Thursday, August 30, 2018

CNN Cohen "Collusion" Hit Piece Debunked By Own Source, Fake News Agency Refuses To Retract

CNN fake news frauds busted by own source opening the door for massive libel suit, investigation into FBI/CNN collusion     


Libel is a method of defamation expressed by print, writing, pictures, signs, effigies, or any communication embodied in physical form that is injurious to a person's reputation, exposes a person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule, or injures a person in his/her business or profession.

A bombshell story that was supposed to be the end of President Donald Trump – until the celebrity source recanted. It sounds like a typical media screw-up, with one key difference: for whatever reason, CNN is standing by it.

On July 26, CNN reported that Michael Cohen, Trump’s former personal attorney, claimed that Trump “knew in advance about the June 2016 meeting in Trump Tower in which Russians were expected to offer his campaign dirt on Hillary Clinton,” and was willing to testify to that effect to special counsel Robert Mueller, according to “sources with knowledge.” Trump denied the story the very next morning, tweeting “so the Fake News doesn’t waste my time with dumb questions,” and calling out Cohen for hiring Lanny Davis, “Bill and Crooked Hillary’s lawyer.”

Fast-forward a month, after Cohen pleaded guilty to a litany of felonies, and Davis has admitted that Cohen said no such thing, “does not” know about the Trump Tower meeting, and obviously won’t testify to Mueller about it. CNN’s reporting got it “mixed up,” he said. As a result, other outlets that relied on Davis as a source have retracted their Trump Tower stories. CNN, though, is standing by theirs.

Journalist Glenn Greenwald speculates it’s because the original story explicitly stated that CNN had contacted Davis but he “declined to comment.” Trouble is, Davis told BuzzFeed that he was CNN’s source for the story. So either CNN is lying to its audience about Davis, or Davis is lying about being a source for CNN, Greenwald pointed out.

“If CNN lied about Davis having refused comment (when, in fact, he was one of their anonymous sources), then this is obviously a major journalism scandal,” Greenwald wrote in The Intercept on Tuesday. If Davis is lying, “that is also a major story,” given that US media have treated him as a reliable source for decades, and that Davis has used his media platform to promote a Michael Cohen “truth fund,” a crowdfunding campaign for money that will actually go to pay Davis through legal fees.

Caught in such contradictions, media outlets typically claim their errors are “just good faith and rare mistakes,” being exaggerated by their critics, writes Greenwald. However, he says, major US media have “repeatedly and frequently – not rarely and periodically – gotten major stories completely wrong, always in the same direction” when it comes to Trump and Russia.

Their errors have been “chronic,” “systematic” and “reckless,” including stories from Russian hacking of the Vermont power grid that never happened to a supposed links between Trump ally Anthony Scaramucci and a Russian bank. It is worth noting that CNN actually retractedthat story and fired the people involved – a rare case of someone being held accountable for this kind of Trump/Russia fake news.

Greenwald joined FNC's Tucker Carlson Tuesday night to discuss the anonymously sourced CNN report several weeks ago that claimed Trump knew about the "Trump Tower meeting" ahead of time. Michael Cohen's lawyer Lanny Davis has since admitted that he was the source and he was wrong to imply he could prove such a thing. CNN is standing by its reporting, however.

Greenwald said he found the whole incident "to be… one of the most humiliating moments and scandalous moments in the entire media behavior of the Trump-Russia saga."

He explained how other news outlets "outed their own source" after Davis retracted his comments, but "CNN couldn’t do that because they lied to the entire world."

"They can’t retract the story and they can’t admit they lied," he said. "So they are continuing to stick to what everybody knows is a lie, but not many people care because people think -a lot of people, anyway- that it was done for the right political agenda."

"Doesn’t CNN have some sort of obligation to viewers to explain what this is all about?" the FOX News host asked.

"Journalists rightly demand transparency from powerful institutions, that’s our job," Greenwald replied. 

"But how can CNN have any credibility to do that when you call them and ask them what happened here, as I did, and everyone else did, and they say, ‘Talk to our PR spokesperson,’ who then refuses to answer any questions. They have zero credibility if they don’t provide transparency themselves." 

After initially saying nothing, here is the sum total of CNN's comment: "We stand by our story, and are confident in our reporting of it." A CNN report yesterday said that Davis kept changing his story in his dealings with the network.

Here's the backstory: CNN dropped a bombshell last month by reporting that Davis' client, Michael Cohen, had information that Donald Trump knew in advance of the 2016 Trump Tower meeting between his son, his son-in-law, campaign chairman and a Russian lawyer. "Cohen is willing to make that assertion to special counsel Robert Mueller," according to "the sources," CNN said.

The president has repeatedly denied any advance knowledge of the meeting.

The story, whose bylines included Carl Bernstein and Jim Sciutto, was picked up by the broadcast networks and many other major media organizations.

But now Davis has outed himself as an anonymous source for CNN, and says Cohen has no such information about advance knowledge by the president.

In my interview, Davis said he told CNN reporters that he couldn't confirm the Trump Tower allegation but encouraged them to check it out. He now believes they may have interpreted this as giving them a green light.

"When I work for a client, whether it's the White House or anybody else, and there's something that might be true but I'm not sure, I have to not expect reporters to get it right," Davis told me. He said he should have been more explicit in telling the CNN journalists not to pursue an unsubstantiated story.

Davis added that he did not intentionally mislead CNN's Anderson Cooper in saying he wasn't a source for the network. He meant that he wasn't a confirming source on the Trump Tower allegation and says he should have been more clear.

CNN and their fake news fraud Cooper need to be investigated for FBI collusion
Implicit in CNN standing by the story is that the network has other sources for the Trump Tower allegation. But how could others have information about what Cohen believes when the president's former lawyer is essentially saying, through Davis, that he has no such information?

Cohen, of course, pleaded guilty last week to bank fraud, tax evasion and campaign finance violations related to hush money payments to two women making accusations against Trump.

The president, of course, has boasted about Davis' admission on Twitter.

The Washington Post handled its dealings with Davis very differently. The Post had also dealt with him as an unnamed source.

As the paper recounts, the day after the CNN story, "The Post reported that Cohen had told associates that he witnessed an exchange in which Trump Jr. told his father about an upcoming gathering in which he expected to get information about Clinton. The Post did not report that Trump Jr. told his father that the information was coming from Russians.

"The information in the Post story, which was attributed to one person familiar with discussions among Cohen's friends, came from Davis, who is now acknowledging his role on the record."

And that’s the thing. CNN doesn’t have to protect Davis, who has come clean about his role in the matter.

When the White House makes a mistake or clings to an unsubstantiated charge, news organizations hammer top officials about it. Shouldn't a network have the same obligation to explain itself when an explosive story is denied by one of its own sources?

Already on the rating ropes, CNN fake news now needs to be sued for libel by the President, putting an end to their seditionist, fantasy attacks on a sitting administration

Davis says he has learned a valuable lesson, and is "pulling back" on other claims he has made. The Washington lawyer told MSNBC's Rachel Maddow there were indications that Trump knew in advance of the hacking of Democratic emails.

He said that was his belief but that he had no hard evidence to back it up.

This news bureau contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.  We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

Monday, August 20, 2018

John Brennan: Portrait Of A Failed Coup

Former CIA director calls Trump "treasonous" as Bruce may have broken more than the law by pushing his wife’s opposition research to the FBI  

By Adam Mill

A review of publicly available information causes a reasonable person to wonder whether Bruce Ohr broke the law by promoting his wife’s anti-Trump research to the FBI when he was working at the Justice Department.

Did Brennan et al. engage in an attempted coup against
a sitting U.S. administration?
The law prohibits public officials from involvement in matters in which their spouse has a financial interest. The question is, Did Ohr “personally and substantially” participate in a particular matter in which his spouse had a “financial interest” while he was employed by the Justice Department as the assistant attorney general? Let’s take a closer look.

