CIA & American Oligarchic Capitalist State: War on Independent Publishing / Investigative Journalism - Re-Classification Casts Wide Suppression Net

WikiLeaks   JULIAN ASSANGE SPEAKS OUT: THE WAR ON TRUTH RON PAUL LIBERTY REPORT BACKGROUND CIA DIRECTOR - MIKE POMPEO POMPEO Wikpedia: Mike Pomepo Incumbent:  Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) TRUMP ADMINISTRATION prior:   U.S. Representative for Kansas's 4th congressional district, 2011-17 prior:  member of TEA PARTY MOVEMENT, within REPUBLICAN PARTY origins:   Santa Ana, California majored in mechanical engineering subsequently serving in the Army as an Armor Branch cavalry officer from 1986 to 1991 J.D. from Harvard Law School, where he was an editor of the Harvard Law Review worked as a lawyer for Williams & Connolly >>  served his last tour in the Gulf War << Pompeo founded Thayer Aerospace and Private Security (now NEXT-TECH AEROSPACE) / interest sold 2006 POMPEO - >> President of Sentry International, an oilfield equipment company << Pompeo honored the SAUDI ARABIA Crown Prince Muhammad bin Nayef with the CIA's "George Tenet" Medal. >> first reaffirmation of ties between the Islamic monarchy and United States since President Trump took office 2013, Pompeo introduced the Natural Gas Pipeline Permitting Reform Act (H.R. 1900; 113th Congress) >> bill placed a 12-month deadline on the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, requiring it to approve or reject any proposal for a natural gas pipeline within that timeframe Pompeo has referred to the Obama Administration's environment and climate change plans as "damaging" and "radical" Pompeo supports eliminating the Environmental Protection Agency's greenhouse gas registry program Pompeo signed the Americans for Prosperity's No Climate Tax pledge Pompeo opposed the Affordable Care Act Pompeo opposes requiring food suppliers to label food made with genetically modified organisms Pompeo accused Obama of: "unforgivably fail[ing] to provide the total commitment of our national means to our servicemen in the field." JOURNALIST: MICHAEL HASTINGS see: General McChrystal,  forced to submit resignation for having made negative comments about Obama to Michael Hastings (1980–2013) - Rolling Stone magazine (The Runaway General) Hastings died in a fiery high-speed automobile crash on June 18, 2013, in Los Angeles, California ... in a single vehicle automobile crash in his Mercedes C250 Coupé at approximately 4:25 a.m. --Wikipedia VAULT 7 reveals CIA has been able to hack your car since 2014. Do you remember Michael Hastings? http://www.northcrane.com/2017/03/07/vault-7-reveals-cia-has-been-able-to-hack-your-car-since-2014-do-you-remember-michael-hastings/ Pompeo supports the National Security Agency's surveillance programs Pompeo denounced NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden's inclusion in the South by Southwest conference in Austin, Texas, and called for Snowden's invitation to speak via telecast at the annual Texas event to be withdrawn, lest it encourage "lawless behavior" among attendees DEATH SENTENCE 'DUE PROCESS' 2016, Pompeo said Snowden "should be brought back from Russia and given due process, and I think the proper outcome would be that he would be given a death sentence." Pompeo: " ...  Legal and bureaucratic impediments to surveillance should be removed. That includes Presidential Policy Directive-28, which bestows privacy rights on foreigners and imposes burdensome requirements to justify data collection." Pompeo opposes closing Guantánamo Bay detention camp. 2013 visit to the prison, Pompeo said, of the prisoners who were on hunger strike,    "It looked to me like a lot of them had put on weight." Pompeo has criticized the Obama administration's decision to end the CIA's secret prisons ("black sites") + administration's requirement that all interrogators adhere to anti-torture laws 2017 speech addressing CSIS, Pompeo referred to Wikileaks as "a non-state hostile intelligence service" and described founder Julian Assange as a narcissist, fraud, and coward. " ... Their mission: personal self-aggrandizement through the destruction of Western values." COMMENT:  the AGENTS of RULING CAPITALIST ELITES ...  LOVE TO EXPLOIT notions of >> WESTERN VALUES <<  - even as these agents of ruling power ACTIVELY & hypocritically violate such crafted notions, that are apparently no more than public manipulation / PR fodder. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mike_Pompeo POMPEO's background: POMPEO attended:  United States Military Academy (USMA), also known as West Point, Army, The Academy, or simply The Point / United States Military Academy - est. 1802 students are officers-in-training and are referred to as "cadets" or collectively as the "United States Corps of Cadets" most graduates are commissioned as second lieutenants in the Army / foreign cadets are commissioned into the armies of their home countries its ranks include two Presidents of the United States (as well as the President of the Confederate States of America), presidents of Costa Rica, Nicaragua, and the Philippines, numerous famous generals, and seventy-six Medal of Honor recipients Continental Army first occupied West Point, New York, on 27 January 1778 /  the oldest continuously-operating Army post in the United States Mexican–American War brought the academy to prominence During the Gulf War, alumnus General Schwarzkopf was the commander of Allied Forces, and the American senior generals in Iraq, Generals Petraeus, Odierno and Austin, and Afghanistan, retired General Stanley McChrystal and General David Rodriguez, are also alumni. [End - Wikipedia source] ROUGH OUTLINE OF WHAT APPEARS ON VIDEO SOURCE: VIDEO - RON PAUL LIBERTY REPORT https://www.youtube.com/embed/QwkrtpXp-wg?autoplay=1&auto_play=true JULIAN ASSANGE INCUMBENT NATIONAL SECURITY DIRECTOR, MIKE POMPEO: introduces concept of NON-STATE INTELLIGENCE SERVICE Doesn't an 'intelligence service' denote a STATE INTELLIGENCE SERVICE? What could be a 'non-state intelligence service'? POMPEO - says WikiLeaks is one of these things. Is what WL does - OR human rights groups OR media organisations - is in some ways similar to 'intelligence services' The answer is, yes, AND ABSOLUTELY:  NO. Investigative reporters Investigating human rights groups Organisations like Intercept, Propublica and all the serious media that consider national security journalism are all involved in DEVELOPING SOURCES PROTECTING SOURCES VERIFYING what is obtained from sources ANALYSING what is obtained from sources COORDINATING internally what is obtained from sources -- and intelligence agencies also do all that. The equivalent of the CIA in Germany is the BND, or Bundesnachrichtendienst. The literal translation of Bundesnachrichtendienst (BND) is:  THE FEDERAL NEWS SERVICE. Bundes = federal Nachrichten = news Endienst = service Similarly, in the CIA under Obama about six (6) years ago, the CIA introduced a change as to how it writes its internal reports to use the same style that journalists use to write articles, called the 'INVERTED PYRAMID STYLE', where you basically put the conclusion up top and then you justify how you got to the conclusion. So there are similarities between news services and intelligence services. BUT it ends with what happens with the results of the research. So, publishers