HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » Hacked Emails Reveal NATO...

Fri Jul 1, 2016, 12:56 PM

Hacked Emails Reveal NATO General Plotting Against Obama on Russia Policy

Source: The Intercept

RETIRED U.S. AIR FORCE Gen. Philip Breedlove, until recently the supreme commander of NATO forces in Europe, plotted in private to overcome President Barack Obama’s reluctance to escalate military tensions with Russia over the war in Ukraine in 2014, according to apparently hacked emails from Breedlove’s Gmail account that were posted on a new website called DC Leaks.

Obama defied political pressure from hawks in Congress and the military to provide lethal assistance to the Ukrainian government, fearing that doing so would increase the bloodshed and provide Russian President Vladimir Putin with the justification for deeper incursions into the country.

Breedlove, during briefings to Congress, notably contradicted the Obama administration regarding the situation in Ukraine, leading to news stories about conflict between the general and Obama.

But the leaked emails provide an even more dramatic picture of the intense back-channel lobbying for the Obama administration to begin a proxy war with Russia in Ukraine.

In a series of messages in 2014, Breedlove sought meetings with former Secretary of State Colin Powell, asking for advice on how to pressure the Obama administration to take a more aggressive posture toward Russia.

Read more: https://theintercept.com/2016/07/01/nato-general-emails/



How to "Frame this opportunity"
Breedlove is insane

31 replies, 4115 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 31 replies Author Time Post
Reply Hacked Emails Reveal NATO General Plotting Against Obama on Russia Policy (Original post)
newthinking Jul 2016 OP
uhnope Jul 2016 #1
askeptic Jul 2016 #6
askeptic Jul 2016 #7
uhnope Jul 2016 #22
yurbud Jul 2016 #20
yurbud Jul 2016 #25
Xolodno Jul 2016 #27
yurbud Jul 2016 #28
Xolodno Jul 2016 #30
Cooley Hurd Jul 2016 #2
bananas Jul 2016 #9
forest444 Jul 2016 #31
tonyt53 Jul 2016 #3
newthinking Jul 2016 #8
wallyworld2 Jul 2016 #16
scscholar Jul 2016 #26
yurbud Jul 2016 #29
bucolic_frolic Jul 2016 #4
Purveyor Jul 2016 #5
geardaddy Jul 2016 #10
mountain grammy Jul 2016 #18
bemildred Jul 2016 #11
Night Watchman Jul 2016 #12
The Polack MSgt Jul 2016 #13
qazplm Jul 2016 #15
transatlantica Jul 2016 #17
newthinking Jul 2016 #21
uhnope Jul 2016 #23
Igel Jul 2016 #24
Bernardo de La Paz Jul 2016 #14
riversedge Jul 2016 #19

Response to newthinking (Original post)

Fri Jul 1, 2016, 01:02 PM

1. The Intercept LOL. It should break down and change its name to InterNational Inquirer

 

given the BS spin and fabulations it projects onto every fake news piece

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uhnope (Reply #1)

Fri Jul 1, 2016, 01:19 PM

6. ...not unlike a whole lot of other mainstream news media

-just my impression. Doesn't seem to me the Intercept sensationalizes any more than USAT, Huffington, NYT, WApo, etc. I haven't noticed them reporting any false information, which I can't say about some of the other MSM (CNN) that can sometimes jump on a story so fast that they misrepresent the facts. Just my 2 cents...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uhnope (Reply #1)

Fri Jul 1, 2016, 01:53 PM

7. Oh, and I see now that other outlets have picked up the story

...so I guess it's not as much of a rag as the ad hominem would infer.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to askeptic (Reply #7)

Sat Jul 2, 2016, 06:24 AM

22. grab your dictionary

 

look up "ad hominem"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uhnope (Reply #1)

Fri Jul 1, 2016, 09:33 PM

20. when you've got primary documents, you don't need to spin much

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to uhnope (Reply #1)

Sat Jul 2, 2016, 11:38 PM

25. Which news sources do you find trustworthy? And where has the Intercept erred on facts?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Reply #25)

Mon Jul 4, 2016, 03:08 PM

27. All I hear are crickets in response to your question.

But careful, he might get pissed an put you on his hit list.

