Streetwise Professor

July 4, 2020

The “Russian Bounties” Story: The Media Dog Returns to the “Intelligence” Community’s Vomit

Filed under: History,Military,Politics,Russia,Uncategorized — cpirrong @ 2:43 pm

“As a dog returns to his vomit, so a fool repeats his folly” — Proverbs 26:11 

This Proverb applies to the American news media and the US “Intelligence” Community, with a variation. The variation being the media returns to the “Intelligence” Community’s vomit, rather than its own per se.

For about four years the news media lapped up whatever lies the “I”C barfed up about “Russian collusion.” And it was all lies. 100 percent.

Honest people can be fooled. Yet, once they are fooled, they distrust who fooled them. Dishonest people lap up lies over and over again. Because they want to.

The latest iteration of this is the recent hysteria over the allegations that the Russians (namely, its military intelligence service, the GRU) paid bounties to the Taliban to kill Americans, that Trump had been briefed about it, and did nothing. These allegations were “credited” to “anonymous intelligence sources.”

The dogs at the New York Times ran to the vomit like they hadn’t eaten in months. Which may be true, since the demise of the impeachment fiasco, and the dominance of the Covid-19 story. But rather than treating another “I”C leak with skepticism, if not disdain, they wolfed it down. Because they wanted to.

In the event–I’m sure you will find this shocking–the “intelligence” was of dubious provenance, and because of that Trump had not been briefed about it. So the story was 100 percent unadulterated puke.

A word to the wise. If you claim to put any credence in any story based on “anonymous sources in the intelligence community,” you are either a fool (because you actually believe it despite the repeated evidence of their untrustworthiness) or a knave (because you know it is likely untrue but choose to treat it as gospel regardless because it is politically useful).

Arguendo, suppose the story is true. What is Trump supposed to do about it? Nuke Russia? Add more sanctions? What’s left to be sanctioned, pray tell?

Those who are flogging this story, and those like it, want a new Cold War with Russia. But apparently they expect only one side to fight it: the Russians, evidently, should be pacifists in this Cold War II. But if the Russians are pacifists, why fight a war against them?

So let’s get real. If there is a Cold War II, then one can expect both sides to utilize the tactics of Cold War I. During which, you might remember, the Soviets supplied massive military supplies to, inter alia, North Vietnam and North Korea which were used to kill Americans.

And during which the United States “Intelligence” Community supplied weapons to Afghan Islamist foes of the USSR that were used to kill thousands of Soviet soldiers.

Memories run long, and payback is a bitch.

Meaning that if you fight Cold War II with the Russians, as day follows night, Russians will try to kill Americans–while attempting not to leave fingerprints. That’s the way Cold Wars are fought.

So be very careful what you ask for: and if you ask for a New Cold War, expect the consequences. And if those consequences include the deaths of American soldiers, you need to accept that the responsibility is largely yours.

It is particularly perverse to blame Trump for the deaths of Americans in Afghanistan. He has been laboring to extract the US from that cesspool, precisely because he believes that it is pointless for American troops to die there, for . . . well, for nothing.

And the establishment–notably the “Intelligence” Community and the Pentagon–have fought him tooth and nail. Apparently forgetting the adage “never reinforce failure,” they have reinforced it for going on 20 years now. And they will not admit failure, and have fought Trump more viciously in his attempts to withdraw than they have fought the Taliban in the Hindu Kush.

In other words, Trump has been trying to save American lives, and the Pentagon and the “Intelligence” Community have been willing to expend them. To what purpose, they cannot explain.

In that respect, the “Russian bounty” story is even more twisted than the run of the mill Russian collusion story. For it represents the most malign elements of the Deep State and their vomit mongers in the media and the Democratic Party crying crocodile tears over dead Americans in Afghanistan, and blaming the man who is trying to prevent more Americans from dying there, all to perpetuate their insane war that will kill Americans as long as it lasts.

It is hard for normal people to imagine a more damning commentary on the American establishment than that. But that likely reflects the limits of my imagination. I am sure that these malign, evil creatures that dwell in the bowels of Langley and the Pentagon will conjure up even more sick actions in the future.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email


  1. Amen. The NYT has lost its reasoning power along with its ethics.

    Comment by Margaret — July 4, 2020 @ 5:27 pm

  2. We know the NYT has been a hostile presence at least since Walter Duranty.

    But when did Langley and the Pentagon become dens of American betrayal?

    Are they the bureaucratic offspring of the pre-post WWII Communist infiltrators that the Venona Papers have revealed were really there?