Recall that the Hillary Clinton campaign (through its law firm Perkins Coie) hired opposition research firm Fusion GPS to generate dirt on Donald Trump in the 2016 presidential campaign. 

Fusion GPS in turn hired former British spy Christopher Steele, who compiled the Trump dossier containing as yet unproven allegations of Russian dirt on Trump.

We learned in December that Ohr met with Fusion GPS in November 2016 — a critical time frame — while he was the associate deputy attorney general. Former FBI agent Peter Strzok has confirmed Ohr fed the FBI documents pertinent to the investigation into Trump’s Russia ties, and The Hill reported the FBI used Ohr to continue collecting information from Steele, even after it terminated him as a source for leaking word of the investigation to the media.

Bruce Ohr at left, and Christopher Steele

John Solomon filled in the contours of Ohr’s role in the investigation, writing in The Hill of recently disclosed emails:

"They also confirm that Ohr later became a critical conduit of continuing information from Steele after the FBI ended the Brit’s role as an informant. The FBI specifically instructed Steele that he could no longer ‘operate to obtain any intelligence whatsoever on behalf of the FBI,’ those memos show.

Yet, Steele asked Ohr in the Jan. 31 text exchange if he could continue to help feed information to the FBI: ‘Just want to check you are OK, still in the situ and able to help locally as discussed, along with your Bureau colleagues.’

‘I’m still here and able to help as discussed,’ Ohr texted back. ‘I’ll let you know if that changes.’"

Clinton and Comey: Fusion collusion?

Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy recently expressed alarm that Ohr would insert himself into the ongoing Russia investigation. Understandably so. The FBI acts as the Justice Department’s investigator, and normally must convince the DOJ that the quality and quantity of gathered evidence will support a case before a federal court. When a senior DOJ prosecutor gives the FBI information, it comes with the DOJ’s implied endorsement of the evidence. This kind of implied endorsement may have played a role in the FBI’s decision to pay Steele to continue research on the Trump dossier.

Ohr sponsored Steele’s research in spite of the fact that, as Steele later admitted, critical allegations in the dossier remain unverified. In particular, Steele now refuses to stand by his allegations of Russian hacking. Steele reportedly said his dossier allegations were never supposed to be made public, which is incongruous with his dissemination of the allegations to Ohr and his decision to leak word of the investigation to the press.

Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson disclosed in a sworn declaration that Fusion GPS paid Ohr’s wife, Nellie Ohr, a Russia expert, to help research and analyze potential opposition research on Trump.

Curiously, it appears Ohr’s relationship with both Simpson and Steele predated his wife’s work for Fusion GPS, which raises the question whether Simpson may have hired her to gain favor with him. We don’t know how long Nellie Ohr worked for Fusion GPS, but Simpson’s December 2017 declaration indicates bank records from August 2015 through that time reflected she contracted with the firm to help research Trump. Ohr’s promotion of his wife’s research to the FBI potentially helped stoke continued demand for her services.

As pointed out by The Daily Caller, Ohr failed to disclose that his wife was being paid by Fusion GPS in his mandatory public financial disclosure form. The purpose of the form is to “identify potential or actual conflicts of interest.” Thus, The Daily Caller posits that when Ohr became involved in brokering his wife’s Trump-Russia research to the FBI, he deprived DOJ of the opportunity to identify this potential conflict of interest by failing to disclose the source of her “consulting” income. The DOJ had a legal right to know that Ohr’s wife was personally profiting from the research he promoted to the FBI.

One question that remains unanswered is whether Ohr also had a role in approving or overseeing the Trump-Russia investigation from within the DOJ. As noted by The Daily Mail, he “worked closely” with both Sally Yates, former assistant attorney general, and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein.

Also of note is that both Yates and Rosenstein signed off on one or more of the spy warrants for Trump associate Carter Page. If either Yates or Rosenstein consulted Ohr on the propriety of those applications, Ohr would have been in a position to endorse the validity of research for which his spouse was paid.

Violation of the law prohibiting public officials from involving themselves in matters in which their spouse has a financial interest (18 U.S.C. §208) is a crime punishable for up to five years in prison, if the conduct is deemed willful. The DOJ has the power to enforce this law civilly and criminally, and as Ohr’s employer, has a responsibility to do so if he violated it. So the DOJ’s perceived inaction in response to Ohr’s actions may set a government-wide precedent.

Steele openly sought to use the dossier to interfere with the election. Ohr promoted his work in spite of the fact that Steele made no secret to Ohr that he was desperate to stop Trump from becoming president. And he acted on it. Solomon reports, based on notes he reviewed of Ohr’s meeting with Steele: “‘Glen asked Chris to speak to the Mother Jones reporter. It was Glen’s Hail Mary attempt,’ Ohr wrote.”

In December 2016, Ohr received a memory stick with early versions of the dossier allegations. But why would he continue to receive Fusion GPS dirt even after the election? Perhaps because the campaign to stop Trump didn’t end after the election.

That December, Clinton campaign chairman John Podesta supported calls to brief members of the Electoral College on the investigations into Trump’s Russia ties and into Russian meddling in the election. He openly advocated nullifying the election result by using the requested briefing to persuade members of the Electoral College to break with their voters.

The description of the requested briefing clearly matched the same “intelligence” that the Clinton campaign procured and Nellie Ohr helped Fusion GPS produce. Ohr may have conferred undeserved legitimacy on the “intelligence” when he promoted it to the FBI. This raises the question of whether his actions also constitute an attempt to “use his official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election,” in violation of another law.

Russian interference in an American election is obviously a serious concern. But public officials here in the United States are in an even greater position to use their power to tilt and influence future American elections. Ohr’s wife was indirectly hired by the Clinton campaign to help defeat Trump. Ohr seems to have used his position in the DOJ to help his wife further this contractual objective.

If we allow the government to pick its own leaders by interfering in elections, our democracy will quickly become a sham. That’s why Congress passed the law in the first place. Has the DOJ done enough to reassure Americans that officials within the DOJ will not interfere with future elections?

The DOJ might not have known the extent of Ohr’s involvement in 2016. But it certainly knows now. And government officials are undoubtedly watching how Ohr’s case plays out. Unfortunately, his continued presence in the DOJ sends them a powerful message about the relatively low risk of following his example.

Adam Mill works in Kansas City, Missouri as an attorney specializing in labor and employment and public administration law. He frequently posts to Adam graduated from the University of Kansas and has been admitted to practice in Kansas and Missouri.

This news bureau contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.  We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

Saturday, August 18, 2018

CNN Analyst Attacks Trump Adviser For Mentioning Her Special Needs Minority Child

CNN fake news: Hypocricy, blatant racism, Harlem bowery bar behavior on parade  

By Amanda Prestigecomo

On Thursday night, CNN analyst Angela Rye attacked Trump campaign adviser Gina Loudon for mentioning her special needs minority son. Rye is seen on air rolling her eyes when Loudon brings up her adopted son and proceeds to scold the Trump adviser, "You should feel completely ashamed of yourself!" Meanwhile, host Erin Burnett looks on silently.

Rye: Special needs verbal vomiter
Discussing the reputed lack of racial diversity within the Trump Administration, Rye, as her typically heated self, used her identity as a black woman to highlight her authority to speak on the issue. "My black life matters and so does my voice, so you're going to do right now is listen to what I'm saying to you," she told Loudon. "My point is this: you're not going to be able to successfully name one black person who works in the West Wing, because you know what, Omarosa [Manigault] didn't even work in the West Wing," she continued. 

Rye explained that it's "slim pickings" for black staffers within the administration "because no one wants to go work for a racist" and dismissed HUD secretary Ben Carson as inadequate representation.

"This whole administration is nonsense, just like your talking points," said Rye.

