I read at NYT or Wapo is going to be 100% correct. Just like the postings at CN…food for thought and grounds for further research…and some of the commenters here do a greater job of filling in the cracks.

    • John V. Walsh
      June 29, 2017 at 15:42

      Parry’s writing is vital. Without it and the writing of others like it (I think of the libertarian Justin Raimondo and the liberal Stephen F. Cohen) we would all be living under the cloud of The Big Lie, Russiagate.
      If you hate Trump so much that you have abandoned the truth, then the neocons, the humanitarian imperialists, the irrational Russia bashers etc have won.

    • Miranda Keefe
      June 29, 2017 at 15:57

      If you don’t realize that the growing antagonism in the nation against Russia when we are on the brink of war with them on three fronts (Syria, Ukraine, Baltic Sea) that is fueled by the lies of Russia-gate is the most important issue the Left should concern it with- then I don’t know what to tell you.

      Being concerned about Trump’s terrible policies and the way he acts but not being concerned about this growing cold war that is closer to a hot war than even the Cuban Missile Crisis is like being concerned about what tune the orchestra is playing as the Titantic sinks.

      The critique of Russia-gate is NOT about defending Trump; it is about calling crap on the constant attacks on Russia and demonizing Putin to the point that rational decision making about getting along with them is now considered treason. It just so happens that the way the Deep State and the Clintonistas and their lap dogs in the media are spewing forth this propaganda is also falsely targeting a terrible president.

      Can’t people see that it is possible that Trump is a horrid, despicable person who agenda is 99% bad for the country and he’s likely to abandon the good 1% if Social Media tell him to do so and yet at the same time the attack on him happens to be total bullshit?

      I guess since we all know Hitler was a terrible person responsible for untold death and destruction we could go on and say that he must also have been responsible for the Flue Epidemic of 1919. If I said that’s total nonsense, does that make he a Hitler apologist? Of course not.

      Some people say Trump is so bad they don’t care what gets rid of him. Really? So you’d be fine with a bomb blowing up the entire Capitol at his next State of the Union like in that Designated Survivor show? I mean that gets rid of Trump. Or would you be okay with a terrible new disease sweeping through D.C. killing half the population as long it takes out Trump too? Or would you be okay with the Generals do an old fashioned Banana Republic coup and taking him out and shooting him, putting General Dunford, the chair of the Joint Chiefs, in command as “Supreme Commander?” All these scenarios get rid of Trump.

      So I call crap on those who say that any method is good. Any method is not good.

      • Jessejean
        June 29, 2017 at 18:07

        Great response Miranda. And they say reason and logic are dead in America. But while I completely side with you, I have to admit to a secret joy over certain public reactions to the GreatCheeto’s Clown Convention. F’r instance when that racist meatloaf Steve Scalise took a bullet in defense of his guns for all policies. Or when the guy in arekansass ran his truck into the 10 commandments statue on public land. Love that guy. I think my schadenfreude needs are too high.

      • Bruce
        June 29, 2017 at 19:08

        Great comment.

      • Sam Widge
        June 29, 2017 at 19:42

        Great comment. If true, which is looking more likely, how in the hell could this fiasco get this far? Its been what, a year?

      • Skip Scott
        June 29, 2017 at 19:58

        Thank you Miranda. Well said. So many people think they have to see things as good/bad. Here it’s more like bad/worse. Whatever keeps the mushroom clouds off the horizon is good enough for now. The real battle is against the Deep State. One of the few things I liked about Trump was his vision of detente with Russia. If he caves to the Deep State on foreign policy we are doomed.

      • Big Bill
        June 29, 2017 at 20:30

        Or, maybe there’s actually nothimg wrong with the American Electorate’s PRESIDENT TRUMP! Selective partisan history forgets that the Korean War didn’t start because we were threatening or insulting anyone, we we’re all happy at the time about our expected “Peace Dividend” and how it was now the UN’s responsibility – President Truman even specifically left South Korea off of the list of nations the USA would defend against Communim

      • occupy on
        June 30, 2017 at 01:02

        Right on, Miranda!

      • Roy G Biv
        June 30, 2017 at 11:16

        Ok, where are the hard hitting Parry articles about Trump? At least Hitler had critics.

        • Miranda Keefe
          June 30, 2017 at 19:42

          Silly argument.

          There is no need to point out Trump’s problems here as it is the main theme of the mainstream media.