PUBLISH, whereas STATE INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES keep the information CONCEALED and USE it for the ADVANTAGE of their organisation, for their particular POLITICAL connections or MILITARIES, for OTHER INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES, and so on. For the CIA to say that investigative media organisations and publishers are the same as an INTELLIGENCE SERVICE, is as ridiculous as it is to say that the CIA is a MEDIA ORGANISATION. There are similarities in the sourcing in relation to both, BUT in terms of what the organisations then do with the information is completely different. DANIEL McADAMS - head of Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity - foreign policy expert - worked for many years on Capitol Hill - worked as an election monitor in eastern Europe It seems like the use of the term - it's a term of ART - I don't think [POMPEO] used it to demonise; I think he used it to CATEGORISE, to create a NEW CATEGORY out of thin air, that would enable the US government to go after WikiLeaks in a much more military sort of way. JULIAN ASSANGE WIKILEAKS: Yes, absolutely. DANIEL McADAMS - head of Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity - foreign policy expert - worked for many years on Capitol Hill - worked as an election monitor in eastern Europe As the ACLU noted, never has a publisher in the history of the United States been prosecuted for revealing truthful information. So it seems to me that the key is to REMOVE THE IDEA that you're a PUBLISHER and call you something different. And I think the battlefield right now is probably in US PUBLIC OPINION:  turn that first against WikiLeaks and then see what happens. Does that make sense? JULIAN ASSANGE WIKILEAKS: I think POMPEO's speech came about partly as a response to an OpEd I wrote for THE WASHINGTON POST, [discussing] why WikiLeaks does its work and so on. It might have been coming anyway. He was in LONDON the day before and on the Wednesday he then returned to the UNITED STATES; he gave this SPEECH late on a Thursday evening, before Easter Friday. It was actually quite hard to respond to in the media. And, from that kind of media analysis point of view, it was well timed. The CIA has been deeply humiliated as a result of our ongoing VAULT 7 publications. So this is a pre-emptive move by the CIA to try and discredit our publications and create a new category for WikiLeaks and other national security reporters to STRIP them of FIRST AMENDMENT PROTECTIONS, by defining the organisation as something that fits into existing interpretations:  so, you can surveil and engage in certain actions on "HOSTILE INTELLIGENCE SERVICES". That's throughout different pieces of US regulation, that you don't need search warrants and so on authorised by a judge, if what you're intercepting or surveilling is connected to an organisation that is an "INTELLIGENCE SERVICE" that is influencing someone. So, to CREATE this NEW CATEGORY of "NON-STATE INTELLINGENCE  SERVICE" can then be very easily applied to ANY MEDIA ORGANISATION  - "NON-STATE", of course means commercial organsation or a non-profit organsation. I think it's a long-term strategy. It's taking two bites of the apple: 1.  to REDEFINE MEDIA as "NON-STATE INTELLIGENCE SERVICES"; 2.  to use a perverse JURISDICTIONAL ARGUMENT, which is to say that all foreign reporters have no FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS. Of course, the FIRST AMENDMENT is not a positive right. It doesn't, generally speaking, give [ASSANGE] or, in fact, anyone else, a positive right; it's an obligation to the government to give ... a right:  it's a LIMITATION ON THE GOVERNMENT that LIMITS its ability to INTERFERE with FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION or of the PRESS, in order to create the necessary environment of PUBLIC DEBATE which can STOP AUTOCRACY developing within the UNITED STATES. I've seen a lot of misleading assumptions by even some of our supporters - a lot on the kind of nationalist right - going:  well, look,we all like you, but, of course, the US CONSTITUTION does not apply to you in AUSTRALIA and in LONDON. That completely misreads it. The US CONSTITUTION applies to the CIA in Langley, Virginia, and every US GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE and all the ACTIONS that they might take in relation to actions initiated against WIKILEAKS. And, of course, WIKILEAKS has lots of AMERICAN EMPLOYEES - we're a GLOBAL ORGANISATION, etc. RON PAUL: The other thing POMPEO was doing - and we've touched on this - that because you're not an AMERICAN CITIZEN, you don't have the rights. But our constitution wasn't written to protect CITIZENS; it's for the persons who are exposed to our COURTS. And, therefore, this accusation that you have no rights, you're not even an American citizen and therefore you don't qualify, I think a lot of people believe that AND THAT HAS TO BE REFUTED. The other charge that they've been throwing out - and I'm sure you've answered to this already, but I think it's important because I don't know whether it's just propaganda on their part or they think that they can get somewhere - but that you're 'different' than THE WASHINGTON POST and the NEW YORK TIMES; [that] you're not a PUBLISHER because you're a participant in obtaining this information, and they've thrown that out there. But I just want to hear how you answer that charge. JULIAN ASSANGE WIKILEAKS: Well, it's completely FALSE. They've tried this in the trial of CHELSEA MANNING in 2013, and it failed; it was NOT accepted by the MILITARY COURTS. They attempted to use it in order to get an extra charge up against the then BRADLEY MANNING (now CHELSEA MANNING), and did not succeed, and the evidence that they tried to present was really pitiful.  It was that in 2009, WikiLeaks had a web page, and on that web page we had collected nominations from police, private investigators, journalists etc, about what kind of documents they'd be most interested in seeing come to the public. That was called the "WIKILEAKS MOST WANTED 2009". It wasn't something that we had asserted that 'we' wanted; it was collecting a list of what other people said that THEY wanted and, of course, that included all sorts of documents - and the US government argued that there was one of the types of documents that was on that page, CHELSEA MANNING has subsequently leaked to us and therefore this was some kind of 'conspiracy'. So, it's really very indirect and didn't stand up in the case. But, of course, the average NATIONAL SECURITY REPORTER is engaged in a MUCH CLOSER RELATIONSHIP with their SOURCES, cultivating them over a long period of time, speaking to them - when a source says, "You know, I heard that this terrible thing happened ... "; and then the reporter goes:  "Well, that's interesting.  But can you prove it?  