Loudon, attempting to relate to Rye, responded, "Angela, I understand your feelings on this."

No end in sight for CNN fake news tabloid sleaze and wonder of wonders, Erin Isabelle Burnett (born July 2, 1976) according to her bio made "occasional appearances on The Celebrity Apprentice, serving as an advisor to Donald Trump" and makes Jerry Springer look like Maurice Chevalier 

"No, you don't," interrupted Rye.

"I have an adopted minority son — yes, I do — who happens to have Down Syndrome," said Loudon. Rye, stunningly, is seen in the split-screen rolling her eyes and turning away from camera while sighing in disgust.

"He experiences bigotry every single day in a myriad of ways, not just because of his skin color but also because of his disability," continued Loudon. "I understand that you and I don't agree, but I would not support a president that I believed would be a threat to his future."

Rye, again, interrupted, "You are."

For race-baiting, BLM triggering and tabloid tripe Burnett surpasses racist, pillow-biting fraud Don Lemon

Loudon, impressively staying calm, said she'd like to have a "constructive conversation" with Rye about the issue. "I think points like yours that are only focusing on the negative and not even acknowledging 700,000 new jobs for black people in this country, record low unemployment, and the rest of it, it’s tantamount to what Andrew Cuomo said today ... that America has never been great," she said.

Rye decided to agree with Cuomo and slam Loudon for mentioning her non-white son, though, bizarrely, Rye had used her own black identity earlier in the segment.

CNN's last hope for survival: play the race card

"America has never been great," declared Rye, "and it’s not great because people like you come on and lie for the president of the United States and then tout, bring out your son as an example. Like, you gotta be completely ashamed of yourself."

Loudon has since spoken out about the incident, telling The Daily Caller that her family is used to such "bullying" and that she invited Rye to meet her son.

"I'm used to enduring judgment and bullying, and so is my son. We are pretty good at letting things roll off our backs. If she were open to knowing Samuel, I would love it if Angela could meet him — he really has a way of teaching people about love in ways that other people simply can’t. Maybe CNN would want to do a segment on that. He doesn’t understand political hatred, partisan bickering, or identity politics," she said. "But his understanding of what matters in life could teach all of us a lesson."

"I will not stop advocating for my child and others like him, simply because of people who will roll their eyes or dismiss me as 'just a mom.' I chose Samuel because I have worked with people with Down Syndrome my entire life, and I wanted my other children and my friends and family to know this kind of love. People will always criticize. And Samuel will always outshine their darkness," Loudon added.

This news bureau contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.  We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

Friday, August 17, 2018

CNN Fake News, NYT, MSNBC: "Enemies Of The People"

The day of reckoning is fast approaching the fake news corporate media: All qualify for RICO prosecution following their failed coup against a sitting U.S. administration and presidency and they are indeed the enemies of our Republic, Constitution and the AMERICAN PEOPLE  

By Jeremy Carl

Are many in the mainstream media “Enemies of the American people?"

President Trump has at times claimed they are, spurring an effort led by the Boston Globe, which today joined more than 350 other newspapers, including the New York Times, the Miami Herald, the Minneapolis StarTribune, the Houston Chronicle, and the Denver Post in blasting Trump’s rhetoric.

Well then. 

I began my professional career as a journalist and still occasionally write for the mainstream press.

Even the New York Times, owner of what is almost certainly the most banal, dishonest, and provincial editorial page among major metropolitan dailies, often breaks important and useful stories, especially when these don’t directly touch partisan politics. 

And while the Times’ news coverage also suffers from severe political bias, the paper follows the standard rule of keeping its news-gathering and op-ed sections largely distinct.

 NYT keeping "news-gathering" and op-ed sections largely distinct?
And of course, even some overtly political investigations, displeasing as they may be to Republicans, are good and legitimate reporting. But generally speaking, today’s so-called mainstream media are horrifically biased in how they cover the news and, far more important, how they decide what is and is not newsworthy.

Trump — who, it should be noted, is far more available to the press than his predecessor ever was — has criticized the media vociferously, and for good reason. The term “fake news” was first popularized by Hillary Clinton, but it was ultimately adopted by conservatives because it so perfectly describes our experiences with the media environment.

To give just one trivial recent example from my own career (and I could cite dozens), through the recommendation of a Hoover colleague I was recently asked to take a semi-regular gig on a political panel on one of the largest NPR stations. The subject matter seemed interesting, so despite my strong reservations (based on experience) about NPR, I agreed. The first show went fine, and at one point I sharply criticized a GOP bill that I thought was terrible. 

Afterwards I heard back from the producer about how much they had liked me and asked me to come back a few weeks later. 

On the next show, I strongly defended the administration from what I felt were unfair attacks — and pointed out politely but firmly that there were likely no Trump supporters in the NPR newsroom, and that I felt this bias affected some of the questions I was getting.

To my utter lack of surprise, I haven’t heard from them since.

I have talked to many journalists at “mainstream” outlets who insist with great sincerity that their only motive is to get the story right, yet their institutions consistently refuse to hire anyone who might seriously challenge the dominant views in the newsroom. 

If these newspapers’ editorial or reporting staffs were 20 percent, even 10 percent, made up of Trump supporters — keep in mind that the president won almost half of the vote in 2016 and has an approval rating north of 40 percent today — their news coverage would be dramatically different. But at the end of the day, protestations to the contrary aside, they have no real interest in doing so.

Ironically, while the media pearl-clutch about Trump’s rhetoric, their coordinated campaign against him today has used terminology far more incendiary than anything ever said by the president. The organizers of today’s coordinated effort have referred numerous times to Trump’s alleged “dirty war” against the press. 

Far from a casual rhetorical flourish, the phrase “dirty war” is a reference to a period in Argentina in the 1970s and 1980s in which the ruling military junta kidnapped and killed an estimated 30,000 overwhelmingly leftist critics of the regime. It is shockingly irresponsible, but incredibly revealing of their own myopia, that journalists allegedly lecturing us on civil discourse are equating some critical tweets and comments by the president with state-ordered mass murder.

Meanwhile, there has been a much more real war against conservatives on the Internet, with some mainstream and many more anti-establishment figures generally being deplatformed, often with the eager approbation of journalists.

Of course, the past was no golden age either. On the contrary, the days in which confirmed liberals such as Walter Cronkite and Dan Rather ruled the media roost from their monopolist position were far worse than today. The fact that confidence in the mainstream media has plummeted in recent decades is a sign of the health, not sickness, of our electorate. 

The Internet, though now under unprecedented attack as a free-speech zone, nonetheless provides a critical outlet in which conservatives can fight back against the mainstream media’s attempts to control our discourse.

As Ned Ryun, former speechwriter for George W. Bush, eloquently put it in a recent column, “because the supposed wise men of the age refused to fully call out the mainstream media for what they’d become, the pretense [of objectivity] has continued for decades.” 

As Ryun points out, there was a time not far back in the American past where newspapers were understood to be ideological — even partisan — a situation that still persists in many respects in Europe. How refreshingly honest it would be if we got our daily dose of left-wing agitprop from the New York Liberal or the Washington Democrat rather than theNew York Times and Washington Post.

The gaslighting of the American public must end, as must the media’s playing the victim, when for at least a half century most MSM outlets have seriously eroded our democracy through irresponsible and biased reporting barely hidden under the thinnest patina of false objectivity.

As a general rule, I don’t like calling any group an “enemy of the American people,” but if forced to choose between that appellation and the MSM’s preposterous claim that they are champions of open discourse and defenders of the First Amendment — well, honesty is the best policy.