          Silence here on an attack on Trump means there is no need to counter the attack since it is accurate. But the ones that are not accurate and dangerous, because they ratchet up hatred towards Russia and Putin, need to be challenged and that’s what Parry does.

          But you might want to check out some of the articles here, which Parry as editor approved, are critical of Trump’s surrender to the Deep State narrative in Syria, critical of his war mongering with Iran, and critical of his financing the Saudi attacks on Qatar and Yemen.

          I’m really starting to be quite worried about Trump’s half-assed, hot dog, out of control, knee jerk reaction to what’s happening in the Middles East and how it might get us into a shooting war with Russia- why he’s acting exactly like Hillary Clinton.

    • June 29, 2017 at 20:39

      If you are so disappointed by Mr. Parry’s articles…why dont u start your own blog…that no one will read….
      u should change your handle to “Shiv”…much more appropriate for your petty little stabs in the back…



    • Roy G Biv
      June 30, 2017 at 11:13

      The pro Trump sentiments here are nauseating. This is beyond honest and reasonable distrust of the IC, this reporting ignores the vast evidence of Trump being beholden to Russian oligarchs, all of whom are friends of Putin by the very structure the Russian government. It is only reasonable that he is compromised and his behavior is very consistent with that. Disregarding all of this because of paranoia about the IC is ignorant and missing the biggest story of the century aside from 911, which Parry also failed to analyze.

  60. Geoffrey de Galles
    June 29, 2017 at 15:25

    Collateral Damage —
    a shameless Putinoid + Russophobic hit-piece by NYT reporter Jason Zinoman @ NYT, June 7, 2017:-


    “Lee Camp: How to Write Propaganda for the NY Times – As Demonstrated in an Article About me”

  61. June 29, 2017 at 15:17

    Thanks for pointing this out. I’ve been arguing this point for months with no back up to speak off because of the media’s lockstep on the “17 Intelligence Agencies” mantra.

  62. chris moffatt
    June 29, 2017 at 15:16

    And of those three agencies, none saw and evaluated the supposed “evidence” which the DNC only shared with their hired consultant Crowd Strike – now proven not to be a reliable party. So of the seventeen agencies in agreement none knows what they are agreeing to.

  63. SteveK9
    June 29, 2017 at 15:12

    ‘Trump’s Twitter complaints that he and his administration are the targets of a “witch hunt” led by the “fake news” media, a grievance that appears to be energizing his supporters and could discredit whatever ongoing investigations eventually conclude.’

    It is an obvious ‘witch hunt’ and has about as much likelihood of finding collusion as the citizens of Salem had in finding witches.

    • John V. Walsh
      June 29, 2017 at 15:37

      They found no witches but they executed some substitutes anyway. Once witch hunts get embedded in our political culture, no one is safe.

      • Jessejean
        June 29, 2017 at 17:50

        John Walsh. SayThat!!! I was in high school during the Joe McCarthy attack on democracy and it hung around and hung around in my small town in Minnesota until well into the 70’s. And Minnesota was a very liberal state at the time. Mud sticks.

    • Johnnyreb
      June 29, 2017 at 16:19

      But they most assuredly found witches because they hung 20 innocent people at the stake for practicing witchcraft.

      • John wilson
        June 29, 2017 at 18:41

        Johnny Reb, you don’t hang people at the stake you burn them at the stake and people are hung on the scaffold or the gibbet.

        • Big Bill
          June 29, 2017 at 20:15

          Well hung or not, they’re hanged.

      • Sam F
        June 29, 2017 at 20:20

        Witches continue to be very useful in all groups. Quite a number were hung in Salem, including (from Hawthorne’s House of Seven Gables) Mr. Maul, a homesteader on state land given later to a political insider who could not then evict Maul from the prime building spot for said mansion. So the insider accused him of witchcraft and he was hung. Problem solved: all very simple for insiders.

        Towns and even nations have maintained scapegoats throughout their history as a focus of hatreds, so that local demagogues and their supporters can pose as protectors and accuse their targets of subverting local security. Every social group, company, and agency has the same tendency. The witches all convert to subversives, anarchists, labor leaders, reviled races or nationalities, communists, child molesters, drug dealers, and terrorists just as the public tires of the last category.

    • Brad Owen
      June 30, 2017 at 04:35

      A withch’s skills and talents are all just manifestations of “sixth sense” type of human talents. The Hindus call them the eight Siddhis I believe. The Celtic tribes refer to “second sight” to see the faery race. Ask a Welshwoman who has kept in touch with Druidic lore and kept in alliance with the Tylwyth Teg. It’s a fundamental error to believe that THOSE parts of the universe that are perceived through the five senses that are ordinarily available to us, are all that exists. That would be an unscientific assumption.

