Donald Trump’s first act as president was a visit to CIA
headquarters in Langley, Virginia, where he addressed gathering of CIA
employees. His journey directly in “the swamp” took place almost
immediately after his inauguration, and was clearly an urgent first priority.
Serenading Langley
The CIA is a headquarters of the Deep State
and the Shadow Government. It is the nexus of criminality, and of the
Bushes and Clintons, and the world-managing elite. The CIA enjoys a
virtually unlimited black budget and virtually unlimited power that is
beyond the reach of law, and beyond the control of the White House.
Yet here was Trump ingratiating and sweet talking the agency that,
under order of John Brennan (on behalf of Hillary Clinton and the
Bushes), actively engaged in unprecedented efforts to destroy him.
Trump swooned, in sickly sweet fawning fashion:
“Nobody feels stronger about the CIA and the intelligence
community than Donald Trump. Nobody.I am so behind you. You’re going to
get so much backing, you’re going to ask ‘Please Mr. President, don’t
give us so much backing’. We’re gonna do great things. We have not used
the real abilities we have, we’ve been restrained. We have to get rid of
ISIS. Radical Islamic terrorism has to be eradicated off the face of
the earth. It is evil. This is a level of evil that we haven’t seen.
You’re going to do a phenomenal job, but you’re going to end it. This is
going to be one of the most important groups towards making us safe,
toward making us winners again, toward ending all of the problems, the
havoc and fear that this sick group of people has caused. I am with you a
thousand percent! I love you, I respect you, and you will be leading
the charge.”
Is Trump naïve, uninformed, or playing some Orwellian game?
How many people attending his speech, the people he expects to “lead
the charge” are, in fact, key managers of Islamic terror assets—the very
creators and managers of ISIS?
The CIA is, in fact, the very “sick group of people” responsible for
orchestrating international terrorism and untold atrocities. How does
Trump plan on the CIA “ending” Islamic terrorism when it is the
institution he “loves and respects” is the institution that foments and
continues to spread this “fear and havoc?
Does Trump know that the CIA is, in addition to being the world’s
leading manager of terrorism, also the propaganda ministry of the United
States? Does Trump realize that the CIA controls the corporate mainstream media organs that relentlessly and savagely attack him around the clock,
and that many of the individuals that he is glad-handing may well be
the very same individuals who are orchestrating the vicious propaganda
and ongoing coup attempts directed at him and his presidency?
Was Trump’s fawning speech an admission of surrender, and that he
will change nothing except the top leadership (switching out Brennan for
Mike Pompeo), because he believes nothing needs to be changed?
What did he mean when he said that the CIA had been “restrained”? In
what way is the CIA, which is more powerful and more aggressive today
than at any other time in its unsavory history, “restrained”? The magnitude of terrorism, violence, criminality and war has reached unprecedented levels, to the brink of world war. Will
the CIA therefore be allowed, under Pompeo and Trump, to continue
engaging in even more terrorism, false flag operations, regime
destabilizations and coups, assassinations, narcotrafficking, financial
fraud, corruption, media control and disinformation, and treason—on an even greater “unrestrained” scale?
Trump openly supports enhanced interrogation and torture, which means
he supports methods perfected and utilized by the CIA. To head off
political pressure, Trump says he will allow Defense Secretary Mattis,
who is against torture, to “overrule” him, and allow Mattis to decide on
a case by case basis whether to torture prisoners. Is Trump’s
unapologetic enthusiasm for torture an example of what he expects to be
among the “unrestrained” abilities and “great things” he wants the CIA
to display?
As written by former CIA veteran Victor Marchetti in the classic expose, The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence, the
CIA does not “function primarily as a central clearinghouse and
producer of national intelligence for the government”. Its basic mission
is “that of clandestine operations, particularly covert action—the
secret intervention in the internal affairs of other nations. Nor was
the Director of CIA a dominant—or much interested—figure in the
direction and management of the intelligence community which he
supposedly headed. Rather, his chief concern, like that of most of his
predecessors and the agency’s current Director—was in overseeing the
CIA’s clandestine activities”.
