Home | About | Donate

The CIA’s Absence of Conviction


The CIA’s Absence of Conviction

Craig Murray

I have watched incredulous as the CIA’s blatant lie has grown and grown as a media story – blatant because the CIA has made no attempt whatsoever to substantiate it. There is no Russian involvement in the leaks of emails showing Clinton’s corruption. Yes this rubbish was the lead Sunday in the Washington Post in the US and the Guardian here, and was the lead item on the BBC main news. I suspect it is leading the American broadcasts also.


Simply taking the word of the CIA is a bad idea. Yet, I have problems with Murray's thinking. He ends with, "... the Saudi and US armed and trained ISIS forces..." While there is some truth in that assertion, it is also thoroughly disingenuous. I also totally fail to understand how Assange and Murray can categorically deny the possibility of exactly how this information came into the hands of the "leaker."


The Russia story is so blatantly a hatchet job to distract from the real reasons Clinton lost the election i.e. Hillary Clinton.

I think the country must come to some realization that, although the neoliberal establishment is extremely unpopular, it will most likely stoop to much worse than this as it sees its power permanently dissolve. This includes government agencies that see a Trump presidency as a danger to their power and jobs.

Fasten your seatbelts!


"Hatchet job" is pure speculation. The "establishment" is certainly not going away. There will merely be a shift in exactly who is in power. That shift will likely be for the worse. Any "government agencies" who do not adhere to the Trump version of policy and truth will be in danger.


It astounds me that anyone would believe the 'Russia allegations'. Even here in deep red north Idaho, these claims are seen for at least part of what they are - an ugly attempt to shield HRC from the consequences of her own actions. It is not lost on most that our country is acting like a snorting bull stamping with impatience to meet its 'enemy'.

Fortunately, many of us remember the Weapons of Mass Destruction that Iraq was 'absolutely, positively' preparing to deploy. Yes, some people are idiots and will believe anything those "disgusting, crawling whores of stenographers" (great line!) say. But life becomes more and more painful for the many as the few abscond with all benefits and leave the rest of us to somehow cope.

We are in for a rough ride, or as Sioux Rose used to say on this site:

Watch for Falling Debris!


Umm, this article actually has the author of the article quoting himself as evidence of his own conclusion.

Seriously, CD? I mean, SERIOUSLY???

And correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Assange twice claim that there would be leaks that would absolutely destroy Clinton? One was to be on the day of or about the time of the first debate, I believe, and the other was just a coupld of weeks before the election. Neither happened. Does Assange have any credibility at this point?


Lady, I prefer to wait and see what facts are finally brought up and what the republican congressional committees will say. I think it is quite foolish to pick a side at this time with 100% certainty.


Drew, you completely overlook all the facts in the "weapons of mass destruction" crap. You overlook Cheney and his henchmen and other Bush Administration officials in their efforts to twist the facts and to create "possibilities."


Looks like the falling debris already has knocked Sioux Rose from Common Dreams. Does anyone know why she was banned from C.D.?


I too was in the streets, both figuratively and in print. I made it a priority after 9-11 to truly get educated. I knew that the whole weapons of mass destruction stuff was 99% BS. Now, at this time, we don't have enough facts to figure out the real likelihood of truth.


Was S banned? I figured she was busy writing a novel or something. I was banned on AlterNet a couple weeks ago, apparently because my posts were a bit ornery of something.


He says he's met the guy who leaked the emails. I don't know it could be clearer.

Maybe you don't know who Craig Murray is, but in the UK they certainly do.


And that's fine. But quoting yourself in an article is not really a good journalistic practice, which is why I addressed CD directly in regard to that.


And the FBI is in on it too, right? Because they agree it was the Russians, the only disagreement being the motive.

Just how many people are involved in this latest conspiracy?


The FBI doesn't dispute that Russians were behind the hack. The dispute is about the why of it, not the fact of it. The CIA says that it was to interfere with the results of the election, but the FBI isn't willing to go that far.

But don't for a second think that the FBI isn't on board with the rest of it.


You must be thinking of someone else here. I rarely talk about myself online, especially in political forums. I think that the most I've said is that I voted for Moore in 2008 and Nader in 2000. Either the argument stands or falls on its own merits.

And as for that, I notice that you're attributing a lot of motive here, but without any facts at all. Unsubstantiated opinion isn't really persuasive to me. So, while you don't seem to claim you know how Wikileaks got the info, you somehow know it wasn't the Russians (how you know that isn't clear) and also explain the reasons why people are saying the Russians were behind it, though how you could possibly know that isn't clear, either.

But you're not content with just that. You go further, stating that anyone who holds a different opinion than you is "brainwashed."

Heavy on opinion, light on facts. No thanks. It's possible to wait before forming a rock solid opinion about something, and I think that's probably a good strategy here.


Was she banned? I haven't been around as much as I used to be. Good to see a lot of folks are still here.


Drew, your certainty is what is upsetting. Way too many people decide what is true without knowing all the facts.


Very interesting article and I think his point, which he leads with, about how if this were a whistle-blower, given Obama's treatment of whistleblowers, the individual would be totallybeing outed, discredited, and if in the US, arrested.

So, that makes it a strategic leak.

But for most of us, we are being showered with a confusing array of news and not news and also some good old fashioned propaganda.

People are reeling--we cannot know what is "true". We know our news agencies are tainted.

Trust is broken and what can retrieve it? Can it be retrieved?

Very good story.


Suspended for off-topic 9/11 posts.
The suspension ended in mid-November but she has not been back.
Watch for this post to be purged...