  64. Mild-ly Facetious
    June 29, 2017 at 14:26

    So, I’ve just read that THREE Intel Agencies made these incriminating.assessments, and not Seventeen.

    So what’s that amount to? No harm, no foul? !

    • mike k
      June 29, 2017 at 14:55

      The ones putting out these propaganda lies know that if they are believed for a week or two by a lot of people, then most of those folks will continue to believe them, even when their brief and forgettable retractions are forgotten.

    • Miranda Keefe
      June 29, 2017 at 15:43

      Actually it wasn’t even three agencies.

      It was a handpicked group of analysts selected from three agencies. So in reality this was a pet project of NO agencies but of special committee.

      Even saying it was three agencies conclusion is extremely misleading. That makes it sound like three different agencies did full agency investigations and came to the same conclusion, which was then summarized in a report. That NEVER happened.

      • June 29, 2017 at 20:59

        exactly….thank you for emphasizing this point…

      • Virginia
        June 30, 2017 at 07:46

        Miranda, good point. Thank you.

      • Homer Jay
        June 30, 2017 at 11:36

        To go even further… remember as Comey admitted in his recent televised testimony that none of the three dubious intelligenct agencies examined the DNC server. In fact they derived their assessment from a report made by Crowdstrike hired by the DNC to look at the server. Crowdstrike whose co-founder, Dmitri Alperovitch is a on the board of the Atlantic Council, an anti-Russian think tank. I am surprised neither Parry nor McGovern mentioned this piece of the puzzle.

        Also isn’t interesting that Comey made this admission with the whole world watching and it didn’t immediately prompt a widespread rebuke of the claim of “high-confidence” made by the intelligence community.

        • Homer Jay
          June 30, 2017 at 11:47

          What I mean is…if the former director of the FBI can make such an admission on world-wide television and nothing happens…how effective can “utilizing the proper channels” of raising a complaint be? I work in the government and I can tell you when you raise a complaint that speaks out against the cultural norm…even if you are a boss…you become a target. Mr. McGovern knows what I mean.

  65. DeepState9
    June 29, 2017 at 14:14

    your article avers that the analysts were handpicked for political reasons–but there’s no proof. Very unlikely the case. If that is the case you better believe the other analysts would be complaining through regular channels and leaks that the assessment was political. Also, an ICA represents the community, even if it was not written by all members of the IC. Why is it important that for example NGA–who deals in satellite imagery–have a say in the ICA?

    • mike k
      June 29, 2017 at 14:47

      Since the ICA was a lie, you have to wonder why they did that. Maybe to get at Trump for refusing to bow to their power? After all, the CIA is part of the military now and has an agenda to demonize Russia and Putin. So Trump was threatening their control of our military policy. Like the congressperson warned, “They (CIA) have six ways to Sunday to get back at you.”

      • Paranam Kid
        June 30, 2017 at 06:54

        It was senator Schumer you quoted.

    • June 29, 2017 at 16:55

      Handpicking analysts is a time-dishonered method used by unscrupulous intelligence managers to get the answer they want. Parry is right; it started BIG-TIME with Bill Casey and his windsock protégé Bobby Gates. I was there; I watched it, and then left.

      It takes about 20 years to put enough malleable managers in place to corrupt an entire institution — like the Analysis Directorate of CIA. But sycophants are not hard to find, even in the best of institutions.

      Twenty years after Casey/Gates prostituted the ethos of speaking/writing the truth without fear or favor, politicization reached its apogee with the thoroughly dishonest preparation of the NIE on Iraq WMD issued on October 1, 2002. The chair of that estimate, a tried-and-tested-by-Rumsfeld charlatan, was actually coached behind the scenes by none other than Dick Cheney. Indeed, Cheney in effect wrote the estimate’s terms of reference in a speech including all kinds of exaggeration on Iraq on August 26, 2002. Hundreds in the inside knew about the fraudulent process and product on pre-Iraq War “intelligence.” But NO ONE, NO ONE spoke out.

      CIA Director Tenet himself told his British counterpart that the “intelligence was being fixed around the policy” of regime-change in Baghdad. The chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, describing the results of a five-year study, approved by a bi-partisan majority, told the media that the pre-war intelligence was “unsubstantiated, contradicted, or even non-existent.” What does “non-existent” intelligence look like, I wonder.