Do you have a document about it?" So, POMPEO - and it looks like the DOJ [Dept. of Justice] - is trying to REDEFINE that kind of conversation that occurs every day between journalists and their sources, as 'conspiracy' to commit 'espionage' and therefore OUTLAW it. DANIEL McADAMS - head of Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity - foreign policy expert - worked for many years on Capitol Hill - worked as an election monitor in eastern Europe Julian, you mentioned earlier on, the strange coincidence of the new assault on WikiLeaks with the VAULT 7 releases. Why is the CIA so upset about these VAULT 7 releases? JULIAN ASSANGE WIKILEAKS: Well, go back for a little while. You know, in the DEMOCRATICALLY ALIGNED PRESS, like THE WASHINGTON POST and CNN, this assault on us by the CIA and, apparently, the DOJ [Dept. of Justice], is being FRAMED as a TRUMP ADMINISTRATION initiative, but the reality is that this was going on under OBAMA for YEARS AND YEARS. That's why I have ASYLUM here.  There was a PENTAGON WAR ROOM of more than 120 people - publicly admitted - operating 24/7, back in 2010;  and then a very large FBI inquiry:  spraying out search warrants; trying to install informers; bribing people; flying people to Washington; [FBI] flying ILLICITLY plane-loads of FBI officers to ICELAND to interrogate people, etc. Extremely large. Now, because of the  POLITICAL RELATIONSHIP that the DEMOCRATS have with their base, by about two thousand and ... not long after I had asylum - so about mid 2012, they perceived that it did not benefit them POLITICALLY to talk the case up. But a lot was happening beneath the surface and continued to happen. Now this new REPUBLICAN ADMINISTRATION, perhaps because of the nature of the Republican base and because of the rhetorical assaults about them being approximate to RUSSIA, have now decided that it benefits them POLITICALLY to TALK UP the conflicts with WIKILEAKS and the DOJ [Dept. of Justice]. So that's why it's been raised up so much. The other reason is, yes, the CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY (CIA) and the VAULT 7 publications. Well, we have published previous documents about the CIA. But only only, you know, maybe ten (10) or twenty (20) documents previously. It's very rare to see an actual fresh document leaked from the CIA, with CIA letterhead.  Extremely rare. There's reports about some CIA official said something, or it may be a printed line in a document in a document seen by a journalist ... But for an actual document, it's extremely rare. Now, VAULT 7 is the largest ever series of publications about the CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY (CIA) in its history -- hundreds, thousands, of times larger than anything that has appeared before and it is on track to be the LARGEST INTELLIGENCE PUBLICATION EVER. So that is, of course, DEEPLY HUMILIATING to the CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY (CIA) and its RELATIONSHIPS TO OTHER INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES, like MI6, and in its relationship with, say, the NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY (NSA) and with the FBI. So it's a way to get away from that HUMILIATION and, of course the PUBLIC and TECH COMPANIES are also don't like it very much because we've REVEALED that the CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY (CIA) created an ENORMOUS HACKER FORCE [that] produced HUNDREDS OF VIRUSES which it then went around hacking and installing in people, developing methods to install these in cars and telephones and probably LOST CONTROL close to the WHOLE LOT of them - and covered it up. So, LOST CONTROL of all this flowing around some INTELLIGENCE CONTRACTORS at the very least, and they covered it up.  So they didn't tell APPLE or MICROSOFT or other AFFECTED members of INDUSTRY about it, and the PUBLIC, of course, wasn't told.  It is quite interesting if it was also CONCEALED from President OBAMA. Anyway, so they have quite a lot to be concerned about in terms of POSSIBLE PROSECUTION OF CIA OFFICERS; DE-FUNDING of certain parts; general LOWERING OF PRESTIGE. And the CIA is a very INCOMPETENT organsiation.  I mean, this is the organisation that - let's look at it:  the CIA is the organisation that gave us * [the ILLEGAL INVASION of] IRAQ; * AL-QAEDA; * the destruction of democracy in IRAN; * PINOCHET; * the destruction of LIBYA; * the effective rise of ISIS; * and the SYRIAN CIVIL WAR. So this is an organisation that goes around engaging in actions which are either DEEPLY INCOMPETENT or which, even from the perspective of AMERICAN POWER, are COUNTER to its PURPOSES. RON PAUL: Julian, your opponents aren't too difficult to understand if you once realise that, from my viewpoint, I don't think they're interested in the TRUTH nor the LAW and they are interested in PROPOGANDISING a certain POSITION in order to PROMOTE some POLITICAL VIEWPOINT. But, you know, just recently you had an interview with [SEAN] HANNITY on FOX, which I found pretty fascinating. I don't know what your opinion is of that, but I thought it was positive and it's interesting that FOX had this on their program. How did you see this?  Did you see this as an advantage to you, to at least get your side out in an audience that might be back and forth on the issue? JULIAN ASSANGE WIKILEAKS: Yeah, just like publishing OpEds in THE WASHINGTON POST is now possible because THE WASHINGTON POST is lined against the TRUMP ADMINISTRATION and we now have a conflict in relation to the TRUMP CIA, so when that channel opens up, yes, we do it, because we reach an audience that we wouldn't necessarily normally reach. Same with FOX. Certain channels opened up there, because of CONFLICTS between the TRUMP ADMINISTRATION and the FBI administration and the CIA. It looks like CIA essentially won now. So that was important. People like HANNITY and SARAH PALIN have been accused of being hypocrites because they made some negative comments about WIKILEAKS before; we published SARAH PALIN's E-MAILS in 2008 - so you can understand why she might have been a bit annoyed - but she said I should be hunted down like the TALIBAN back in 2010 - and a few months ago, she APOLOGISED. Is she a 'hypocrite' or did she learn something and do the right thing? Maybe she's both.  I don't know.  But I see that as something positive. Regardless of what someone's previous position was, if they've now come to a better position, they should be applauded for coming to that better position. DANIEL McADAMS - head of Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity - foreign policy expert - worked for many years on Capitol Hill - worked as an election monitor in eastern Europe I'm constantly fascinated by the relationship between WIKILEAKS and the MAINSTREAM MEDIA (MSM). You mentioned THE WASHINGTON POST, and they've of course accused WIKILEAKS of being: "... It's core mission is not transparency but undermining US national security, if they gladly publish ..." your documents. But I think the thing that we haven't addressed yet that I think is very important, and I'm sure you're aware of this, it's the ONGOING DEMONISATION OF RUSSIA in the UNITED STATES. Anyone who QUESTIONS THE NATIONAL SECURITY STATE is an 'agent of Putin'; TRUMP is an 'agent of Putin'; we're all 'agents of Putin' if we don't go along with this business, but THE WASHINGTON POST - especially its editoral page - which, as you know, has a very NEOCONSERVATIVE bent, under FRED HYATT - it talks about WIKILEAKS has "close ties with RUSSIA's INTELLIGENCE SERVICES"; this was 'proven' by the INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY's REPORT about the DNC 'hack'. Of course, we know about the DNC 'hack' - that the forensic investigation was done by an organisation called CROWD STRIKE. THE WASHINGTON POST wrote about that quite a bit. But, strangely enough, when CROWD STRIKE was DISCREDITED a couple of weeks ago, THE WASHINGTON POST neglected to mention that part. So maybe you can address these charges that WIKILEAKS is 'colluding with RUSSIAN intelligence services. JULIAN ASSANGE WIKILEAKS: Yeah, it's very mischievous to see that in certain media.  