Neither the actor, nor the motive, nor the damage done is
known for certain in this latest scare story, write Ray McGovern and Joe
Lauria.
By Ray McGovern and Joe Lauria
The hyperbolic, evidence-free media reports on the “fresh
outbreak” of the Russian-hacking disease seems an obvious attempt by
intelligence to handcuff President-elect Joe Biden into a strong anti-Russian
posture as he prepares to enter the White House.
Biden might well need to be inoculated against the
Russophobe fever.
There are obvious Biden intentions worrying the intelligence
agencies, such as renewing the Iran nuclear deal and restarting talks on
strategic arms limitation with Russia. Both carry the inherent “risk” of
thawing the new Cold War.
Instead, New Cold Warriors are bent on preventing any such
rapprochement with strong support from the intelligence community’s mouthpiece
media. U.S. hardliners are clearly still on the rise.
Interestingly, this latest hack story came out a day before
the Electoral College formally elected Biden, and after the intelligence
community, despite numerous previous warnings, said nothing about Russia
interfering in the election. One wonders whether that would have been the
assessment had Trump won.
Instead Russia decided to hack the U.S. government.
Except there is (typically) no hard evidence pinning it on
Moscow.
Uncertainties
The official story is Russia hacked into U.S. “government
networks, including in the Treasury and Commerce Departments,” as David Sanger
of The New York Times reported.
But plenty of things are uncertain. First, Sanger wrote last
Sunday that “hackers have had free rein for much of the year, though it is not
clear how many email and other systems they chose to enter.”
The motive of the hack is uncertain, as well what damage may
have been done.
“The motive for the attack on the agency and the Treasury
Department remains elusive, two people familiar with the matter said,” Sanger
reported. “One government official said it was too soon to tell how damaging
the attacks were and how much material was lost.”
On Friday, five days after the story first broke, in an
article misleadingly headlined, “Suspected Russian hack is much worse than
first feared,” NBC News admitted:
“At this stage,
it’s not clear what the hackers have done beyond accessing top-secret
government networks and monitoring data.”
Who conducted the hack is also not certain.
NBC reported that the U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure
Security Agency “has not said who it thinks is the ‘advanced persistent threat
actor’ behind the ‘significant and ongoing’ campaign, but many experts are
pointing to Russia.”
At first Sanger was certain in his piece that Russia was
behind the attack. He refers to FireEye, “a computer security firm that first
raised the alarm about the Russian campaign after its own systems were
pierced.”
But later in the same piece, Sanger loses his certainty: “If
the Russia connection is confirmed,” he writes.
In the absence of firm evidence that damage has been done,
this may well be an intrusion into other governments’ networks routinely
carried out by intelligence agencies around the world, including, if not
chiefly, by the United States. It is what spies do.
So neither the actor, nor the motive, nor the damage done is
known for certain.
Yet across the vast networks of powerful U.S. media the
story has been portrayed as a major crisis brought on by a sinister Russian
attack putting the security of the American people at risk.
In a second piece on Wednesday, Sanger added to the alarm by
saying the hack “ranks among the greatest intelligence failures of modern
times.” And on Friday Secretary of State Mike Pompeo claimed Russia was “pretty
clearly” behind the cyber attacks. But he cautioned: “… we’re still unpacking
precisely what it is, and I’m sure some
of it will remain classified.” In other words, trust us.
Ed Loomis, a former NSA technical director, believes the
suspect list should extend beyond Russia to include China, Iran, and North
Korea. Loomis also says the commercial cyber-security firms that have been
studying the latest “attacks” have not been able to pinpoint the source.
In a New York Times op-ed, former Trump domestic security
adviser Thomas Bossert on Wednesday called on Trump to “use whatever leverage
he can muster to protect the United States and severely punish the Russians.”
And he said Biden “must begin his planning to take charge of this crisis.”
[On Friday, Biden talked tough. He promised there would be
“costs” and said: “A good defense isn’t enough; we need to disrupt and deter
our adversaries from undertaking significant cyberattacks in the first place. I
will not stand idly by in the face of cyber-assaults on our nation.”]
While asserting throughout his piece that, without question,
Russia now “controls” U.S. government computer networks, Bossert’s confidence
suddenly evaporates by slipping in at one point, “If it is Russia.”
The analysis the corporate press has relied on came from the
private cyber-security firm FireEye. This question should be raised: Why has a
private contractor at extra taxpayer expense carried out this cyber analysis
rather than the already publicly-funded National Security Agency?