      No worries. It is easy to create it with handpicked “analysts” more interested in career prospects than in speaking the truth. Bobby Gates and his trustees showed the example of what was needed to advance. And let us not be fooled into thinking that there exists an established effective channel that honest analysts might be able to use to complain. Sadly, there just isn’t. And that is precisely why it is so hard to speak out.

      Those interested in more might read Mel Goodman’s most recent book, “Whistleblower at the CIA.” To his credit, Mel was one of the rare ones who quit rather than sacrifice his integrity. A senior manager of Soviet foreign policy, Mel had to take a substantial pay-cut, but then flourished as a Professor at the National Defense University. Full disclosure: Both Gates and Goodman worked for me 45 years ago when I was chief of the Soviet Foreign Policy Branch. Ain’t life interesting.

      • Nancy
        June 29, 2017 at 17:27

        Thanks Ray for explaining this so clearly. Sadly, most people find this level of deviance hard to comprehend, even though it has been proven to be fact by those who seek the truth.

      • Danny Weil
        June 29, 2017 at 18:56

        It takes about 20 years to put enough malleable managers in place to corrupt an entire institution — like the Analysis Directorate of CIA. But sycophants are not hard to find, even in the best of institutions.”

        And it takes even longer to disinfect, if it can be done, the deep state.

      • Skip Scott
        June 29, 2017 at 19:40


        Thanks so much for setting Deepstate9 straight. It is priceless to have you here with us with your personal experience in the intelligence community. It is a constant battle to get the truth out. As I stated below earlier, we need to know who started the lie about the 17 agencies. That is the key to unmasking the entire propaganda ploy. We need to know who they are and hold them to account for the whole world to see.

      • Sam F
        June 29, 2017 at 19:42

        Thank you Ray, quite fascinating that hundreds knew about the fake WMD project.

      • Brad Owen
        June 30, 2017 at 04:19

        The fact that there is no established channel,for complaints suggest to me that the “Board of Directors” of the intelligence community already know what they want to accomplish (directives resulting from Bilderberger meetings, Davos Meetings, Mt Peleren meetings, Tavistock meetings?) and know that what they want to accomplish will generate complaints. Apparently they don’t care about complaints. Presumably, more forceful actions to make them cease and desist will generate a counter-thrust from them. This is what everyone is wondering: how to make them cease and desist without sparking a bloody coup/counter-coup, or worse?

      • Michael Morrissey
        June 30, 2017 at 05:58

        Thanks, Ray. I’m going to quote this comment on the article at opednews.com. I trust you won’t mind.

      • Gregory Herr
        June 30, 2017 at 14:33

        And thanks so much for this Ray:

      • Larry Motuz
        June 30, 2017 at 19:47

        Thank you!

    • joe
      June 29, 2017 at 18:40

      why would that be unlikely? deep state, do you know someone or something that the rest of us don’t?

    • Sam F
      June 29, 2017 at 19:37

      You must not know much of recent history of intel mismanagement, of which the Iraq WMD is a well known example.
      1. You said “analysts were handpicked …unlikely” Do you think that handpicking began and ended with the best exposed example? Read Bamford’s Pretext for War and note how DefSec Wolfowitz installed know Israeli zonist conspirators Perl, Wurmser and Feith at CIA, DIA, and NSA to stovepipe long-discredited intel to Cheney et al. The orders come from above, which likely happens often, as when the US overthrows socialist democracies without public consent.
      2. You said “other analysts would be complaining through regular channels and leaks” but how would they know the whole picture to see the distortion? Nor do “regular channels” respond. Why does no one among tens of thousands say anything when irrational and externally-motivated orders are received? When the order comes down, one obeys or loses career and pension.
      3. You said that the “ICA represents the community” when that was clearly shown to be false; perhaps an NIE does that. On what grounds would you think that a compartmented “community” of secrets could not be hoodwinked an on the overall picture?
      4. You said “Why is it important that …satellite imagery–have a say in the ICA?” Because they are one of the 17 agencies, and if 14 of those were lied about, why should we believe anything that was said?

  66. Mark Thomason
    June 29, 2017 at 14:10

    The Office of the Director of National Intelligence is not an agency, it coordinates agencies. It collects nothing of its own.

    So that is three agencies, not four.

    Furthermore, the three did not entirely agree. The canard has run with the one of the three that is most extreme. The other two said the evidence available to them did not go that far.