This news bureau contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.  We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

Trump Was Right To Revoke Former CIA Director Brennan's Security Clearances - Joseph Curl

Time now for the war crimes trials to begin, starting with Obama, Clinton, Rice, Brennan, Clapper, Power and the rest of his mass-murdering, criminal regime including CNN fake news, NYT and MSNBC  

By Joseph Curl

Let's say a company like Apple fired an employee. But, for some reason, Apple lets the now ex-employee keep his access to all internal workings of the company — plans for new products, proprietary numbers on sales, everything.

Personification of evil: John Brennan
That'd be insane, right? Should that employee happen to be disgruntled, there's no telling what he could do with such information. But for some reason, liberals and the mainstream media think former President Barack Obama's CIA Director John Brennan should keep his security clearance, even though he is actively using his access to derail President Trump. Trump on Wednesday pulled Brennan's security clearance, citing "a series of unfounded and outrageous allegations" about his administration, and for Brennan's move to "sow division and chaos." 

Trump said his decision was driven by the ongoing federal investigation into alleged Russian collusion in the 2016 presidential election.

"I call it the rigged witch hunt, [it] is a sham," Trump told The Wall Street Journal on Wednesday. "And these people led it. ... It's something that had to be done," Trump said.

Liars, seditionists, TRAITORS: Comey, Clapper and Brennan

But Brennan took to the pages of The New York Times on Thursday, writing an op-ed piece in which he said Trump is clearly guilty of colluding with Russians.

"The only questions that remain are whether the collusion that took place constituted criminally liable conspiracy, whether obstruction of justice occurred to cover up any collusion or conspiracy, and how many members of 'Trump Incorporated' attempted to defraud the government by laundering and concealing the movement of money into their pockets," he wrote in the Times.

NYT, CNN fake news, MSNBC led media charge in failed coup against a sitting administration

As for the loss of his clearance, Brennan said that the move showed Trump "clearly has become more desperate to protect himself and those close to him, which is why he made the politically motivated decision to revoke my security clearance in an attempt to scare into silence others who might dare to challenge him."

But let's get something straight: Just like a driver's license, retaining security clearance after one leaves a federal post is a privilege, not a right. Yes, some officials have, in the past, kept such clearances, but that was before the hyper-politicization of the intelligence branches.

And Brennan is among the most partisan, repeatedly attacking Trump.

As just one example, Brennan wrote on Twitter on July 16: "Donald Trump’s press conference performance in Helsinki rises to & exceeds the threshold of 'high crimes & misdemeanors.' It was nothing short of treasonous. Not only were Trump’s comments imbecilic, he is wholly in the pocket of Putin."

For his bashing of Trump, Brennan became a darling of the liberal media, appearing on NBC News and MSNBC regularly. He literally made a job of ripping the president (some "contributors" make $100,000 or more), prompting Sen. Rand Paul to pose a few questions: "Is John Brennan monetizing his security clearance? Is John Brennan making millions of dollars divulging secrets to the mainstream media with his attacks on @realDonaldTrump," the Kentucky Republican tweeted on July 23.

Media, intelligence community collaborationists should be prosecuted under RICO statutes

So Trump simply said, "Hey, if you're going to take this classified information and use it to bash me — instead of to help your colleagues in the intelligence field — maybe you don't deserve the courtesy of extending your security clearance."

Far too many people have security clearances, anyway — something Obama also sought to rein in. In November 2013, Politico wrote: "The Obama administration has ordered a government-wide reassessment of how almost 5 million Americans have been granted classified information security clearances and whether each person currently approved to see sensitive national security secrets truly has a need for such access."

The Politico piece also cited then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, who "questioned the booming rolls of security-clearance holders. At last count, more than 4.9 million people held clearances, of whom over 1.4 million were cleared for access at the 'Top Secret' level."

Of course, when Trump first began mulling the revocation of said security clearances, Clapper was aghast. 

Clapper, you'll recall, leaked the anti-Trump dossier to CNN's Jake Tapper and helped orchestrate a meeting between former FBI Director James Comey and Trump, which was later leaked to CNN and used as their "news hook" to launch the media's "Russia" narrative. 

Clapper also lied to Congress about leaking information to Tapper and then was rewarded with a contract at CNN a few months later.

Appearing on CNN as a paid contributor (like Brennan is with NBC), Clapper slammed Trump's plan: “This is just a very, very petty thing to do. And that’s about all I’ll say about it.”

But soon, Clapper, former FBI Director James Comey, former Obama national security adviser Susan Rice and former National Security Agency director Michael Hayden all might have their clearances revoked.

And that's as it should be.

Said Trump on Monday: "I have a unique constitutional responsibility to protect the nation's classified information, including by controlling access to it. Today, in fulfilling that responsibility, I have decided to revoke the security clearance of John Brennan, former director of the Central Intelligence Agency. Mr. Brennan's lying and recent conduct characterized by increasingly frenzied commentary is wholly inconsistent with access to the nation's most closely held secrets."

Pretty simple, really.

This news bureau contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.  We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

Thursday, August 16, 2018

Trump Revokes Security Clearance Of Ex-CIA Director John Brennan - White House

The first step towards The Hague War Crimes Tribunal for mass-murdering traitor  


White House Press Secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders announced Wednesday that US President Donald Trump is revoking the security clearance of former CIA Director John Brennan.

Obama will be joining Brennan in the dock at The Hague
"As the head of the executive branch and commander-in-chief, I have a unique constitutional responsibility to protect the nation's classified information," a statement by Trump read by Sanders at Wednesday's daily White House briefing explained, "including by controlling access to it. Today, in fulfilling that responsibility, I've decided to revoke the security clearance of John Brennan, former director of the Central Intelligence Agency."

"Historically, former heads of intelligence and law enforcement agencies have been allowed to retain access to classified information after their government service so that they can consult with their successors regarding matters about which they may have special insights and as a professional courtesy. Neither of these justifications supports Mr. Brennan's continued access to classified information," the statement continues.

"First, at this point in my administration, any benefits that senior officials might glean from consultations with Mr. Brennan are now outweighed by the risks posed by his erratic conduct and behavior. Second, that conduct and behavior has tested and far exceeded the limits of any professional courtesy that may have been due to him."

Brennan, Obama created CIA/ISIS

On Tuesday, Brennan fired off again at the president on Twitter, saying Trump "will never understand what it means to be president, nor what it takes to be a good, decent and honest person."

"Mr. Brennan has a history that calls into question his objectivity and credibility," the White House statement continued. "In 2014, for example, he denied to Congress that CIA officials under his supervision had improperly accessed the computer files of congressional staffers. He told the Council on Foreign Relations that the CIA would never do such a thing. The CIA's inspector general, however, contradicted Mr. Brennan directly, concluding unequivocally that agency officials had indeed improperly accessed congressional staffers' files."

Serial liars Brennan and Clapper - who outright lied to Congress under oath - should already be in Guantanamo being interrogated utilising the very same methods they authorized

"More recently, Mr. Brennan told Congress the intelligence community did not make use of the so-called 'Steele Dossier' in an assessment regarding the 2016 election — an assertion contradicted by at least two other senior officials in the intelligence community and all of the facts."

"Additionally, Mr. Brennan has recently leveraged his status as a former high-ranking official with access to highly sensitive information to make a series of unfounded and outrageous allegations, wild outbursts on the internet and television, about this administration," the statement said. "Mr. Brennan's line and recent conduct characterized by increasingly frenzied commentary is wholly inconsistent with access to the nation's most closely held secrets and facilities, the very aim of our adversaries, which is to sow division and chaos."

"More broadly, the issue of Mr. Brennan's security clearance raises larger questions about the practice of former officials maintaining access to our nation's most sensitive secrets long after their time in government has ended. Such access is particularly inappropriate when former officials have transitioned into highly partisan positions and seek to use real or perceived access to sensitive information to validate their political attacks."