There is also the management of entrenched CIA businesses, which
include looted and laundered trillions in secret bank accounts and shell
companies, and the management of a vast network of CIA political assets
throughout Washington and in the corporate world. What, if anything,
does Trump intend to do, for instance, about the massive CIA enterprise
that remains in the control of the Bush/Clinton network, which is
bitterly opposed to Trump?
While there may be CIA operatives and employees, including current
and former veterans who do not support the criminal operations of the
agency, these rank and file operatives have not dictated CIA policy
since its creation. These “good guys” are the minority, and their reform
and whistleblowing efforts have largely been in vain, and met with
deadly force.
Is there any sign that that Trump and Pompeo seek to reform the CIA
at all, into an institution that answers to its own government? Or do
Trump and Pompeo merely seek to somehow co-opt this above-the-law
apparatus, retaining its worst elements, towards their own designs
(whatever they may be)?
Trump’s “war on terrorism”: waging war with itself?
Trump promises a total war against Islamic terrorism and ISIS.
How does Trump wage a total war against Islamic terrorism when the
agency of which he is “the biggest fan”, that he “supports one thousand
percent”, is responsible for the creation and ongoing use of Islamic
terrorism, as military-intelligence assets for Anglo-American
geopolicy? Does Trump realize that the CIA is funding and arming ISIS, Al-Nusra and Al-Qaeda?
Trump’s “War on Terrorism”: Going After America’s “Intelligence Assets”? By Prof Michel Chossudovsky
Does Trump understand that the CIA is responsible for decades of
false flag terror operations, including 9/11? (On 9/11, Trump seems to
believe a variation of the consensus official narrative
blaming outside Islamic terrorists, possibly the Saudis, and George W.
Bush for failing to kill Osama bin Laden. Therefore, the CIA is
blameless. He holds this view, despite firsthand experience that goes against the official story.)
Does Trump’s total “war on terrorism” include waging war against the
vast network of CIA assets that are currently engaged in destabilization
operations across the Middle East? What is his plan for the Free Syrian
Army (FSA), Al-Nusra—all of which are CIA fronts?
How can the existing networks remain in place without disaster? Will
Trump pit officially sanctioned US military forces against the CIA
proxies that have been working on orders from the Obama administration?
Will Trump shut down ongoing military and intelligence operations
throughout the region? How will he cut off the funding of terrorists
(sources which include Washington and the CIA, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and
Israel)? What will be done with the hundreds of proprietary cells and
CIA-aligned foreign intelligence networks?
Many have compared Trump’s professed anti-establishment goals to
President John F. Kennedy’s fatal efforts to take down the Deep State
and the CIA. More specifically, if Trump dares dismantle the CIA and the
imperial foreign policy that has been in place since the end of the
Cold War, he would place himself in the same dangerous position as JFK
faced during the Bay of Pigs operation against Cuba. JFK paid with his
life for ruining the CIA’s game. Imagine the repercussions for Trump, if
he ends the conquest of the Middle East and Central Asia.
The incompetence excuse
It is difficult to predict Trump’s plan based on his rhetoric, which has been consistently inconsistent. According to his web site,
Trump’s primary issue with the Bush/Cheney/Obama/Clinton/Biden (McCain)
Middle East program is that he believes that his predecessors
recklessly squandered opportunities and unwittingly or stupidly allowed
ISIS to happen. It was correct, in Trump’s view, to go into Afghanistan
to avenge 9/11 (which he believes was an act of an outside enemy, not a
false flag operation), but wrong to go into Iraq. But, according to
Trump, once in Iraq, the US should have taken the oil, prevented the oil
from going to ISIS, and done a better job preventing the rise of ISIS.
Similarly, Trump seems to believe that (1) Libya was needlessly
destroyed by Clinton and Obama, and that Gadhafi could have been removed
more surgically, without letting terrorists run wild, and (2) Syria
could have been toppled surgically by Obama, who “lacked the courage” to
go in. Here also, Trump’s narrative is that mistakes allowed ISIS to
spread. Now, however, Syria is too much of a mess and must be cleaned up
differently.
The overarching problem, in Trump’s limited view, again is that
“mistakes” created power vacuums from which ISIS, unwittingly set loose
by Obama/Clinton’s incompetence.
