Hersh used to publish articles in the New York Times. They didn't mention Hersh's article till way down the 26th paragraph, if I recall correctly. It took the New York Times one month to figure out how to react. McGovern: The Hersh article was too embarrassing. GT: The US, which initially had vehemently called for an investigation into the sabotage, became silent since Hersh released his investigative report. All the rest of the stuff is, again, what the British call 'rubbish.' So you have ability, you have incentive, you have people pretty admitting what they did, then people rejoicing over it. Undersecretary of State Victoria Nuland bragged: 'I am, and I think the administration is, very gratified to know that Nord Stream 2 is now, as you like to say, a hunk of metal at the bottom of the sea.' Secretary of State Antony Blinken called it a 'tremendous opportunity to once and for all remove the dependence on Russian energy.' Not only President Biden, but after the pipelines were blown up, all kinds of people couldn't hold it in, and they were so proud of being able to put an end to the pipelines.

US officials said it had to be stopped, and guess what? President Biden, according to Seymour Hersh, approved the stopping of it. The motive was clear: The US has been expressing astonishment that the Germans and the Russians would get this close together, and that had to be stopped. You're researching a crime and trying to find out who did it, who had the motive. He says, in a very detailed rendition of what happened, that the US was behind the attack and was helped by Norway.īesides that, we have the typical indexes that you look for. On the other side of things, you have not only the most authoritative, the most trusted, the most respected journalist in America, Seymour Hersh, who has been very good at telling true stories, however, embarrassing as it may be to our government, and who protects his sources quite well. Now, I won't go into the details, but it's physically impossible for the incident to have occurred the way CIA and other intelligence officials are telling the New York Times. It took the intelligence community whispering into the New York Times' ear a whole month to come up with what is a comical effort to blame someone else. McGovern: It's an attempt to deflect attention from what every sensible human being that concludes it was a US authorship of this sabotage. Why do you think the US intelligence suddenly blamed a 'pro-Ukrainian group' for the incident? Is there enough credibility in the NYT article? GT: The NYT on March 7 reported that according to new intelligence reviewed by the US, 'a pro-Ukrainian group' carried out the attack on the Nord Stream pipelines last year. Is the NYT revelation credible? Who is the culprit for the Nord Stream pipeline attack? Former CIA analyst Raymond McGovern ( McGovern) told Global Times ( GT) reporter Xia Wenxin that it's 'physically impossible for the incident to have occurred the way CIA and other intelligence officials are telling the New York Times.' He believes this is an attempt to 'deflect attention from what every sensible human being that concludes it was a US authorship of this sabotage.' The CIA, which declined to comment to the Times, also declined to comment to the Associated Press.After US investigative journalist Seymour Hersh revealed that the US is the mastermind behind the Nord Stream pipeline explosion, the New York Times (NYT) published an article that pushing a different narrative, which claimed that a pro-Ukrainian group carried out the attack. The debate over who or what was to blame for the breach remains unresolved, the paper said.

Former officials said that a restaurant used for meetings with sources had been fitted with listening devices and staffed with waiters who were Chinese agents. Within the FBI, some agents reportedly suspected sloppy work by CIA handlers in Beijing might have been to blame for the losses. Some investigators were convinced there was a mole within the CIA, while others believed the Chinese had hacked the covert system the CIA used to communicate with its foreign sources. The report said US intelligence and law enforcement agencies scrambled to stem the damage – setting up an investigation into the crisis code-named Honey Badger – but were divided over the cause of the breach. In an apparent attempt by China to intimidate serving or would-be spies, one source was reportedly shot in front of his colleagues in the courtyard of a government building. The New York Times cited 10 current and former US officials, who described the intelligence breach as one of the worst in decades.

Nytimes chinese intel cia