"Any access granted to our nation's secrets should be in furtherance of national, not personal interests. For this reason, I have also begun to review the more general question of the access to classified information by government officials. As part of this review, I am evaluating action with respect to the following individuals: James Clapper, James Comey, Michael Hayden, Sally Yates, Susan Rice, Andrew McCabe, Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, and Bruce Ohr. Security clearances for those who still have them may be revoked and those who have already lost their security clearance may not be able to have it reinstated."

"It is for the foregoing reasons that I have exercised my constitutional authority to deny Mr. Brennan access to classified information and I will direct appropriate staff at the National Security Council to make the necessary arrangements with the appropriate agencies to implement this determination."

The Washington Post's White House Bureau Chief, Phil Rucker, noted Wednesday that the common thread between Brennan and other security officials having their clearances reconsidered is that they are all critics of the president. "Looks like a Trump blacklist," he tweeted.

CNN fake news, aiders, abettors, apologists and cover-up artists for the CIA, NSA, FBI will burn right along with them

Brennan was head of the CIA from March 2013 to January 2017. He spent 25 years with the agency in total. Brennan also served as national security adviser to Barack Obama during Obama's presidential campaign and advised him as president on security and terrorism issues.

This news bureau contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc.  We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

U.S. Nuclear War Plan Option Sought Destruction Of China And Soviet Union As “Viable” Societies

Bush II, Obama legacy lives on: Pre-delegation instructions excluded Yugoslavia from attack on “Sino-Soviet” nations


U.S. nuclear war plans during the Johnson administration included the option of a retaliatory strike against nuclear, conventional military, and urban-industrial targets with the purpose of removing the Soviet Union “from the category of a major industrial power” and destroying it as a “viable” society. 

This is one disclosure from a Joint Staff review of the Single Integrated Operational Plan (SIOP) obtained via a Mandatory Declassification Review request by the George Washington University-based National Security Archive and posted on our site today.

The document, the Joint Staff’s review of SIOP guidance in June 1964, showed continued acceptance by policymakers of the cataclysmic nuclear strike options that had been integral to the plan since its inception. 

Accordingly, the SIOP set high damage requirements—95 percent for the top priority nuclear targets—ensuring that it remained an “overkill” plan, referring to its massively destructive effects. Prepared and continually updated by the Joint Strategic Target Planning Staff, the SIOP has been characterized by some as a “doomsday machine.”[1]

U.S. nuclear war planning drew on Cold War assumptions about the danger of a Soviet surprise attack against the United States.[2] The possibility that deterrence could fail and that U.S.-Soviet conflict could break out made U.S. defense officials seek attack options “capable of execution under all reasonably foreseeable conditions under which hostilities may begin.”[3] For such purposes, the SIOP included a retaliatory option in the event of a Soviet surprise attack and a preemptive option in the case of intelligence warning of an imminent Soviet attack

The U.S. government has never declassified any version of the SIOP, forcing researchers to rely on ancillary documentation to shed useful light on elements of the plan. The Joint Staff review posted today is the latest such evidence. Base-line declassified knowledge about earlier versions of the SIOP includes:

SIOP-62 and its successors involved massive nuclear strikes against Sino-Soviet targets, with thousands of weapons aimed at over a thousand targets, with “Alpha” category nuclear weapons and delivery systems – nuclear-tipped missiles and bombers loaded with nuclear weapons – the top priority.

To satisfy policymakers who wanted the president to have a wider range of choices, by late 1962 the SIOP included two preemptive and three retaliatory options. Included in the Football briefing material for the President, the SIOP options were strikes, sometimes in combination, on nuclear weapons and delivery systems (Task Alpha), on non-nuclear military targets (Task Bravo), and on urban-industrial targets (Task Charlie).

SIOP-63 established a high damage expectancy of 90 percent probability of severe damage to targets, a requirement that made the SIOP an instrument of “overkill” because multiple nuclear weapons would strike high priority targets

The Joint Staff review of the SIOP-64 guidance includes new information on nuclear war planning:

The SIOP guidance permitted “withholds” to hold back strikes on specific countries. Recognizing the reality of Sino-Soviet tensions, it would be possible to launch nuclear strikes against the Soviet Union without attacking China or vice versa or to withhold strikes from Eastern European countries, namely Albania, Bulgaria, and Romania.

Priorities for Task Alpha targets: At the top of the list of the most urgent target categories were: heavy and medium bomber bases, unprotected ICBM sites (silos did not shield Soviet ICBMs until early 1964), and IRBM/MRBM [intermediate range/medium range ballistic missile] sites.

For the top priority “Task Alpha” targets, the SIOP-64 guidance set an even higher damage expectancy of 95 percent, “a high degree of probability of damage.” Thus, overkill continued to be baked into the SIOP. Yet, because nuclear planners based their assessments of damage on the blast effects of nuclear explosions, they did not take into account the further devastation caused by fire effects, especially in urban areas.[4]

The purpose of one of the retaliatory options was to destroy the Soviet Union as a “viable” society because it targeted Soviet military forces (conventional and nuclear) plus strikes on urban-industrial targets – Task Charlie.

Unlike the 1956 Strategic Air Command Report on target systems in 1959, the SIOP guidance paper was written at a fairly high level of generality that did not include discussion of specific target systems. Nor did it review specific nuclear weapons delivery vehicles, making references only to “survivable” delivery forces for urban-industrial targets and “rapid reaction offensive forces” for the urgent Task Alpha targets. Plainly these were references to the survivable Polaris SLBMs and the rapid response Minutemen and Titan ICBMs. By May 1964, not long before Taylor circulated the guidance paper, the Pentagon had hundreds of missiles for SIOP tasks: 488 alert Minutemen, 70 Titan I and II; and 208 Polaris A-1 and A-2 SLBMs. Besides the missiles, the arsenal of nuclear delivery vehicles included 630 B-52 and 450 B-47 bombers, the latter of which were being phased out. [5]


The SIOP’s preemptive options should not be confused with a first strike. President Eisenhower had ruled out one first-strike possibility, preventive war against the Soviet Union, but the option for a preemptive strike against Soviet military targets became standard in U.S. nuclear planning. Informing preemption was the prospect that strategic intelligence could produce warning of an impending Soviet attack that a U.S. strike could avert or at least blunt. Moreover, some military planners believed that by destroying Soviet nuclear forces first a preemptive strike could limit damage to the United States. Yet, by September 1963, top defense officials were concluding that damage limitation strategies could fail. At a White House briefing on the 1963 report of the highly secret Net Evaluation Subcommittee [NESC], General Leon Johnson told the president that “There is no way, no matter what we do, to avoid unacceptable damage in the U.S. if nuclear war breaks out.”[6]All the same, preemption remained in the menu of SIOP options and the logic of damage limitation “became deeply ingrained in decisions about the numbers and capabilities of the U.S. nuclear arsenal.”[7]

Vice President Johnson did not attend the meeting on the NESC report and it is unknown whether Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara briefed him on the limits of preemption. McNamara, however, was confident that should nuclear war come he and the president could have improvised an attack without relying on the SIOP options.[8]

The urgency given to counterforce targets and the availability of preemptive options added momentum and instability to the U.S.-Soviet strategic competition. Washington identified more Soviet nuclear installations for the target lists, which then boosted the Pentagon’s requirements for more nuclear warheads. Putting ICBMs on high alert for counterforce missions added to the risk of accidental nuclear war as did the preemptive option. The primacy the Joint Staff gave to the counterforce mission guaranteed that the SIOP would be an instrument of overkill but may have been inconsistent with stable deterrence.[9]

U.S. apprehensions notwithstanding, a first strike was never part of Soviet military doctrine. Yet Soviet political and military leaders feared a U.S. first strike, mirror imaging Washington’s fears. While some Soviet military officials sought a preemptive capability, key leaders such as Deputy Premier Alexei Kosygin rejected it altogether.[10]


Also published today by the National Security Archive is new information on the nuclear pre-delegation instructions approved by President Johnson in March 1964, codenamed “Furtherance.” The instructions covered a specific contingency: if the Soviet Union launched a surprise attack and if the U.S. president and successors could not be reached, and if detonation of nuclear weapons on U.S. territory could be confirmed. Under those circumstances,

U.S. commanders could respond with an all-out attack against the “Sino-Soviet” bloc, which meant all countries allied with Moscow and Beijing. According to a recently declassified document from the Lyndon B. Johnson Library, published today by the National Security Archive, only Yugoslavia, an estranged Soviet ally, would be spared from the nuclear strike, because of its independent status.