That, of course, is FALSE. But there's NO ALLEGATION - NO OFFICIAL ALLEGATION - from the US GOVERNMENT that there is ANY evidence of WIKILEAKS 'colluding' with RUSSIA, or EVEN that WIKILEAKS 'is colluding' with RUSSIA but they can't find the evidence. That simply doesn't exist and, in fact, it has been STATED MULTIPLE TIMES. BARRAK OBAMA in his last speech said that there was NO EVIDENCE of WIKILEAKS 'colluding' with RUSSIA. JAMES COMEY, within the last MONTH, has stated that if the RUSSIANS did anything with WIKILEAKS they didn't do anything directly with WIKILEAKS, unlike DNC LEAKS and GUCCIFER 2.0. AND JAMES CLAPPER - the DIRECTOR OF NATIONAL INTELLIGENCE, under OBAMA  - STATED just before the TRANSITION that the US INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY had NO insight into how WIKILEAKS obtained its publications; when it obtained them; or the FREQUENCY or TIMING as to how we did our publications. So there you have it DIRECTLY from BARACK OBAMA and from the head of the FBI and the head of the NATIONANL INTELLIGENCE that there's no collusion that they can discern between WIKILEAKS and the RUSSIAN state. 25:31 So when you see reportage in the MEDIA suggesting otherwise, this is something that is EVEN going BEYOND what US intelligence is saying. I don't think US INTELLIGENCE is particularly credible. We all know that they're not particularly credible and they definitely have an ANGLE that they want to push for, particularly for their own POLITICAL and INSTITUTIONAL reasons. But they're NOT saying that WIKILEAKS 'colluded' with RUSSIA in any way. 25:58 FOLLOW:  WIKILEAKS TWITTER ACCOUNT - @wikileaks https://twitter.com/wikileaks LOOK AT:  JUSTICE4 ASSANGE https://justice4assange.com/ FOLLOW: @JulianAssange https://twitter.com/julianassange SOURCE: VIDEO - RON PAUL LIBERTY REPORT https://www.youtube.com/embed/QwkrtpXp-wg?autoplay=1&auto_play=true GLENN GREENWALD Trump’s CIA Director Pompeo, Targeting WikiLeaks, Explicitly Threatens Speech and Press Freedoms https://theintercept.com/2017/04/14/trumps-cia-director-pompeo-targeting-wikileaks-explicitly-threatens-speech-and-press-freedoms/ JOURNALIST: BARETT BROWN IN CUSTODY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ua_OOxcdAoE

The New York Times Ruling Capitalist Propaganda Hit on WikiLeaks

WikiLeaks Media-Military-Industrial-Complex  The New York Times Ruling Capitalist Propaganda Hit on WikiLeaks WIKILEAKS RESPONSE  to New York Times propaganda hit via @WikiLeaks  NYT Capitalist Propaganda | direct link The Young Turks Julian Assange Hit Piece In New York Times https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_npSb-tyGQ RT News - Aaron Swartz Major Media Trying to Cut Out WikiLeaks https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9H1zLZ-xS0w TRANSCRIPT [For quotation purposes, confirm audio] Reporter RT Studios Washington DC, USA In the wake of WikiLeaks one-upping every news organisation on the planet, with a large trove of classified information they received, the major newspapers are trying to cut them out of the picture. As we've told you before on this show, The New York Times and The Guardian have been working on creating their own leaking sites, and yesterday, the Rupert Murdoch owned Wall Street Journal, launched their own leaking website called 'Safe House'. But, is this going to be enough to cut out WikiLeaks, to inspire whistleblowers to come to their site instead? It doesn't seem so, if you look at the fine print. In The Wall Street Journal's terms and conditions, those leakers who choose to remain anonymous, must first enter into a Confidentiality Agreement that states that any of the information sent to the journal can be used in any purpose. As in, they hold the right to disclose any information about the leaker, to law enforcement authorities without notice, in order to 'comply' with laws. AND 'Safe House' leakers have to agree not to use the service for any unlawful purpose. So does this just destroy the basic principles of anonymity aligned with leaking, and does it serve as a vindication for WikiLeaks? Joining me to discuss this is Aaron Swartz, Executive Director of DemandProgress.org. Reporter RT Studios Washington DC, USA Aaron, thanks again for coming back on the show. Aaron Swartz Boston, MA, USA Thanks for having me. Reporter RT Studios Washington DC, USA Do you think that WikiLeaks has really changed the playing field over the last year? We're seeing this journalism 'arm's race' as to who can set up their own leaking site, or I guess alternative, faster. Aaron Swartz Boston, MA, USA Clearly.  I mean, this is a huge vindication for WikiLeaks.  We've gone from everybody saying they should be locked up in prison, to the point where every newspaper and news outlet wants to have their own WikiLeaks site. I mean, we've got to a point where if they want to lock up Julian Assange, they're going to have to lock up every editor of every major newspaper in this country. It's just ridiculous. Reporter RT Studios Washington DC, USA Well, it's interesting, too, because The Wall Street Journal didn't get any of the document dumps from WikiLeaks, so I'm wondering maybe there's a little bit of bitterness involved there, too. I mean, why would Rupert Murdoch want to do this? Aaron Swartz Boston, MA, USA Yeah.  I mean, we've seen incredible sets of sour grapes from some of WikiLeaks' critics. For example, after The New York Times was cut out of one of the WikiLeaks scoops, their editor went around calling Julian Assange a crazy bag lady. I mean, the pettiness of these journalists is just incredible. So, I think what we're seeing is some of the more right-wing papers like The Wall Street Journal, which have had biased coverage and sort of right-wing slants on all their news, now they're trying to provide a competitor to WikiLeaks to get stories for themselves, so they can slant it instead of letting WikiLeaks control the story. Reporter RT Studios Washington DC, USA Let's talk about all the ways in which this Wall Street Journal experiment fails. First of all, not only do they not guarantee you any type of anonymity and say they might hand you over to the authorities, or at least your information, if they have to, I also hear that there are a lot of technical loopholes here. Can you tell us about some of those? Aaron Swartz Boston, MA, USA Yeah, that's exactly right.  They recommend that you use a secure anonymity service called Tor; which is a great idea.  Everyone should be using Tor to submit documents anonymously. But, unfortunately, they never tested it with Tor.  