How To Lose London, Paris, DC; Secret Service Screwups
Geroman has done a nice summary of a major NYT article:
U.S. Intelligence Stresses Risks in Allowing Long-Range Strikes by Ukraine
Intelligence agencies concluded that granting Ukraine’s request to use Western missiles against targets deep in Russia could prompt forceful retaliation while not fundamentally changing the course of the war.
The article is a clear, straightforward read, and the position taken by the intel agencies seems basic common sense. The main takeaway, from a bigger picture perspective, is that the NYT sees a disconnect between American intel professionals on the one hand and the “less risk averse” crazies on the other hand—that would include MI6 and our Neocons like Blinken. Let me put it another way. The picture that the NYT subtly depicts is a conflict between US intel agencies (probably including CIA and DIA) and the Anglo-Zionist establishment axis of the UK and US Neocons.
With that, here’s Geroman’s summary—caveat: the article doesn’t actually mention “Washington, London and Paris”.
-- GEROMAN -- time will tell -  -- @GeromanAT
Washington, London and Paris will not survive Kyiv’s attack deep into Russia, — NY Times
US intelligence has named the risks of Ukraine launching long-range strikes: American intelligence agencies warn that Washington, London and Paris will not survive Kyiv’s attack deep into Russia.
Russia would likely retaliate heavily against the United States and coalition partners, possibly with deadly results, if they agreed to allow Ukrainians to use long-range missiles supplied by the United States, Britain and France to strike deep into Russian territory, U.S. officials said.
According to the intelligence agencies, Russia would likely respond with “more aggressive action against the US and its allies, possibly using lethal attacks, if permission is given to use missiles supplied by the US, UK and France to strike deep into Russia.”
In addition to attacks on European and American military bases, Russia may launch a series of sabotage operations at facilities in Western countries, intelligence fears.
At the same time, it is questionable whether long-range missiles can significantly influence the course of the conflict - Kyiv has a limited number of such weapons, and it is unclear how many more Western allies will be able to provide.
In addition, after the first strikes, Russia will most likely move its warehouses and command posts beyond the range of the missiles.
Therefore, the decision to provide “long-haul” has “high risks and uncertain benefits.”
“The findings partly explain why Biden is having a hard time making a decision and highlight the internal pressure to turn Zelensky down. U.S. officials, who asked to remain anonymous, said it was unclear what Biden would decide,” the article says.
http://t.me/RVvoenkor
3:01 AM · Sep 27, 2024
Next, I’ll simply link an article at Larry Johnson’s site. The article itself was written by J. Lawrence Cunningham, a former Secret Service official and long time private security professional. In a previous post we introduced Cunningham:
Cunningham served twenty years with Secret Service as an agent, in the training division, and as a supervisor responsible for safeguarding Ronald Reagan—he headed up the Reagan detail one year after John Hinkley tried to kill Reagan. As you’ll hear on the video, Cunningham has continued working in the field of personal protection security work since retiring, working with foreign governments and with high profile individuals (Oprah, Michael Jordan, JP2, etc.). In other words, he has a world of experience—forty years of it.
Here’s his article:
Follow the link for Cunningham’s lengthy analysis. Below are his stated reasons for writing on this topic. The bottom line reason is that the American people are not getting the answers they deserve:
Nearly a month later, despite two Congressional Oversight hearings with now former Director Cheatle and Acting Director Rowe, unanswered questions and troubling facts continue to emerge. Former Director Cheatle’s illogical responses to the Oversight Committee’s questions and Acting Director Rowe’s inconclusive statements on July 30th, including the FBI’s limited statements, have allowed serious questions to linger. Numerous theories, some supported with facts and other less credible, have been developing. Numerous articles have been published. Real Clear Politics, RCP is reporting Senator Grassley has requested additional information from DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas and Rowe. Responses from whistleblowers and Butler law enforcement officers have exposed negligent lapses and security omissions contradicting many claims made by Cheadle and Rowe.
To date, the Secret Service is being guarded with their responses to the Oversight Committee’s inquiry and to the public. Rowe’s limited statements seem to contradict statements and video evidence from Butler law enforcement authorities.
In an effort to set the record straight and in the spirit of urging critical reforms, the following factual information, supported by video evidence and statements from Butler police officers and officers with direct operational knowledge, is set forth. Clarity is critically needed.
This review will highlight key omissions of protective advance procedures during the security planning of the July 13th rally. Many recommendations set forth by the 435-page U.S. Secret Service: An Agency in Crisis from December 2014 (after serious security failures prompted this inquiry) were not fully implemented. Conspicuously absent among them was and remains—the failure of protective detail agents to complete consistent training—“at least 12% of work hours by fiscal year 2025.” According to Jason Chaffetz, the agency has woefully failed to achieve this training target. He says the Secret Service has been on notice since 2015 to implement effective changes, namely training and accountability to prevent the failures like those seen at the Butler rally.
The intent is to fact check the numerous statements and theories put forth by self-proclaimed experts and balance those with some credible authorities. In the spirit of separating facts from theory—context, background and explanations of the facts as we know them are sorely needed. Effective, tested protective strategies and advance procedures will be presented as a basis of comparison. Lastly, recommendations to counter vulnerabilities are cited.
Of course, the hot question is: Was the whisker close to successful assassination of Trump simply a hard to believe series of screwups, or was something more nefarious going on? Cunningham doesn’t get into that here, but in previous interviews he has been open to that possibility.
So they don't have enough secret service to provide security for Trump to have a rally in Wisconsin we are told.
BUT we can provide a huge secret service contingent to the Iranian President at the UN meeting?
This is the guy who is trying to have Trump assassinated?
He gets secret service protection?
Maybe I’m just being naive, but the whole idea of allowing deep strikes by the Ukrainians into Russia seems so rife with horrible consequences that only a madman would give it serious consideration as a prudent course of action. When the President of a major nuclear power tells you in no uncertain terms, if you do not stop facilitating, aiding and abetting military incursions into the sovereign territory of Russia, the use of nuclear weapons against all nations involved in said incursions, whether directly or indirectly, will not be ruled out as legitimate military targets in any retaliation that we might deem appropriate, up to and including a nuclear response, then a rational person would assume that he is not engaging in empty bluster but is deadly serious. Is this kind of provocative and dangerous policy the best we can offer?
On the issue of the Secret Service, it just appears to be an extension of the same type of ethos that unfortunately characterizes the whole of government and the law enforcement agencies in particular. They are apparently above any type of accountability or oversight as far as they are concerned. Lying seems to be their guiding principle and consequences be damned.
I’m exasperated by the totally impotent response from the Congress in the face of such blatant misconduct, and I’m being generous in using the word misconduct. I’m quite certain that if people started losing their jobs and facing imminent legal consequences that things would change overnight.
Just as an aside, I’m still infuriated that an FBI employee and his paramour were awarded a huge financial settlement instead of winding up behind bars.