Source: Lyndon B. Johnson Presidential Library, National Security Files, C. V. Clifton files, box 2, Meetings with President, Volume I

In 2012, the Interagency Security Classification Appeals Panel (ISCAP) declassified an important document on the pre-delegation instructions approved by President Lyndon Johnson in early 1964. Under the instructions, if the Soviet Union or China launched a nuclear attack on the United States that knocked the president or his successor out of action, making communication impossible, U.S. commanders-in-chief of unified or specified commands (such as Strategic Air Command or European Command) had the authority to retaliate against the entire Sino-Soviet bloc, even if some Soviet allies or China had not launched an attack.

This document from March 1964, prepared a few weeks after President Johnson's decisions on "Furtherance," clarified the meaning of "Sino-Soviet" in the pre-delegation instructions. According to General Andrew J. Goodpaster, director of the Joint Staff at the Pentagon, in the latest version of the SIOP and the pre-delegation instructions, "Sino-Soviet" meant "all of the Sino-Soviet nations and satellites, [but] not Yugoslavia." Nevertheless, because neighboring Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, and Albania, all countries aligned with either China or the Soviet Union, would be targeted in an all-out strike, Yugoslavia's population could suffer severe damage effects as well, especially radiation.

Even though the guidance for SIOP-64 recognized the reality of the Sino-Soviet split by permitting a China "withhold," it took four years, (until 1968), before President Johnson rescinded the blanket "Sino-Soviet" requirement from the "Furtherance" instructions, thus allowing top commanders to discriminate between "Sino-Soviet" countries, e.g., by excluding China from an attack.

Source: National Archives, Joint Chiefs of Staff Records, Record Group 218, Chairman Maxwell Taylor Files, box 1, CMs

More needs to be learned about the "Furtherance" instructions and the extent to which top commanders planned to implement them along the lines of the most massive SIOP options. What is certain is that the SIOP, unlike "Furtherance," gave flexibility to decisionmakers by offering "withholds" of certain countries or categories from the target list. This was evident in the review of the SIOP guidance, worked up by the Joint Staff, which JCS Chairman Maxwell Taylor circulated to the Joint Chiefs of Staff in June 1964. According to the review, the current SIOP guidance provided "a selective capability to withhold ... all strikes against Red China and its satellites and against the Soviet Bloc satellites, either individually or collectively." Thus, in response to a question, the report cited an existing "capability to withhold all attacks in all countries for which such a requirement exists, including Albania, Bulgaria and Rumania."

The report did not explain why those three countries were eligible for withholds (but not, for example, Poland). Given Albania's close ties to China, it is possible that the government wanted the ability to withhold Albania as a target if it was also withholding strikes against its ally China. Moreover, U.S. intelligence was aware that Soviet-Romanian relations were troubled. In fact, during Fall 1963, Foreign Minister Corneliu Manescu told Secretary of State Dean Rusk that the Soviets had not consulted Romania during the Cuban Missile Crisis and that the Soviets had not deployed nuclear weapons in Romania. In response, Rusk assured Manescu that U.S. military planning would take that into account.[11] (The "Furtherance" instructions showed the limits to the withholds, at least before 1968.) Why Bulgaria was included is far from evident because it was so closely aligned with the Soviet Union.




Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Maxwell Taylor with Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara, July 1964, at the time of Taylor’s appointment as ambassador to South Vietnam. Taylor presided over the development of the Single Integrated Operational Plan that included five choices for massive nuclear strikes. McNamara later said that “we had complete presidential control over [the SIOP]” and “knew how … to cut back on the strike options.” (Photo courtesy of Office of the Secretary of Defense Historical Office).

Air Force caption: “Worms-eye view of Boeing SM-80 ‘Minuteman’ guided missile in silo prior to launch at Cape Canaveral FL, 7 Jan 1963.” The Minuteman was becoming a major component of the nuclear weapons-delivery systems available to SIOP planners. (Photo from U.S. National Archives, Still Pictures Branch, RG 342B, box 966.)

Air Force caption: “The first salvo launch of Minuteman intercontinental ballistic missiles was made at Vandenberg Air Force base, California, on 24 February 1966.” (Photo from U.S. National Archives, Still Pictures Branch, RG 342B, box 967)

Priorities And Operations

Target withholds were only one issue in the Joint Staff review of SIOP guidance that had been requested at an October 1963 meeting of top Defense and JCS officials at Strategic Air Command headquarters, of which no record is yet available. The guidance review took into account the highly secret Joint Strategic Capabilities Plan that assigned wartime missions, such as target priorities, to the Strategic Air Command among other commands.[12] For example, JSCP-65 stipulated that the “military objective in general war …[was] to defeat the Soviet Bloc alone or in combination with the Asian communist Bloc.” Consistent with that objective, U.S. nuclear forces were to “destroy or neutralize on a selective basis if required, the military capabilities of the enemy, as necessary to limit damage to the United States and its allies to the maximum extent practicable.” Moreover, strategic forces were to “maintain an assured capability under all conditions [to] destroy, on a selective basis, the war supporting and urban/industrial resources of the enemy.”

The guidance review reaffirmed the five attack options that had been designed for SIOP-63. Two were preemptive attack options – I: strikes against nuclear targets, II: strikes against nuclear and non-nuclear military targets); and three were retaliatory attack options – III: nuclear targets, IV: nuclear and non-nuclear military, and V: military and urban industrial. As before, the top priority was “destroying or neutralizing the enemy’s military capabilities,” with precedence given to nuclear threat targets (Alpha category). The “secondary concern” was extending the attack to urban-industrial targets. According to Maxwell Taylor’s cover memorandum, this order of priorities was something that he believed needed further review.

The Joint Staff endorsed the practice of keeping attacks on urban-industrial targets (Charlie category) as part of a separate option because, if all attack options combined military and urban-industrial targets, that would deny the U.S. government “any selectivity in our attack and could dictate automatically the destruction of US urban industrial areas by the enemy.” Attack Option V, a retaliatory option, was the only one that targeted a combination of nuclear, non-nuclear military, and urban industrial targets in such a way as to “destroy the will and ability of the Sino-Soviet Bloc to wage war, remove the enemy from the category of a major industrial power, and assure a post-war balance of power favorable to the United States.”

Apparently, there was some hope in the Joint Staff that striking nuclear threat targets only could signal an intent to spare urban areas that could be reciprocated. Yet, the attacks on military targets would have been so massive as to undermine any notion of “selectivity.” The guidance review did not discuss numbers of weapons assigned to the strike options and no such information from the mid-1960s is available, but in 1969 the Alpha preemptive strike, the “smallest” SIOP option, targeted about 1,750 nuclear weapons on Soviet nuclear forces and delivery systems.

Population As An Objective

The emphasis on a capability to destroy urban-industrial targets provided context for a related issue in the SIOP review: the Joint Staff raised the possibility of using “population loss as the primary yardstick for effectiveness in destroying the enemy society with only collateral attention to industrial damage.” The implication of this alarming statement was that as long as urban workers, clerks, and managers were killed the level of damage to industrial targets might not be as important. Given the JSCP-65 requirement for “an assured capability to destroy the enemy’s war supporting and urban/industrial resources,” fatalities were likely to increase “in that a larger portion of the urban population may be placed at risk.” Placing “at risk” amounted to using population loss as a “primary yardstick” but whether that criterion became embedded in SIOP planning remains to be learned.