So if you did try to use it, it just didn't work. Similarly, the encryption system they use had serious flaws that allowed the government to decrypt some of the encrypted communications, under certain scenarios, and there were other multiple vulnerabilities in it. It just seems like they hadn't thought it through. Reporter RT Studios Washington DC, USA But the fact that they also say it has to be lawful and that we might hand over your information to the authorities if they ask for it; I mean, that seems to go against the basic principles of what it is to be a whistleblower, what it is to be an anonymous source of some kind of documents. So do you think this just proves that all the news organisations are now scared. Now, all of a sudden, leaking isn't what it used to be and now they feel like they have to comply with the law no matter what and do what the government puts pressure on them to do? Aaron Swartz Boston, MA, USA Yeah.  I mean, I'm sure the lawyers got in here and said, look, we've got to have the free right to put everyone, you know, out to dry if we want to. The good news is that fewer Wall Street Journal journalists will go to jail. The bad news is that all the sources will go to jail.  The people who don't have the resources of a newspaper to protect them.  They're going to be hung out to dry and they're going to be the people most at risk, the people who are doing the hard work of actually leaking these documents. Reporter RT Studios Washington DC, USA But at the same time, you know, I bet you that if WikiLeaks were to have another major document dump, even if that was to be obtained illegally, which I think is still obviously up for debate right now, I still think that The Wall Street Journal would go ahead and print it.  What about you? Aaron Swartz Boston, MA, USA Oh, definitely. There's a great study in The Atlantic today, that found The New York Times, which has been somewhat critical of WikiLeaks, like I've mentioned:  half of every paper issued by The New York Times this year - half of all of them - had WikiLeaks based stories in them. So on the one hand they criticise it, but on the other hand they put it into almost every newspaper they print. Reporter RT Studios Washington DC, USA So what's your prediction, then, for The Wall Street Journal 'Safe House'? Do you think it's going to be a success?  Do you think that whistleblowers are actually going to go towards it, because they're so afraid with the example that the government has made out of WikiLeaks, out of Julian Assange, out of Bradley Manning, or does it really kind of put a dimmed light on all whistleblowing? Aaron Swartz Boston, MA, USA You know, I think people who don't trust WikiLeaks aren't going to trust Rupert Murdoch any more. You know, what I think what we're going to see is this continued proliferation of leaking sites all across the internet. Because the internet is fundamentally designed to share documents. It's not something that you can shut down by just shutting down one website. And, so, what I'm hoping is that an open community will develop.  We will learn these best practices - these security things, like the ones Jake Appelbaum has pointed out today, about how to ensure that your site is safely encrypted, as well as operational security things about how to keep yourself anonymous and how to share documents securely, so that instead of relying on one single point of failure or one right-wing newspaper company, documents will be spread all over the net by everybody. Reporter RT Studios Washington DC, USA Well, you know, I think you wrote up a good point before, when you mentioned The Wall Street Journal and, obviously, how some of their coverage might be a little bit biased. Do you think that it would be the type of scenario, where unlike WikiLeaks who puts it all out there no matter what it is that you send, that they would even censor?  They might not even, you know, print stories about the leaks you send, especially if it might be a corporation with which Rupert Murdoch is associated with? Aaron Swartz Boston, MA, USA I think that's very clear. I mean, one of the fascinating innovations of WikiLeaks is this thing they call 'scientific journalism'. You know, they don't just write stories about the documents and quote them out of context, like The New York Times will do. They put the full documents online so that you can read them for yourselves without the spin; you know, without putting it in certain context. You can read the raw facts and make your own decisions. It's really hard to imagine Rupert Murdoch doing that. Reporter RT Studios Washington DC, USA Well, I think we'll have to wait and see whether this is successful at all. Wait and see whether The New York Times and The Guardian come up with their own versions. Al-Jazeera already has, you know, a certain unit that they've dedicated to that, too. But, somehow, I just don't really see this working out all that well. I think it's a bad, bad imitation of WikiLeaks. Aaron, I want to thank you, for joining us, very much. Aaron Swartz Boston, MA, USA Thanks for having me.  [Nods] ... Assange proffered a vision of America as superbully: a nation that has achieved imperial power by proclaiming allegiance to principles of human rights while deploying its military-intelligence apparatus in “pincer” formation to “push” countries into doing its bidding, and punishing people like him who dare to speak the truth. [NYT] Media-Military-Industrial-Complex  [Michael Hastings] Michael Hastings: Army Deploys Psychological Operations on U.S. Senators in Afghanistan War Effort DemocracyNow.org - "Federal law prohibits the military from using propaganda and psychological tactics on U.S. citizens, but that is exactly what may have happened in Afghanistan according to reporter Michael Hastings, who was interviewed by Democracy Now! about his recent expose for Rolling Stone magazine is called, "Another Runaway General: Army Deploys Psy-ops on U.S. senators." In the article, Hastings writes that Lt. General William Caldwell, the commander of NATO Training Mission in Afghanistan, illegally employed psychological operations to manipulate visiting U.S. senators into providing more troops and funding for the war effort. "It show how far-off the rails the entire operation has gone," Hasting says. "The most important battlefield isn't in Afghanistan, it is in Washington."" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gGi6FHi2zOE Discussing Afghanistan with Michael Hastings Published on 14 Jun 2012 "In 2010, Michael Hastings wrote a controversial piece for Rolling Stone that potentially ruined the reputation of US army general Stanley McChrystal, then commander of NATO's internal security assistance force in the war in Afghanistan. The article, which detailed McChrystal's disapproval of President Obama, caused McChrystal to resign his position. We got in touch with Hastings and he gave us the opportunity to discuss counter insurgency in Afghanistan, criticisms of President Obama and the ongoing tension between the Pentagon and the White House." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UZwTATnSsvA Michael Hastings on 'The Operators' Uploaded on 11 Jan 2012 "Michael Hastings the Rolling Stone reporter whose profile of Stanley McChrystal ended the General's career has now expanded his experiences with troops, his thoughts on COIN, the rise and fall of McChrystal, and the toxic reaction from other journalists into book form. He joins the show to discuss his new book, "The Operators: The Wild and Terrifying Inside Story of America's War in Afghanistan"." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMzMs67cj38 DEAD. The Young Turks More Details Emerge on the Death of Michael Hastings "Our friend and colleague Michael Hastings died early Tuesday morning in a one-car crash in Los Angeles. Wikileaks' Twitter account is now reporting that hours before his death, Hastings contacted Wikileaks lawyer Jennifer Robinson saying he was being investigated by the FBI. Some establishment media outlets have taken care to try and assault Hasting's character and achievements as a journalist. Cenk Uygur breaks it down." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uoyuXzM059Q DEAD. 'Aaron was killed by the government' - Robert Swartz on his son's death "On Tuesday, the funeral services of Aaron Swartz took place outside of Chicago, Illinois. Swartz reportedly committed suicide on Friday, and his family says the US government is to blame for the legal action taken against the 26 year old for allegedly hacking into secured computers. RT web producer Andrew Blake brings us more from Highland Park, Illinois." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yKkk-cUk6c IN DANGER U.S. Demands to Assassinate Assange Published on 27 Nov 2012 "High-level U.S. government officials, including Clinton and Biden, demand for the assassination of Assange and to list WikiLeaks as a terrorist organization." http://shop.wikileaks.org/donate https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZuQW0US2sJw

PageLink - Gen Stanley A. McChrystal

Gen Stanley A. McChrystal "known for saying and thinking what other military leaders were afraid to" *one of the reasons cited for his appointment* to lead all forces in Afghanistan AFGHANISTAN post fm:  June 15, 2009 - June 23, 2010 Defence Secretary Robert Gates: "perhaps the finest warrior and leader of men in combat I (have) ever met." Last assignment: Commander, International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) Commander, US Forces Afghanistan (USFOR-A) Director, Joint Staff fm Aug 2008 - Jun 2009 Commander, Joint Special Operations Command fm 2003 - 2008 *criticized for alleged role in cover-up of the Pat Tillman friendly fire incident. reportedly: unflattering (and unprofessional) remarks about Vice President Joe Biden and other administration officials attributed to McChrystal and his aides in a Rolling Stone article McChrystal recalled to Washington, DC Obama accepted his resignation as commander in Afghanistan ISAF COMMAND - Afghanistan assumed by: deputy commander, British Army General Sir Nicholas "Nick" Parker { pending the confirmation of a replacement } General David Petraeus = McChrystal's replacement ------ serving in the Pentagon as member of the Joint Staff, start of Iraq War in March 2003 {vice director of operations, J-3, since July 2002} McChrystal delivered nationally televised Pentagon briefings on US military operations in Iraq April 2003 shortly after the fall of Baghdad: announced, "I would anticipate that the major combat engagements are over." Commanded the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) for five (5) years Sep 2003 to Feb 2006 Commander, Joint Special Operations Command/ Commander, Joint Special Operations Command Forward, fm Feb 2006 to Aug 2008 Most of assignment in Afghanistan at US Central Command forward headquarters in Qatar & in Iraq {nominally assigned Fort Bragg, Nth Carolina} Success: capture by JSOC forces of Saddam Hussein in December 2003 McChrystal's Zarqawi unit, Task Force 6-26 = well known for interrogation methods, Camp Nama = accused of abusing detainees = taskforce disciplined after Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse scandal became public in April 2004 criticized for his role in aftermath of 2004 death by friendly fire of Ranger and former professional football player Pat Tillman. McChrystal = one of eight officers recommended for discipline by a subsequent Pentagon investigation. = Army declined to take action against him. late spring 2007 JSOC and CIA Special Activities Division teams launch new series of highly effective covert operations that coincided with the Iraq War troop surge of 2007 killing or capturing many of the key al-Qa'ida leaders in Iraq joint efforts of JSOC and CIA paramilitary units said to be: most significant contributor to the defeat of al-Qa'ida in Iraq McChrystal credited with = transforming and modernizing JSOC = into a "force of unprecedented agility & lethality" = key factor success of JSOC in success of war Iraq George W. Bush failed to promote McChrystal assigned 3-star: Dir. Joint Staff, Feb 2008 Senate Armed Services Committee stalled McChystal confirmation more info sought: alleged mistreatment detainees by Special Ops under McChrystal command in IRAQ & AFGHANISTAN AFGHANISTAN June 10, 2009 Senate approval to take command McChrystal was promoted to general assumed command of NATO ops Operation Khanjar commenced largest offensive op and beginning of deadliest combat month for NATO forces since 2001 LEAKED REPORT McChrystal submitted a 66-page report to Defense Secretary Robert Gates calling for more troops in Afghanistan "We are going to win." public: Sept 20, 2009 *warned that the war Afghanistan may be lost if more troops are not sent *30,000 - 40,000 more troops needed in Afghanistan Chief UN Weapons Inspector in Iraq (Scott Ritter) stated McChrystal: should be fired for insubordination for disclosing info he should have said only in private to the President of USA leaked report - aka the "McChrystal risk" boxed Obama into a corner about boosting troop levels in Afghanistan MICHAEL HASTINGS freelance journalist Article: "The Runaway General", Rolling Stone magazine, July 8–22, 2010 issue McChrystal and his staff reportedly mocked: *civilian government officials *Joe Biden *National Security Advisor James L. Jones *US Ambassador to Afghanistan Karl W. Eikenberry *Special Representative for Afghanistan & Pakistan Richard Holbrooke McChrystal's staff = contacted prior to release of article and did not deny validity of the article = Hastings: bemused at degree to which soldiers were free when speaking to him = senior members of his staff dispute this = accused Hastings of exaggerating seniority of aides quoted & breaking the "off the record" trust of private conversations McChrystal apology to Joe Biden: "I extend my sincerest apology for this profile." McChyristal called in by Obama = McChrystal tendered his resignation | Obama accepted Obama statement re resignation: "... certainty that it is the right thing for our mission in Afghanistan, for our military and for our country." WHITEHOUSE - 4-STAR RANK WH announced that McChrystal would retain his four-star rank in retirement {law generally requires a four-star officer to hold his rank for three years in order to retain it in retirement} RETIREMENT CEREMONY McChrystal awarded the: Distinguished Service Medal by Army Chief of Staff Gen. George Casey Defence Distinguished Service Medal by Secretary of Defence Robert Gates PENTAGON INQUIRY Pentagon report = challenged accuracy of article "The Runaway General" (Michael Hastings) = disputing key incidents or comments reported in Hastings' article. Rolling Stone: = "... Pentagon’s inspector general offers no credible source—or indeed, any named source—contradicting the facts as reported in our story, 'The Runaway General." ------- At Yale University faculty, teaching courses in International Relations Chairman of the Board of Siemens Government Systems On the strategic advisory board of Knowledge International a licensed arms dealer whose parent company is EAI a business "very close" to UAE govt co-founded / partner McChrystal Group LLC Alexandria, Virginia-based consulting firm 2011 - advocated instituting a national service program in USA 2013 - endorsed stronger US gun control laws ------- OTHER McChrystal is the son of Major General Herbert Joseph McChrystal, Jr. (1924–2013) Entirely military family / and married into military family McChrystal said to: run 11-13 km daily eat one meal per day sleep four hours a night source https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanley_A._McChrystal ---------------------- ꕤ  ---------------------- COMMENT I know this isn't PC, but ...  Ummmm, I sort of like the sound of McChrystal (on first impressions). Seems strong, tough, and forthright. Sounds like some kind of superman.  Swoon ... lol ꕤ