Nowhere in this Trump narrative is there mention of the CIA’s
creation and ongoing management of Islamic terrorism—including Al-Qaeda
and all fronts of the Islamic State—on behalf of Anglo-American
interests around the world. No inkling that Islamic terrorism is, in
fact, the key component of American geostrategy..
If Trump grasps any aspect of these amply documented facts, he has so
far shown no signs of it. It is not known if he is naïve, uninformed,
selectively biased, or if he has been deluded or manipulated by the many
“advisers” that he trusts. Or if he has some plan that has yet to be
revealed.
The disinformation ministry to stop itself?
Trump promises to wage war against radical Islam on an ideological
and cultural basis. This suggests that Trump and Pompeo wish to counter
Muslim extremism with counter-propaganda.
This ignores that fact that the CIA itself is a leading disseminator
of radical Islamic thought. The CIA, and its international proxies, is
behind extremist rhetoric and propaganda, including material broadcast
over the media and the Internet. Trump does not seem to grasp that
radical Islam is a symptom, and not a cause. And it is merely a tool,
and a weapon used to carry out the geopolitical agenda of the (amoral
and non-religious) world elite.
The real enemy is not religion, but those who manipulate and distort religion for war purposes. The real enemy therefore is again the CIA itself, and its propaganda.
Just as it is foolish to allow the CIA to continue arming, funding
and guiding ISIS terrorists in the field while also “fighting” them, it
is foolish to have the CIA create anti-extremist propaganda while
Langley is still guiding the extremist rhetoric being utilized by the
terrorists.
If Trump fails to stop the CIA itself and its entire “war on terrorism”, including its propaganda, he stops nothing.
Trump’s resource warriors
The “war on terrorism” and the conquest of the Grand Chessboard is,
in essence, a resource war that has been waged over geography involving
oil and gas supplies, and oil and gas distribution routes: pipelines,
sea transport, etc. Will Trump continue this, and how?
Trump’s selection of Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State is telling
as well as ominous. Tillerson’s ExxonMobil has been a major beneficiary
of the “war on terrorism”, and a major player in energy deals connected
to 9/11 and all subsequent conflict.
Tillerson was executive vice president of ExxonMobil Development
Company, and oversaw many of the company’s Caspian Sea holdings.
ExxonMobil was one of the members of Dick Cheney’s secret task force,
the US National Energy Policy Development Group (NEPDG). As detailed
extensively in Mike Ruppert’s Crossing the Rubicon, the NEPDG’s
targeting of Middle East and Central Asian energy fields served as a
virtual map of battle for the “war on terrorism” and a central motive
behind 9/11.
In addition, according to Ruppert, who detailed the case in “The Elephant in the Living Room” (From the Wilderness 3/30 02),
ExxonMobil engaged in bribery. Major bribes totaling $1 billion were
paid by ExxonMobil and BP Amoco to Kazakhstan’s then-president
Nutsulstan Nazarbayev to secure equity rights in Kazakh oil fields
during the 1990s. Dick Cheney, then-CEO of Halliburton was a sitting
member of the Kazakh state oil advisory board. The activities of
Cheney’s NEPDG as well as the numerous bribery scandals, have been
aggressively covered up.
Tillerson must certainly know about all of this. Does Trump? Is this
the kind of foreign policy agenda he and his national security team
embraces? If so, it is pure globalism of the most rapacious kind.
More questions
Trump wants better relations with Russia. Cooperation between Trump
and Putin has temporarily headed off imminent superpower conflict
towards World War 3 over Syria. This conflict would have exploded in
earnest if Hillary Clinton had won the presidency.
But what do better relations with Russia mean in terms of the
geostrategy, and energy? Recall that Russia has been intimately involved
with its own vast energy agenda throughout Central Asia and the Middle
East. Russia was reluctantly cooperative with the Bush/Cheney
administration throughout the Afghanistan and Iraq conquests. Deals were
made. Russia could have, but did not, militarily opposed Bush/Cheney.
Is Trump going to revert to something similar, in which he and
Tillerson (who has longstanding ties to the heads of state of all
nations, including Russia) cut Russia in on deals—-a cooperative
superpower “management” of Syria and the rest of the Grand Chessboard?
What are Trump’s plans for Iran, Saudi Arabia, Yemen, etc.?
How will Trump balance the competing interests of Russia and Israel?