According to the Joint Staff review, a recent study, done in conjunction with the Joint Strategic Target Planning Staff, considered what needed to be done “to destroy the USSR and China as viable societies.” In the SIOP-64 guidance, the targeting objectives already in place, including the destruction of 70 percent of industrial floor space, could achieve “the destruction of the USSR as a viable society.” Meeting that goal for China was more complicated because so much of the population was agrarian. A requirement for 30 percent fatalities of the total Chinese population, amounting to 212 million people, “would necessitate an exorbitant weight of effort”; because 84 percent of the population was in rural areas, “the attack of a large number of place names would destroy only a small fraction of the total population of China.” Moreover, once the top 30 cities were destroyed, according to the Joint Staff, “the rate of return for a weapon expended diminishes rapidly.” To correct this problem, the Joint Staff would be looking at “alternative examples of redistribution of targeting weights of effort between the various categories of targets and to derive theoretical consequences of execution of a SlOP thus retargeted.”

Later in the guidance paper, the Joint Staff further discussed what it could take to destroy China as a “viable” society. To achieve that, the Joint Staff suggested cutting back on the goal of destroying 50 cities and 70 percent of industrial floor space as specified in the SIOP-64 guidance. Instead, keeping in mind the mainly agrarian character of Chinese society, the Joint Staff relaxed the criteria for Attack Option V, the retaliatory attack combining military and urban-industrial targets. It would aim at destroying 30 cities with the goal of 30 percent urban fatalities and destroying 50 percent of industrial floor space.

Implementing Option V in that way “would destroy such a level of the Chinese urban population and industrial capacity that China would no longer be a viable nation.”

The fingerprints of Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara can be found in some of the language in the Joint Staff guidance review. McNamara made the concept of “assured destruction” basic to the way that top Pentagon officials sized U.S. strategic forces.[13] It meant a retaliatory strike that could destroy the Soviet government and command centers along with “a large percentage of their population and economy” (e.g. 30 percent of population, 50 percent of industrial capacity, and 150 cities). The type of precision associated with McNamara’s thinking can be seen in the Joint Staff SIOP guidance review, for example, in the discussion of how China could be destroyed as a “viable” society.

The SIOP guidance review did not include any specific discussion of casualty levels. No casualty estimates from 1964 are available but other declassified documents provide a sense of the terrible scale. According to a 1961 estimate, a full force SIOP attack could cause a 71 percent casualty rate in Soviet cities and 53 percent in Chinese cities. An estimate from the following year projected 70 million Soviet fatalities caused by a no-warning U.S. strike on combined military and urban-industrial targets. By contrast the Defense Department estimated that a U.S. strike on military targets only via “ground-burst” would cause 55 million Soviet fatalities.

Target Priorities And Allocation Of Delivery Systems

That “Task Alpha” targets (nuclear forces) were “time sensitive” suggested that they would be struck, according to the Joint Staff, by “rapid reaction forces”—implicitly Minuteman missiles. By contrast, “highly survivable” systems, implicitly Polaris submarine-launched ballistic missiles, would be assigned to urban-industrial “Charlie” targets because “an assured capability must be provided under all conditions to destroy” them. To ensure that a survivable capability was available, the guidance for SIOP-64 directed the “establishment of a secure retaliatory force” for this purpose.

For destroying the most time-sensitive Task Alpha targets, SIOP-64 established the following priorities, which was generally, but not completely, consistent with top precedent targets in SIOP-63:

(1) Active heavy and medium bomber home bases and primary staging bases.

(2) Soft ICBM sites.

(3) Known and fixed IRBM/MRBM sites.

(4) Primary missile launching submarine bases (or their access to the sea).

(5) Primary heavy and medium bomber dispersal bases and active light bomber home bases.

(6) Primary nuclear and CBR [Chemical/Biological/Radiological] weapons storage facilities outside of major urban centers.

(7) Known active local control centers that exercise control over nuclear delivery forces which present a threat to the United States or its Allies, not co-located with those forces, but located outside of major urban centers.

That the destruction of bomber bases had even greater urgency than “soft” ICBM sites is an interesting problem which may possibly be explained by the large numbers of Soviet bombers that threatened not only the U.S. but also NATO allies and U.S. bases and troops. That “local control centers” for nuclear delivery systems were to be excluded from the priority list if they were located in “major urban centers” was significant because it indicated some degree of effort, consistent with the McNamara “no cities” approach, to protect urban populations from a counter-force strike.[14]

With the U.S.’s growing deployments of ICBMs, the Joint Staff proposed one change in priorities. Item seven, the nuclear control centers, should get a higher ranking, below three and above four, because they were a time-sensitive target category. In other words, the control centers needed to be struck earlier to disrupt the Soviet attack, but as in SIOP-63, to minimize civilian losses they would be the ones located outside of urban areas. 

Damage Expectancy

As in earlier SIOPs, the guidance for SIOP-64 stipulated high expectancy [DE], 90 percent, of severe damage to targeted installations. That would be the goal for all targets except the “hard targets” in the Alpha category. Implicitly 90 percent was the goal for urban-industrial and non-nuclear military targets. 90 percent was neither “a maximum nor a minimum, but one which is highly desirable and probably attainable with the available forces.”[15]

Because of the top priority given to destroying nuclear threat targets, the guidance assigned a 95 percent expectancy of damage. Considering the uncertainties associated with launching and landing a weapon on target, the guidance for SIOP-64 stipulated that the “over-all damage expectancy to any single DGZ [designated ground zeroes] should not exceed 95% except for those targets of highest priority.” As meeting a high DE could require the assignment of multiple bombs and warheads, the Joint Staff allowed that high numbers “may not be consistent with economical weight of effort.” To balance those considerations, the Joint Staff recommended revising the guidance “to provide more specific instructions.”

Why the authors of the SIOP-64 guidance considered 95 percent to be possible and necessary remains obscure. With more Minuteman I’s becoming available, perhaps significant numbers were to be targeted on the hundreds of Soviet ICBM and MRBM sites. The more accurate Minuteman II would not become available until late 1965; it would have a circular error probable (CEP) in the 0.26-0.34 nautical miles range compared to 1.1. nm for Minuteman I; a significant difference that made it a “counterforce weapon.”[16]

So that forces implementing Task Charlie achieved the “prescribed” damage expectancy of 90 percent, the Joint Staff recommended that allocations of forces assigned to the urban-industrial task be given “equal priority with the objectives of Task Alpha.” Those force allocations would especially apply to retaliatory strike Option V (combining Alpha, Bravo, and Charlie objectives) if a Soviet surprise attack occurred when U.S. forces were in a “normal alert posture.” Whether force allocations were so restructured is unclear, but as of 1969, 11 percent of strategic forces were committed to the Charlie objective, but whether that was more or less than in 1964 is presently unknown.

Major recommendations on SIOP guidance would have reached Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara but no paper trail is presently available on that point. While McNamara saw an assured destruction force as adequate for deterrence, the SIOP did not include such an option because of its heavy emphasis on counter-force. Indeed, assured destruction was antithetical to the SIOP because it assumed just enough forces for retaliation against a smaller target set. Years later, McNamara told author Deborah Shapley that had the circumstances arisen, he and the president could have improvised: “we had complete presidential control over [the SIOP]” and “we knew how, on a rough basis, to cut back on the strike options.” Yet, he conceded that he “never did modify the SIOP to reflect realistic alternatives.”[17]

Later in the 1960s, a new president, Richard M. Nixon, was aghast when he learned about the scale of the SIOP attack options and concluded that a president needed military options that did not result in Armageddon. Hoping that more choices could prevent escalation and make nuclear weapons more usable diplomatically, the Nixon administration initiated a search for limited nuclear options, which would become elements of the SIOP during the last years of the Cold War.