Michael Hastings - 'The Legend of David Petraeus' (Rolling Stone)

SOURCE http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-legend-of-david-petraeus-20120131 The Legend of David Petraeus America's most famous soldier has always been a skilled media manipulator. But after reading a fawning new biography, you have to wonder if he’s losing his touch. By Michael Hastings January 31, 2012 The genius of David Petraeus has always been his masterful manipulation of the media. But after reading the new biography about him – All In: The Education of David Petraeus, by former Army officer Paula Broadwell – I’ve started to wonder if he’s losing his touch. The best spinsters never make their handiwork too obvious; they allow all parties to retain a semblance of dignity. Yet the Petraeus-approved All In is such blatant, unabashed propaganda, it’s as if the general has given up pretending there’s a difference between the press and his own public relations team. As Gen. John Galvin, an early mentor, explains to a young David in one of the book’s few revealing moments, "Through your mythology people create you…. You become part of the legend." All In is best understood as the latest – and least artful – contribution to the Petraeus legend. For P4, as Petraeus is known in military circles, this is about the fourth high-profile book he has collaborated on. He debuted on the literary scene as a young general "coming of age" during the 2003 invasion of Iraq in Rick Atkinson’s In The Company of Soldiers. ("Petraeus kept me at his elbow virtually all day, every day," writes Atkinson.) He reappeared as a brilliant strategist in a 2008 snoozer called Tell Me How This Ends by Linda Robinson. (Soon after publishing the book, Robinson, a reporter for U.S. News and World Report, went on to take a job working for Petraeus as an analyst at the U.S. Central Command.) Then, retired journalist turned military blogger Tom Ricks thoroughly lionized him in the highly readable and on-the-knees-admiring The Gamble: General David Petraeus and the American Military Adventure in Iraq, which credits the general's "surge" strategy with turning that war around. Three for three. Broadwell’s contribution to the genre started brewing after she met Petraeus at the Harvard Kennedy School of government in 2006, while getting her master's degree. As she recalls in her book’s preface, the two hit it off, the general viewing Broadwell as "an aspiring soldier-scholar."  Both were West Point grads, sharing interests in counterinsurgency and counterterrorism. They soon started emailing. "I took full advantage of his open-door policy to seek insight and share perspectives," she writes. In 2008, Broadwell began her doctoral dissertation, "a case study of General Petraeus’s leadership." After President Obama picked Petraeus, in June 2010, to take over the war in Afghanistan, she decided to turn the dissertation into a book. Petraeus invited her to Kabul, where she would spend several months "observing Petraeus and his team" and conducting "numerous interviews and email exchanges with Petraeus and his inner circle." The result is a work of fan fiction so fawning that not even Max Boot – a Petraeus buddy and Pentagon sock puppet – could bring himself to rave about it, grouching in The Wall Street Journal about All In’s "lack of independent perspective" and the authors' tendency to skirt conflict. (Boot, the hackiest of the neocon hacks, is now an advisor to Mitt Romney.) You don’t have to read far into the book to see what Boot means. All In opens with Petraeus sitting "deep in thought" on the way to the White House, where President Obama is about to offer him the Afghanistan job. It’s one of the most dramatic moments in recent military history – the president handing the poisoned chalice of the war back to the man who designed the doomed strategy to win it. What were the general’s thoughts? How’d the meeting go? We learn only that Petraeus "pledged fealty to the civil military hierarchy." By Chapter 2 we're in Afghanistan, with Petraeus gazing out of a plane window on the "barren, brown mountains of the Hindu Kush" with a "twinge of anticipation." Explains Broadwell: "He knew the challenges below…. Those challenges were now his to master." The troops we're full of admiration. "It was clear to me he was a commander’s commander," she quotes one subordinate saying of Petraeus, on the record. Lt. Colonel David Fivecoat, a Petraeus acolyte who once did a stint as a public affairs officer, puts in, "Petraeus, in his relentlessly positive way, would say, you know, keep pushing it, every day, trying to do as much as you can." And in case the reader is in any doubt as to where she's coming from, Broadwell helpfully explains – and this is a typical sentence – "I will note in the pages that follow that [Petraeus] is driven and goal-oriented, but his energy, optimism and will to win stand out more for me than the qualities seized on by his critics. Serving, in his mind, is winning." Well, Petraeus didn’t win in Afghanistan – unless one defines winning the Charlie Sheen sense of the word. Rather, he proposed and followed a counterinsurgency strategy that was expensive, bloody, and inconclusive. One could argue – many have, myself included – that Afghanistan is unwinnable in any meaningful sense, a colossal and futile waste of blood and treasure with only a tenuous connection to America’s national security interests. But that's an idea that doesn’t seem to occur to Broadwell.  "History has yet to fully judge Petraeus’s service in Iraq and Afghanistan," she claims. Well, let me be the first to render a full judgment: Petraeus’s Afghan war was an epic fail. All In has a very different message to convey, a message straight from Team Petraeus – that Afghanistan, if it doesn't work out, is not the general's fault. Rather, it’s Obama’s fault, for not listening to Petraeus – for refusing him all the tens of thousands of more troops he wanted. As Petraeus confidante retired Army colonel Keith Nightingale is heard to muse upon P4’s assignment to Afghanistan: "If Petraeus could pull a rabbit out of the hat ..., so much the better. If he couldn’t, Obama would be able to say he’d done all that he could by appointing America’s best general to command – and blame Petraeus." Meanwhile, Iraq – the scene, supposedly, of Petraeus’s greatest triumph – remains mired in brutal civil strife. Broadwell writes twice that Petraeus went to Iraq in 2007 to "pull the country back from the brink of civil war." But there was no "brink"; Iraq had been in a full-scale civil war for at least two years by that point, and Petraeus’s real success was in fully backing the Shiite side over the Sunni side, hardly a recipe for mending Iraq’s murderous ethnic divisions in the long run. Time and again Broadwell takes Petraeus's public statements at face value. So, for example, she quotes a  speech he gave at a Fourth of July celebration in Kabul. "'Cooperation is not optional,' he stated firmly. 