Yes, The US Intelligence Community Routinely Lies

Bounties for Taliban? The New Big Russia Lie (July 2, 2020)

“Russian bounties for US Dead Soldiers” – Another NYT-Soros Piss Tape Fake (by Collin McMahon

It took almost a year for the U.S. Intel Community to come clean and admit they had no genuine intelligence. They fabricated this garbage and the Daily Beast (an early cheerleader for the bogus story) ate some major crow:

It was a blockbuster story about Russia’s return to the imperial “Great Game” in Afghanistan. The Kremlin had spread money around the longtime central Asian battlefield for militants to kill remaining U.S. forces. It sparked a massive outcry from Democrats and their #resistance amplifiers about the treasonous Russian puppet in the White House whose admiration for Vladimir Putin had endangered American troops.

But on Thursday, the Biden administration announced that U.S. intelligence only had “low to moderate” confidence in the story after all. Translated from the jargon of spyworld, that means the intelligence agencies have found the story is, at best, unproven—and possibly untrue.

But this is not a new phenomena. The intelligence community, especially my old outfit–the CIA–has a long, sordid record of lies, inaccuracies, and screw-ups.

Ever hear of Samuel A. Adams? (I am not talking about the patriot of 1776 or the Beer-maker using his name.) I am talking about the Sam Adams who make his reputation blowing the whistle on lies about the number of Viet Cong guerrillas. He was a hero and a victim as a consequence of his battles with a crooked CIA leadership and a corrupt U.S. military.

He is best known for his role in discovering that during the mid-1960s American military intelligence had underestimated the number of Viet Cong and North Vietnamese Army soldiers. Although his opinion was challenged, he pushed the case for a higher troop count. The issue under debate was called the Order of Battle (O/B). His efforts in 1967 met strong and persistent opposition from the Army (here MACV) which, in the short-term, prevailed against him. . . .

In the role of a “generalist” and “roving analyst”, Adams was assigned to study the Viet Cong. . . . While doing this perplexing research, Adams discovered that in the provinces the ARVN‘s count of the VC guerrillas and militia was often much higher than MACV‘s, e.g., in Long An province it was 2000 to 160. He got permission to “look into enemy manpower”. . .

From his research into captured enemy documents and other sources, he “concluded that previous estimates had undercounted the communists by hundreds of thousands. The implications were astounding.”[29] If the Viet Cong enemy combatant count was higher, it implied that the prospects for a South Vietnamese military victory were dimmed. It questioned American claims of progress on the battlefield. It’d be “politically disastrous” for the U.S. government.

If you are younger than 65, you have probably never heard of this Sam Adams. Sam was fortunate that he came from a wealthy family. He used that asset to his benefit. He was not afraid to challenge the bullshit being disseminated by the CIA and the Department of Defense because he was wealthy. He did not have to fear being fired and losing his house or the ability to pay for his kids college education. He had other colleagues and sympathizers at the CIA, particularly his immediate boss, George Allen, author of None So Blind. George tried to fight the senior leaders at the CIA but he faced the financial threat. If he persisted in protesting he would be fired and would have lost the ability to provide for his wife and their college bound children.

This corrupt system, sadly, has not changed. We just have new names and faces of lackeys and sell outs in leadership positions who quash any attempt by honest analysts to tell the truth. It happened in Vietnam. It happened in the lies about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. It happened in promoting the damnable fiction that Donald Trump was a stooge of Putin. And now it happened again with the calumny that Russia was paying a bounty to the Taliban to kill our troops and Donald Trump did nothing.

So here is my suggestion going forward–if the intel community claims something as fact without irrefutable evidence, do not believe them. Our ridiculous intelligence community is founded on a legacy of lies.

 19,963 total views,  5 views today

This entry was posted in Intelligence, Larry Johnson. Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to Yes, The US Intelligence Community Routinely Lies

  1. TV says:

    Didn’t you used to be one of those VERY important people who risked their lives daily for America – per the PR image that the “intelligence” agencies and their media lackeys have pushed on the public?

  2. Eol says:

    Russian and Bielorrussian outlets are claiming a foiled attempted coup/assesination against Lukashenko –
    Some sources putting the U.S behind this. With all the current diplomatic expulsiones and the situation in Ukraine – there is increasing talk of war in many of the online communities I visit for information. I wonder what is the committees view on the overall situation.

  3. Fred says:

    Biden, or Kamala, or whoever among the borg is drafting Executive orders, used the Afghanistan “bounties” to impose sanctions on Russia on the 15th:
    “The Administration is responding to the reports that Russia encouraged Taliban attacks against U.S. and coalition personnel in Afghanistan based on the best assessments from the Intelligence Community (IC). ”

    I believe that immediate blew up in their faces when Putin responded.
    1.They have revoked a 1992 agreement with the United States on free movement of their diplomats around the Russian Federation; they will now be limited to 25 miles, as in the days of the Soviet Union.
    2. They are now prohibiting the US diplomatic missions to hire Russians or third country nationals to work for them.
    3. The Russians are ordering the closing of US Government sponsored NGOs and foundations, which they say are conducting subversive activities on Russian soil.