    Is it that Mr. Obama put anti-American Americans in place?

    Or were they always there, and now just feel confident about revealing themselves?

    The emergence of a modern cohort of betrayers all seems so sudden.

    Comment by Pat Frank — July 4, 2020 @ 5:55 pm

  3. Every now and again somebody asks the world “What have you changed your mind about?”

    In my case one answer is the US Securitate. I had long assumed that they were probably no more incompetent and corrupt than many another police force. But it turns to that the madmen who claimed they were unusually incompetent and corrupt were right all along. It’s just an irony that such madmen are now largely silent on the topic because those agencies are now on their side.

    Comment by dearieme — July 5, 2020 @ 4:48 am

  4. A view from overseas.

    Whenever I visit the USA I am amazed how many people tell me that they respect the BBC for its accurate and impartial news coverage.

    The BBC is utterly rancid, every bit as bad as the NYT/CNN/NBC/PBS axis. It pushed the Russia bounty story as headline news for over 24 hours.

    Comment by John — July 5, 2020 @ 6:14 am

  5. “What’s left to be sanctioned, pray tell?”

    Erm, that’s a question that is easy to answer, the answer being: “almost everything”. Unless they agree to build a few more aluminum plantçs in the US and a ski resort in Key West, that is. In which case there is really nothing that can be done.

    Comment by Ivan — July 5, 2020 @ 7:06 am

  6. If Russia wanted to actually help the Taliban they would’ve sent them actual weapons to fight American soldiers. Why would Islamic fundamentalists want bounties? They already want America blood on their breakfast cereal as they see this as their duty to Allah.

    Comment by Victor — July 5, 2020 @ 6:54 pm

  7. Dear SWP, I don’t doubt your viewpoint. I do dislike the ranty tone adopted here which is most unlike you and detracts from your credibility. It’s not the kind of article I could link, much as I might agree with it, because it would reflect poorly on me.

    Comment by Michael van der Riet — July 6, 2020 @ 12:38 am

  8. So, in essence what you’re saying is that it might not be true (i.e. you don’t actually know), but if it were, what do you expect since they are our adversaries because history or something, and what could we do about it anyway? Regarding the latter, call me old fashioned but perhaps you could expect your C-in-C to read* – and fully digest – his intelligence briefs, and at least appear to be a little less in awe of Putin every single time they meet, y’know, adopt more of the demeanour he uses whenever he meets Merkel or Trudeau etc. Just a thought.

    * Surely this must pain you, being an academic?

    @Michael – are you new here?

    Comment by David Mercer — July 6, 2020 @ 11:06 am

  9. @David Mercer – There’s no room for adulation of Putin, Obama wore grooves in front of him.

    Comment by Christopher Hunt — July 6, 2020 @ 3:56 pm

  10. Great headline!

    Comment by Joe Walker — July 6, 2020 @ 4:57 pm

  11. When did it become normal to share state intelligence with the enemy?
    If the tale is true, do something (deniable) about it.
    If you can’t do anything about it, STFU.
    If the tale isn’t rue… hmm. Dogs under the carpet.

    Comment by philip — July 6, 2020 @ 5:01 pm

  12. Craig
    Would it be possible please to have a larger font to compose my jejune remarks on? Apols for the typos.

    Comment by philip — July 6, 2020 @ 5:03 pm

  13. @Chris – Obama veered between epic disdain and fear; he was never in awe. That said, he did enact one of my top 10 Putin humiliation moments, when he and Putin were seated at the same table at some banquet or other then Obama went round the table clinking glasses with the other guests, pointedly missing out Putin in the process. The look on his face! Absolute gold.

    No 1 in this list will forever be Putin’s rictus grin during the Sochi closing ceremony, him knowing that his dreams of empire had gone to sh*t and every last Rouble he’d spent on the games was for nowt. Makes me smile every time I think about it.

    Comment by David Mercer — July 7, 2020 @ 10:37 am

  14. @David Mercer – We can agree to enjoy Putin getting the shaft.

    Comment by Christopher Hunt — July 8, 2020 @ 3:10 am

  15. @Michael:

    DO stay. This is a welcome source, from the usual bilge.

    If for no other reason than the comments, which SWP always …. provokes? Would that be accurate?

    U don’t have to reference it. And if U R embarrassed, then use an alias.

    But please DO stay. And comment.

    VP VVP

    Comment by Vlad — July 10, 2020 @ 7:02 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Powered by WordPress