How will Trump and Pompeo deal with the Mossad? Israel and Netanyahu
have belligerently demanded regime change in both Syria and Iran, and
continue to engage in provocative actions to force reactions out of the
Syrian and Iranian governments. Trump is staunchly pro-Israel. Given
that stance, and his lack of opposition to the Israeli lobby, what are
the chances that he will push a policy in Syria that goes directly
against the demands of Tel Aviv?
But what are Trump’s views on China’s numerous cooperative deals with
Russia throughout the world, including the Middle East, Central Asia,
Africa, etc.? How will Trump balance warmer relations with Moscow while
adopting a more belligerent policy towards Beijing.
A lone voice of reason
|
Tulsi Gabbard, Congress woman (D-Hawaii) |
Shortly after his election win, Trump met with Congresswoman Tulsi
Gabbard (D-Hawaii). Gabbard, an Iraq War veteran, is firmly and boldly
against the regime change in Syria. She is a staunch and open critic of
the CIA’s direct and indirect arming and funding of all Islamic
terrorists and against support of countries that support terrorists. She
calls the Syrian conflict an illegal war that must stop.
On January 4, 2017, Gabbard introduced HR 258, the Stop Funding
Terrorists Bill, which would “prohibit the use of American government
funds to provide assistance to Al-Qaeda, Jabhat, Fatah al-Sham, and the
Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), and to countries supporting
these organizations, and for other purposes”. This bill aims squarely,
boldly, at the CIA.
More recently,Gabbard visited Syria
and met with Assad. She has been willing to accept political flak from
all sides to change the course of US policy. She has also met with the
families of veterans and other American citizens affected by the Syrian conflict.
According to Gabbard, “ my visit to Syria has made it abundantly
clear: Our counterproductive regime change war does not serve America’s
interest, and it certainly isn’t in the interest of the Syrian people.
As I visited with people from across the country, and heard
heartbreaking stories of how this war has devastated their lives, I was
asked, ‘Why is the United States and its allies helping Al-Qaeda and
other terrorist groups try to take over Syria? Syria did not attack the
United States. Al-Qaeda did.’ I had no answer.”
Having met with Gabbard, who may have been considered for a cabinet
position at some point, Trump has no excuse: he has been advised by
someone with an authoritative point of view that is deeply critical of
the CIA and its use of terror proxies.
Does Trump agree or disagree with Gabbard?
To drain or not to drain the CIA swamp
Nothing in his rhetoric suggests that he is against the “war on
terrorism”. In fact, he is gung-ho for it, with relish. He simply has
his own opinion on how it should be carried out.
It seems highly unlikely that Trump can or will reverse the central
geostrategic agenda that has been the cornerstone of imperial policy
since the 1970s.
Nor does it seem likely that Trump can or will eradicate the criminal
element from the national security apparatus that has stopped all
challenges to its primacy since the end of World War II. Langley has not
been successfully cleaned up or reformed since its inception. If his
fawning words are to be taken at face value, Trump is in love with the
CIA, and wants the CIA to love him. At the very least, he is going
overboard to win them over.
Former CIA operative Robert Steele believes that Trump has already been penetrated by the CIA, and names White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus
as a mole. Trump, however, has shown nothing but ardor for Priebus,
“his superstar”, since the election. Priebus is not the only figure
behind Trump who demands scrutiny. The entire Trump administration is
crawling with neocons and “former” neocons. How many of them have ties
to Langley? Trump is surrounded by enemies, within his administration as
well as outside. He must protect himself from all of these individuals,
if he is even bothering to identify them.
But because Trump appears unlikely, unwilling, or unable to eradicate
the true root of “terrorism”—the CIA itself and all
military-intelligence agencies that utilize and control terrorists—the
world faces a future of continued zero-sum/endless “anti-terrorism”, as
the CIA continues sending terrorists to commit violence and murder, at
the same time that the commander-in-chief continues to send the CIA out
to go after them, in a surreal and idiotic waste of resources and
lives.
Nothing is clear except this:
If Trump does not drain the swamp that is the CIA, he will not end Islamic terrorism, nor dismantle globalism. He will fail to make America great.
If he does not end the “war on terrorism” entirely, humanity itself remains in grave peril. |