...of course, being on his hit list is a badge of honor for me.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Xolodno (Reply #27)

Tue Jul 5, 2016, 10:38 AM

28. what happens on the hit list?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to yurbud (Reply #28)

Tue Jul 5, 2016, 04:11 PM

30. From what I've seen...

He puts one his posts in response to you in his journal. Then anywhere from six months or longer, in another thread, in another subjects brings it back with a link to some how....well, I'm not sure what he's trying accomplish. But it is comical.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to newthinking (Original post)

Fri Jul 1, 2016, 01:04 PM

2. If true, it sounds like what LeMay and the JCS tried to do to JFK during the Cuban Missile Crisis

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Missile_Crisis#Responses_considered

Responses considered[edit]



The U.S. had no plan in place because U.S. intelligence had been convinced that the Soviets would never install nuclear missiles in Cuba. The EXCOMM quickly discussed several possible courses of action, including:[38]

Do nothing: American vulnerability to Soviet missiles was not new.
Diplomacy: Use diplomatic pressure to get the Soviet Union to remove the missiles.
Secret approach: Offer Castro the choice of splitting with the Russians or being invaded.
Invasion: Full force invasion of Cuba and overthrow of Castro.
Air strike: Use the US Air Force to attack all known missile sites.
Blockade: Use the US Navy to block any missiles from arriving in Cuba.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff unanimously agreed that a full-scale attack and invasion was the only solution. They believed that the Soviets would not attempt to stop the US from conquering Cuba: Kennedy was skeptical.

They, no more than we, can let these things go by without doing something. They can't, after all their statements, permit us to take out their missiles, kill a lot of Russians, and then do nothing. If they don't take action in Cuba, they certainly will in Berlin.[39]

Kennedy concluded that attacking Cuba by air would signal the Soviets to presume "a clear line" to conquer Berlin. Kennedy also believed that U.S. allies would think of the U.S. as "trigger-happy cowboys" who lost Berlin because they could not peacefully resolve the Cuban situation.[40]

The EXCOMM then discussed the effect on the strategic balance of power, both political and military. The Joint Chiefs of Staff believed that the missiles would seriously alter the military balance, but McNamara disagreed. An extra 40, he reasoned, would make little difference to the overall strategic balance. The U.S. already had approximately 5,000 strategic warheads,[41]:261 while the Soviet Union had only 300. McNamara concluded that the Soviets having 340 would not therefore substantially alter the strategic balance. In 1990, he reiterated that "it made no difference ... The military balance wasn't changed. I didn't believe it then, and I don't believe it now."[42]

The EXCOMM agreed that the missiles would affect the political balance. First, Kennedy had explicitly promised the American people less than a month before the crisis that "if Cuba should possess a capacity to carry out offensive actions against the United States ... the United States would act."[43]:674–681 Second, U.S. credibility among their allies, and among the American people, would be damaged if they allowed the Soviet Union to appear to redress the strategic balance by placing missiles in Cuba. Kennedy explained after the crisis that "it would have politically changed the balance of power. It would have appeared to, and appearances contribute to reality."[44]

On October 18, President Kennedy met with Soviet Minister of Foreign Affairs, Andrei Gromyko, who claimed the weapons were for defensive purposes only. Not wanting to expose what he already knew, and wanting to avoid panicking the American public,[45] the President did not reveal that he was already aware of the missile build-up.[46]

By October 19, frequent U-2 spy flights showed four operational sites. As part of the blockade, the U.S. military was put on high alert to enforce the blockade and to be ready to invade Cuba at a moment's notice. The 1st Armored Division was sent to Georgia, and five army divisions were alerted for combat operations. The Strategic Air Command (SAC) distributed its shorter-ranged B-47 Stratojet medium bombers to civilian airports and sent aloft its B-52 Stratofortress heavy bombers.[47]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cooley Hurd (Reply #2)

Fri Jul 1, 2016, 03:07 PM

9. And before that, Patton wanted to attack Russia and make it look like they started it. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Cooley Hurd (Reply #2)

Tue Jul 5, 2016, 04:42 PM

31. Excellent context.

Another one worth mentioning is Operation Gladio, the NATO/CIA campaign to deliberately promote a wave of terrorism across Western Europe (but primarily in Italy) in order to discredit the European left through guilt by association.

Gladio peaked in 1978 - Italy's 'Year of the Gun' - and culminated with the Bologna Train Station bombing in 1980, at which point it was largely curtailed. By then, up to 1,000 civilians had been killed, including numerous children in school buses.