'Civilian military, Afghan and international, we are part of one team with one mission …. And I know you all share the unshakeable commitment to teamwork that Ambassador Eikenberry [America’s chief diplomat in Kabul] and I share.'" Broadwell’s own reporting tells a different story. On page 42 – and this is actual news – we learn that "Petraeus stopped including Eikenberry in most of his personal meetings with Karzai because of the unhelpful atmosphere generated by his presence, according to Petraeus’s aides." Later, on page 177, we find out that Petraeus became the "gatekeeper" for access to Karzai, usurping the role of the civilian diplomat. "'You won’t get access through Karzai through that group,' he said. 'You’ll get it through me.'" After Petraeus met Karzai for the first time as the commanding general we discover that it "did not go particularly well." How so? Broadwell doesn’t elaborate. I’ve reported on the tensions between Petraeus and Eikenberry and Karzai (tensions they of course have denied), but the fact that the top military commander booted the top diplomat out of meetings with President Karzai tells you all you need to know about the much vaunted "civ-mil" relations that Petraeus holds so dear. If Broadwell finds this somewhat problematic, she doesn't say. There’s plenty of potential in All In – the 150 interviews and incredible access to Petraeus’s command could have yielded something valuable, or, at the very least, something competent. Instead, we’re left to read between the lines and pan for what stray nuggets the book contains. And what do those nuggets tell us? Not nearly enough. Broadwell gives us the first detailed account of a December 2010 meeting between Petraeus and Secretary of Defense Bob Gates to discuss Petraeus’s going over to the CIA. Gates tells him the post of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the military's top job, is "out the question" – a potentially amazing scene. Why not give the nation's most successful general the job he most wants? Is it because the White House is sick of him? Is Obama worried about giving him a platform for a future political career? Or is it that General Martin E. Dempsey, who replaced Admiral Mike Mullen at the JCS, outmaneuvered him? Or did Mullen – no Petraeus fan, according to my sources – stab him in the back? Astonishingly, Broadwell, if she knows, doesn’t tell us. Nor, equally amazing, is she inclined to speculate (or, you know, report). Instead we get this: "Petraeus’s mind whirled, even though, as he told a close friend, he’d had distinctly mixed feelings about the position…. Being told it was out of the question stung." Nevertheless, for all her exertions on Petraeus's behalf, Broadwell ends up inadvertently confirming much of what his harshest critics have said about him – namely, that’s he not just an ambitious aw-shucks fellow, but can really be a sneaky and ruthless bastard, too.  For instance, he throws his predecessor in Afghanistan, Gen. McChrystal, under the bus in the same way he does Eikenberry. Though Broadwell notes what great friends Petraeus and McChrystal are, she allows P4 to take his shots, as here: "Unspoken was Petraeus’s sense that McChrystal’s command had overpromised in Marjah [site of his largest military operation in southern Afghanistan] and paid a price publically…." (Well, not "unspoken" any more!); and here: Petraeus sought "more clarity," [on rules of engagement established by McChrystal] and found "the fault lay not so much with McChrystal’s directive but with subordinate commanders who added conditions that made it more difficult for U.S. and NATO forces to fight." So it’s no longer the commander’s fault when folks under his command don’t follow orders properly, or that the orders are so confused his soldiers can’t make sense of them? She also notes in passing that Petraeus had to make  "considerable modification[s]" to one of McChrystal’s campaign plans.  Broadwell also lets Petraeus take a jab at his former superior, Gen. John Abizaid, contrasting Abizaid’s implied laziness to P4’s hard-driving ethos: "While Abizaid was happy to relax over beer with his men after a maneuver, Petraeus wanted to conduct an after action review – and then challenge everyone to a run – and then have a beer." If you think such sniping is beneath America’s most illustrious soldier, I'd refer you to my own reporting. As Gen. John Vines, a contemporary of Petraeus's throughout his career, confided to colleagues: "Petraeus leaves the dead dog at your door step…. Every time." Or, as another military official put it: "He has the ability to make anyone who comes before him look like a total fuck up." (Those perspectives aren’t in Broadwell’s book but in mine, The Operators, where you'll find a more skeptical take on the general.) I probably should mention that my Rolling Stone profile on Gen. McChrystal – which, after President Obama read it, contributed to his decision to remove McChrystal from his post as commander of NATO forces in Afghanistan – makes a number of appearances in the book, including one where a Petraeus advisor warns him of potentially "Rolling Stone-esque moments" in the portrayal of him in Bob Woodward’s book Obama's Wars. Alas, Broadwell could have used a few of those in this account – no doubt she has them. To judge this book as a book, though, misses the point. This is a biography written by a semi-official spokesperson. It does contain a few interesting bits that more rigorous journalists will be keen to follow up on, but it's chief interest is as a rough draft of the latest myth Petraeus is selling the American public: We won Iraq and we’re on the verge of a great victory in Afghanistan – and Petraeus is the main reason why. Are you buying it? Michael Hastings is a contributing editor to Rolling Stone and the author of The Operators: The Wild and Terrifying Inside Story of America's War in Afghanistan. SOURCE http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-legend-of-david-petraeus-20120131 ---------------------- ꕤ  ---------------------- COMMENT I never tire of:            Hey, girl  ... ... lol Reading the text highlighted in pink, knowing Broadwell was the mistress, is also hilarious.  It's also interesting from a psychological perspective.  Amazing how revealing writing is. The military sounds very intriguing and maybe even nasty- competitive? Don't know what the big deal is about missing out on top command after having done it all, when CIA sounds heaps more exciting. I thought it was Patraeus that got pulled from the Middle East, but it turns out it was McChrystal. I like Obama's cunning plan:  give Petraeus a crack and if he fails, blame the golden boy.  lol Kind of interesting that Gates and Patraeus met in December 2010. Wonder if WikiLeaks got a mention?  lol ꕤ