Similarly, why did the private firm CrowdStrike, rather than
the FBI, analyze the Democratic National Committee servers in 2016?
Could it be to give government agencies plausible
deniability if these analyses, as in the case of CrowdStrike, and very likely
in this latest case of Russian “hacking,” turn out to be wrong? This is a
question someone on the intelligence committees should be asking.
Sanger is as active in blaming the Kremlin for hacking, as
he and his erstwhile NYT colleague, neocon hero Judith Miller, were in
insisting on the presence of (non-existent) weapons of mass destruction in
Iraq, helping to facilitate a major invasion with mass loss of life.
The Military-Industrial-Congressional-Intelligence-MEDIA-Academia-Think-Tank
complex (MICIMATT, for short) needs credible “enemies” to justify
unprecedentedly huge expenditures for arms — the more so at a time when it is
clearer than ever, that that the money would be far better spent at home.
(MEDIA is in all caps because it is the sine-qua-non, the cornerstone to making
the MICIMATT enterprise work.)
Bad Flashback
In this latest media flurry, Sanger and other intel leakers’
favorites are including as “flat fact” what “everybody knows”: namely, that Russia
hacked the infamous Hillary Clinton-damaging emails from the Democratic
National Committee in 2016.
Sanger wrote:
“…the same group
of [Russian] hackers went on to invade the systems of the Democratic National
Committee and top officials in Hillary Clinton’s campaign, touching off
investigations and fears that permeated both the 2016 and 2020 contests.
Another, more disruptive Russian intelligence agency, the G.R.U., is believed
to be responsible for then making public the hacked emails at the D.N.C.”
That accusation was devised as a magnificent distraction
after the Clinton campaign learned that WikiLeaks was about to publish emails
that showed how Clinton and the DNC had stacked the deck against Bernie
Sanders. It was an emergency solution, but it had uncommon success.
There was no denying the authenticity of those DNC emails
published by WikiLeaks. So the Democrats mounted an artful campaign, very
strongly supported by Establishment media, to divert attention from the content
of the emails. How to do that? Blame Russian “hacking.” And for good measure,
persuade then Senator John McCain to call it an “act of war.”
One experienced observer, Consortium News columnist Patrick
Lawrence, saw through the Democratic blame-Russia offensive from the start.
Artful as the blame-Russia maneuver was, many voters
apparently saw through this clever and widely successful diversion, learned
enough about the emails’ contents, and decided not to vote for Hillary Clinton.
4 Years & 7 Days
Ago
On Dec. 12, 2016, Veteran Intelligence Professionals for
Sanity (VIPS) used sensitive intelligence revealed by Edward Snowden, the
expertise of former NSA technical directors, and basic principles of physics to
show that accusations that Russia hacked those embarrassing DNC emails were
fraudulent.
A year later, on Dec. 5, 2017, the head of CrowdStrike, the
cyber firm hired by the DNC to do the forensics, testified under oath that
there was no technical evidence that the emails had been “exfiltrated”; that
is, hacked from the DNC.
His testimony was kept hidden by House Intelligence
Committee Chairman Adam Schiff until Schiff was forced to release it on May 7,
2020. That testimony is still being kept under wraps by Establishment media.
What VIPS wrote four years ago is worth re-reading —
particularly for those who still believe in science and have trusted the
experienced intelligence professionals of VIPS with the group’s unblemished,
no-axes-to-grind record.
Most of the Memorandum’s embedded links are to TOP SECRET
charts that Snowden made available — icing on the cake — and, as far as VIPS’s
former NSA technical directors were concerned, precisely what was to be
demonstrated QED.
Many Democrats unfortunately still believe–or profess to
believe–the hacking and the Trump campaign-Russia conspiracy story, the former
debunked by Henry’s testimony and the latter by Special Counsel Robert Mueller.
Both were legally obligated to tell the truth, while the intelligence agencies
were not.
~ Ray McGovern works with Tell the Word, a publishing arm of
the ecumenical Church of the Saviour in inner-city Washington. He was a Russian
specialist and presidential briefer during his 27 years as a CIA analyst. In
retirement he co-created Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (VIPS).
Joe Lauria is editor-in-chief of Consortium News and a
former UN correspondent for The Wall Street Journal, Boston Globe, and numerous
other newspapers. He was an investigative reporter for the Sunday Times of
London and began his professional career as a stringer for The New York Times.