Note: Thanks to Lynn Eden, Senior Research Scholar Emerita, Stanford University, for incisive comments on a draft of this posting. 


[1]. See "David Alan Rosenberg on: U.S. Planning for a Soviet Nuclear Attack,” Interview Transcript, PBS. “Race for the Superbomb,” and Daniel Ellsberg, The Doomsday Machine: Confessions of a Nuclear War Planner (New York: Bloomsbury, 2017). For the organizational routines, see “David Alan Rosenberg on the Bureaucracy of Death,” Interview Transcript, PBS, “Race for the Superbomb” (no longer online).

[2]. According to Johnson’s chief of staff, Marvin Watson, the regular Pentagon “doomsday briefing” included the basic point that U.S. military policy “is based on the assumption that [the Soviets] will attempt a first strike against us.” Nevertheless, even if a Soviet attack destroyed most of the United States, the U.S. “counterstrike will throw the Soviet Union back into the Stone Age.” Because the Soviet leadership is “sane, we believe they will never launch an attack against us.” See Marvin Watson, Chief of Staff: Lyndon Johnson and His Presidency (New York: Thomas Dunne Books, 2004), 99.

[3]. For failure of deterrence, Lynn Eden, “The U.S. Nuclear Arsenal and Zero: Sizing and Planning for Use - Past, Present, and Future,” in Catherine McArdle Kelleher and Judith Reppy, eds., Getting to Zero: The Path to Nuclear Disarmament(Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2011), 69 and 78.

[4]. For “overkill” and the SIOP’s high damage requirements, see David A. Rosenberg, "The Origins of Overkill: Nuclear Weapons and American Strategy, 1945-1960,” International Security 7 (1983): 3-71. For fire effects, see Lynn Eden, Whole World on Fire: Organizations, Knowledge, and Nuclear Devastation (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2004).

[5]. Department of Defense, “Selected Items on ICBM [Intercontinental Ballistic Missile], Polaris and Nike X Programs Are Reported,” 19 May 1964, Digital National Security Archive.

[6]. For first strikes, preventive war and preemptive war, see David A. Rosenberg, "The Origins of Overkill: Nuclear Weapons and American Strategy, 1945-1960,” International Security 7 (1983): 33-35. For the 1963 Net Evaluation Subcommittee briefing, see also William Burr and David Alan Rosenberg, “Nuclear Competition in an Era of Stalemate, 1963-1975,” in Melvyn P. Leffler and Odd Arne Westad, eds., The Cambridge History of the Cold War (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 89-90.

[7]. For the logic of damage limitation, see Eden, “The U.S. Nuclear Arsenal and Zero,” 73.

[8]. Deborah Shapley, Promise and Power: The Life and Times of Robert McNamara (Boston: Little Brown and Company, 1993), 200-201

[9]. Michael Krepon, “Reconsidering Deterrence Stability,” Arms Control Wonk, 14 January 2015. For an argument about the possibility of deterrence without counterforce, see Ivan Oelhrich, “The Next Steps in Arms Control: Eliminate the Counterforce Mission,” The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 68 (2012): 79-85.

[10]. William Burr and Svetlana Savranskaya, “Previously Classified Interviews with Former Soviet Officials Reveal U.S. Strategic Intelligence Failure Over Decades,” National Security Archive Electronic Briefing Book No. 285, 11 September 2009.

[11]. Raymond L. Garthoff, A Journey through the Cold War: A Memoir of Containment and Coexistence1(Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution, 2001), 149-150.

[12]. Robert J. Watson, History of the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Into the Missile Age, 1954-1960 (Washington, D.C.: Historical Office: Office of the Secretary of Defense, 1997), 473 and 786. For the JSCP’s deep secrecy during the 1960s, see Ellsberg, The Doomsday Machine, 104-105 and 129-131. 

[13]. David A. Rosenberg, “Reality and Responsibility: Power and Process in the Making of United States Nuclear Strategy,1945–68,” Journal of Strategic Studies 9 (1986): 48. 

[14]. At some point the guidance changed by targeting major political and military controls even if located in important urban centers. By the late 1960s, Task Alpha included the “Moscow-Beijing Missile Package” requiring strikes against high level Soviet and Chinese political and military control centers. Such strikes could be withheld; during 1968 State Department officials suggested to the Joint Staff the desirability of not attacking Beijing or Moscow so that the U.S. government “can have someone to talk to” during a conflict. See interview with John C. Ausland, 8 October 1991, Nuclear History Program Berlin Crisis Oral History Project Oral History Sessions # 1-8 (College Park, MD: Center for International Security Studies at Maryland School of Public Affairs University of Maryland, circa 1993), 260.

[15]. For calculations of damage expectancy, see Eden, “The U.S. Nuclear Arsenal and Zero,” 89-90, based on formulae developed by Theodore Postol, “Targeting,” in Ashton B. Carter, John D. Steinbruner, and Charles Zracket, eds., Managing Nuclear Operations (Washington, D.C. : Brookings Institution, 1987), 375-378. 

[16]. Donald MacKenzie, Inventing Accuracy: A Historical Sociology of Nuclear Missile Guidance (Cambridge: MIT Press, 1990), 213.

[17]. Shapley, Promise and Power, 200-201.

This news bureau contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.



The real truth on 9/11 slowly continues to bleed out

Technical experts are mounting major challenges to official U.S. government accounts of how three World Trade Center skyscrapers collapsed in near-freefall after the 9/11 attacks 15 years ago.

Many researchers are focusing especially on the little-known collapse of



The Geopolitics Of The United States, Part 1: The Inevitable Empire

The Empire and the inevitable fall of the Obama criminal regime

STRATFOR Editor’s Note: This installment on the United States, presented in two parts, is the 16th in a series of STRATFOR monographs on the geopolitics of countries influential in world affairs.

Like nearly all of the peoples of North and South America, most Americans are not originally from the territory that became the United States.



Geopolitics Of The United States Part 2: American Identity And The Threats of Tomorrow

A look back at 2011 predictions for the future in order to put events of today into perspective

 photo capitalism_zpsah78uy5p.jpg
We have already discussed in the first part of this analysis how the American geography dooms whoever controls the territory to being a global power, but there are a number of other outcomes that shape what that power will be like. The first and most critical is the impact of that geography on the American mindset.



By Robert S. Finnegan

This e-mail outlines and confirms the acts of espionage against Indonesia and Indonesians by Akiko Makino and the others involved both in Kobe University and in AI Lab at University of Airlangga, Surabaya; Bahasa Indonesia original follows English translation...



UPDATED 01/07/2015 : New Analysis Challenges Tamiflu Efficacy; Hong Kong Corona Virus Outbreak


 photo TAMIFLU_small_zpssojx6okt.jpg

Obama criminals now resulting to biowarfare in quest to destroy Chinese and ASEAN economy; "novel virus substrain" points directly to a Kawaoka / Fouchier / Ernala-Ginting Kobe lab virus weaponized and genetically altered to specifically target and infect the Asian population: Ribavirin...



 photo WHO02_zpsplmhtlpr.jpg
The 5th Estate has just purchased a library on H5N1 "Novel" virus pandemics, there are dozens of PDF and Exel documents we feel will assist you in saving lives following intentional releases of the H5N1 and now MERS viruses; we will begin by printing those that appear to be extremely relevant here: H5N1 Kobe-Kawaoka-Ernala series continues soon with more "Smoking Gun" e-mails from Teridah Ernala to The 5th Estate . . .



By Robert S. Finnegan

On October 12, 2002 the Indonesian island of Bali experienced a terrorist attack that rocked the world. It was unquestionably well-coordinated and executed, the largest in the country's history.