    Congradulations to the Republicans though, for not even bothering to ask Victoria Nuland, confirmed with only 20 opposition votes, what her role was in pushing the Steele Dossier.

  4. Deap says:

    So “Legacy of Ashes” was non-fiction after all.

  5. Keith Harbaugh says:

    There are really two relevant actors here: the media and the IC.

    As to the fake “Russian bounties” story,
    Fox News has two excellent analyses of how the media hyped that single-sourced allegation:
    from Tucker Carlson:
    from Fox’s news team, featuring former WH press secretary Kayleigh McEnany:

    On the IC, there are real and grave concerns about how it is becoming politicized into spying on, and damaging, Americans who resist the PC party line.
    See the many posts from Sundance on this subject linked to here:

  6. Yeah, Right says:

    To me the most depressing aspect of this sordid episode wasn’t the idea that the US Intelligence Community knowingly peddled a false story.

    Par for the course.

    What depressed me was the inability of a single mainstream reporter to show even the slightest skepticism towards a story that so obviously failed the sniff-test.

    Stenographers all, apparently.

    And a nagging thought keeps bugging me; if the Russians weren’t paying a bounty to the Afghans then who, exactly, really was supplying the wads of money that were sloshing around in Taliban pockets?

    The prime suspect has to be the people who were so insistent on pointing the finger at the Russians.

    You know, the CIA.

    • roberto says:

      Opium money I’d bet.

    • ISL says:

      Yeah Right, or our best buddies, the Saudi’s…

      • Yeah, Right says:

        If the US IC was carrying water for the Saudi’s then wouldn’t there be a little more…. uniformity from them?

        The CIA alone expressed high confidence in the claim, all the other three-letter-agencies were cold on this, and always were.

        So either the story was spun to cover up wrongdoing by the CIA, or by the CIA to cover up wrongdoing by the Saudis. Either way, it amounts to the CIA knowingly risking a war with Russia to cover up the purpose of that money.

        But, again, I find it astonishing that nobody in the MSM is asking what seems to me to be obvious questions: if this isn’t Russian dirty money then where did it come from? And how dirty is it?

  7. sbin says:

    Incompetent unaccountable dullard agencies while being much closer to the truth
    Doesn’t sound as important.
    I start at the point of view that anything the MSM media releases from secret police agencies is completely false and like to be the exact opposite of “the truth”.

    World make a lot more sense that way.

    How is that Barr Durham investigation going?

  8. Feral Finster says:

    I suppose that, to believe the “Russian bounties ZOMG” fairy tale, one must believe that Afghans will attack invaders only if paid to do so.

    Not only that, but judging from reported NATO casualty levels in recent years, the Afghans aren’t very good at attacking those invaders, even when they get paid to do so by the piece. How Russia would determine who is entitled to a bounty for a killing is also left unsaid.

    If that were not enough, one must also believe that “Russia” is incredibly reckless and short-sighted, paying Afghans to do the one thing that would make it politically impossible for the United States to leave Afghanistan. Not to mention guarantied to result in all sorts of bad consequences for Russia, all for very little gain.

    Smacks of Syria ZOMG nerve gas ZOMG, in which one must believe that, just as he is on the cusp of winning, Assad would do the one thing that would guarantee an American attack and that American troops would never leave. And that he did this twice.

  9. The Twisted Genius says:

    The first time we discussed this Fakebot found an enlightening article on and quoted the following:

    The Times reported first on June 28, then again on June 30, that a large amount of cash found at a “Taliban outpost” or a “Taliban site” had led U.S. intelligence to suspect the Russian plot. But the Times had to walk that claim back, revealing on July 1 that the raid that turned up $500,000 in cash had in fact targeted the Kabul home of Rahmatullah Azizi, an Afghan businessmen said to have been involved in both drug trafficking and contracting for part of the billions of dollars the United States spent on construction projects.

    The information provided by “captured militants and criminals” under “interrogation” had been the main source of suspicion of a Russian bounty scheme in Afghanistan. But those “militants and criminals” turned out to be thirteen relatives and business associates of the businessman whose house was raided.

    those raids had actually been carried out exclusively by the Afghan intelligence service known as the National Directorate of Security (NDS).

    The article claimed this was an NDS scam.

    “the core elements of the story appear to have been fabricated by Afghan government intelligence to derail a potential US troop withdrawal from the country. And they were leaked to the Times and other outlets by US national security state officials who shared an agenda with their Afghan allies.”

    Sounds like a reasonable theory to me. The CIA getting played by the NDS is certainly believable as is the CIA’s still insisting that they have low to moderate confidence in the bounty story.

Comments are closed.