Gladio's existence was first revealed by testimony in 1984 from a fascist terrorist in its employ. Prime Minister Giulio Andreotti, another participant (in a political capacity), confirmed it in 1990. None of the 622 people listed as Gladio participants by declassified Italian files has ever been brought to trial.

This "opportunity" sounds like something along those same lines - especially after what just happened in Istanbul (our "stalwart ally".

Thank you for going the extra mile in your research. It's all there, if we just look for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to newthinking (Original post)

Fri Jul 1, 2016, 01:05 PM

3. For those that wondered why Hillary had her own email server, this is a reminder.

 

There are career employees at all levels of the US government, in all departments, that are career employees. Many were hired during the Bush/Cheney years. Many of those people will do anything asked by the people that hired them in the first place, including being a mole. In the instance of this guy, he was working for the military contractors to insure that they had more conflict. The cold war was a money maker for sure and gave rise to the military industrial complex that Eisenhower warned against. I wonder how Breedlove is faring monetarily these days.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tonyt53 (Reply #3)

Fri Jul 1, 2016, 02:14 PM

8. This was hacked because he had his own email (gmail).

Or are you meaning as for someone reading her emails without permission and using them?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to newthinking (Reply #8)

Fri Jul 1, 2016, 03:38 PM

16. It just reminds me

of shrub and his policy of allowing the generals in the field to determine what we do.

It's like he passed everything over to them and he took no responsibility for what they did.

Giving the generals on the ground all that power was a bad thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tonyt53 (Reply #3)

Sun Jul 3, 2016, 12:03 AM

26. This. She was just protecting herself against their kind (ntxt)

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to tonyt53 (Reply #3)

Tue Jul 5, 2016, 10:46 AM

29. I'm no Hillary fan, but I don't give a rat's ass about this email issue apart from

how the leaked ones reveal the inner workings and motives of "our" government.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to newthinking (Original post)

Fri Jul 1, 2016, 01:06 PM

4. Nice to know that Generals make foreign and military policy nowadays

thanks for the emails, whoever grabbed them. The American people
are better informed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to newthinking (Original post)

Fri Jul 1, 2016, 01:09 PM

5. Thanks for posting.

 

I'm sure going to miss President Obama in regards to FP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to newthinking (Original post)

Fri Jul 1, 2016, 03:12 PM

10. Here's a picture of the general in action

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to geardaddy (Reply #10)

Fri Jul 1, 2016, 07:08 PM

18. That same picture popped into my mind while I read the OP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to newthinking (Original post)

Fri Jul 1, 2016, 03:14 PM

11. Same old shit from the Pentagon, in other words. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to newthinking (Original post)

Fri Jul 1, 2016, 03:15 PM

12. Breedlove

 

Now that is one CREEPY name for a general!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to newthinking (Original post)

Fri Jul 1, 2016, 03:19 PM

13. So. The general in charge of US Forces in Europe

Disagrees with his boss, asks an influential colleague how to convince the boss to see things his way.

This is a hyped nothing.burger

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Polack MSgt (Reply #13)

Fri Jul 1, 2016, 03:24 PM

15. pretty much

waste of time reading that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Polack MSgt (Reply #13)

Fri Jul 1, 2016, 03:43 PM

17. we're talking about WAR here

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to transatlantica (Reply #17)

Fri Jul 1, 2016, 10:12 PM

21. Fuck warmongering

Last edited Sat Jul 2, 2016, 12:44 AM - Edit history (1)

We should all be offended when a general sees war as a "tool" and an "opportunity". That poster just doesn't get it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Polack MSgt (Reply #13)

Sat Jul 2, 2016, 06:33 AM

23. "hyped nothing-burger" from The Intercept once again

 

and you don't even get fries with that

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to The Polack MSgt (Reply #13)

Sat Jul 2, 2016, 08:19 AM

24. Not just the US general in charge of US forces.

But also the top dog over NATO forces. His #2 is British for that.

His chain of command is mixed. Unless we really want to say that Obama is forever CiC of all NATO forces. First among equals, perhaps, but not the Great Leader.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to newthinking (Original post)

Fri Jul 1, 2016, 03:23 PM

14. Fire Breedlove, yesterday, if not sooner. Gross Insubordination. It's why we have civilian command.

Breedlove, during briefings to Congress, notably contradicted the Obama administration regarding the situation in Ukraine, leading to news stories about conflict between the general and Obama.


Either this or the email alone is borderline, but the two together: insubordination.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Reply to this thread