    So the NYT has backed off only half way, and is still wrong, peddling a story for which it ought to know better, probably does know better.

    • John V. Walsh
      June 29, 2017 at 15:35

      I agree. Three agencies not four, one headed by Comey who with his leaks must be considered part of the anti-Trump cabal.
      Russiagate continues to crumble – and those of us who have attacked its basis, like the estimable Robert Parry, should be proud of what we have done.

      • Virginia
        June 30, 2017 at 07:37

        Neither Brennan nor Clapper offered the correct information (3 agencies and they not in agreement) when they first testified before congress on Russia hacking, did they? They withheld this information just as Comey withheld the fact about Trump’s NOT being under investigation. This is lying by omission, isn’t it?

        • NevadaMike
          June 30, 2017 at 10:45

          Comey’s non-action was appropriate. Not presuming the work on-going at the agent-investigation level did not entail any investigation of Trump, once he made the announcement (of Trump’s non-invstigation status), and ANY evidence otherwise surfaced across any FBI work at any level, he would have been required to call a press conference and announce a retraction. Did you not pay attention to the across the board damage of the Hillary Clinton email conundrum post Comey’s initial announcement – imagine what would occur if the FBI were to announce they had to retract Comey’s statement of Trump’s non-investiation status? As for Brennan and Clapper, they were required to answer questions put to them by members of Congress, not spill their guts. If their answers were insufficient those Congressional members have the right and responsibility to pursue the questions further. Last, your “correct information” charge is really without merit. The actions of the Russians is not in question, and it is evident, and there is consensus amongst the departments. The “agreement” you attempt to assign is to their best guesses as to extent of the actions impact on our election. The depth of the discussions on exactly the views of analysts will never be made in public. Members of Congress know this.

          • china marine
            June 30, 2017 at 16:08

            This is a ludricrous story from the word go…. These are the same democrats, and media organizations that were in lock-step with George Dubya’s Flat out Crook of Shit story of Iraq weapons of mass destruction…. Which lead to a million Iraqi deaths… Good Job! And the 20,000 lbs elephant in the room, is the fact that the U.S. hacks everyone’s election…. and have been installing puppet governments for the last at least 80 years…..

      • Ryan Moore
        July 3, 2017 at 05:43

        Trump is still an unethical shitbag. Personally I think the truth is more mundane (he’s borrowing money from Russia and doesn’t want the truth to come out)

        • Gus Stone
          July 3, 2017 at 15:44

          Ryan Moore, you are not just a fool, but a damn fool as Mark Twain often put it. Ignorance and arrogance are a dangerous combo. May the farce be with you.

    • Louise Privateer
      July 1, 2017 at 10:34

      You are correct. ODNI supervises the other 16 agencies. Perhaps its director, a political appointee, endorsed the Russia story.

    • Jeff Davis
      July 1, 2017 at 18:58

      And that observation simply emphasizes that they never learn and they never stop trying to manipulate. The original “seventeen agencies all agree” statement was a lie, an intentional lie. It was a lie on top of the central lie of Russian interference. It was intended to amplify the central lie, and make it more persuasive.

      The “Russia Interfered” lie project was produced by the world’s foremost professional institution of lying, and in this case was a perception management project directed at the American people. Produced and deployed on behalf of “the owners” of this country —


      One of the features of this, or any lie is that even though the truth may eventually come to light, it won’t matter. It will be too late. The lie will have already done its work. No matter how many people come to understand the truth, there will always be tens of millions who won’t. Tens of millions who heard the lie, believed the lie, and who will always believe the lie. For them it has become fact. “Putin did it!” Mission accomplished.

      • Jeff Davis
        July 1, 2017 at 19:13

        And when I say they never learn, I offer as evidence the fact that at the Senate hearings on the matter Clapper said “No, just three intel agencies, The FBI, CIA, and NSA.” But now, as brazen and clueless as ever, they go right back, same as before, to inflating the claim, to telling exactly the same lie as the first time, this time “FOUR” intel agencies rather than three, when they’ve just been exposed and called on the first, “seventeen intel agencies” version of the lie.

        I mean “f*ck!”, who has balls like that? I guess a professional liar just factors in the part about getting caught in the lie, and goes on about his/her business, just moving right along to the next lie. It’s their job,… what they do.

  67. Sally Snyder
    June 29, 2017 at 13:50

    Here is an article that looks at one of the difficulties facing the New York Times:


    It looks like the mainstream media will find it increasingly difficult to increase profitability.

Comments are closed.