Oekraïne crisis: Bill Clinton één van de aanstichters van de crisis

Bill Clinton was in feite een slappe president die geen verweer had tegen het Pentagon, noch de CIA. Daardoor was het mogelijk dat de NAVO zich kon uitbreiden naar het oosten, ofwel naar de grens met Rusland, dit tegen meerdere afspraken die men in 1990 en 1991 maakte met de voormalige Sovjet-Unie…. Hierbij moet nog worden opgemerkt dat ook de rechtse vleugel van de Democratische partij Clinton onder controle had en ook die vleugel wilde verdere uitbreiding van de NAVO….

Bij die afspraak stelde de Sovjet-Unie de eerdere westelijke staten niet te zullen aanvallen of weer in te lijven, dat zet nog eens extra vraagtekens bij de dooddoener van NAVO topgraaier Stoltenberg dat landen het recht hebben om zich aan te sluiten bij de NAVO, terwijl de VS de weg daartoe tegen de afspraken in had vrijgemaakt al onder oorlogsmisdadiger Clinton…… 

In het volgende artikel geschreven door Melvin Goodman en gepubliceerd op CounterPunch, legt de schrijver nog eens uit welke afspraken werden gemaakt met de Sovjet-Unie in 1990, waar in 1991 met voormalig president van de Sovjet-Unie Gorbatsjov nog eens uitdrukkelijk werd afgesproken dat de NAVO zich niet naar het oosten zou uitbreiden….. (vreemd genoeg noemt Goodman de afspraak met Gorbatsjov niet)

Ongelofelijk hoe men in het westen Rusland demoniseert als een agressieve oorlogszuchtige natie, terwijl die twijfelachtige eer volledig toekomt aan de VS (en haar NAVO partners), dat deze eeuw officieel 4 illegale oorlogen is begonnen ‘gelegitimeerd’ op basis van leugens en daarnaast oorlog heeft gevoerd en nog voert in Afrika, verder voert de CIA o.a. af en aan geheime operaties uit in Latijns Amerika, waarbij ook grote aantallen mensen werden en worden vermoord…… (met een paar fikse mislukkingen in Venezuela) Bij die grootschalige VS terreur kwamen tot nu toe ruim meer dan 5 miljoen mensen om het leven, ofwel die werden door VS en NAVO troepen vermoord!!! (die meer dan 5 miljoen moorden zijn inclusief de vele duizenden doden die de VS vermoordde met drones, waarmee men verdachten wilde uitschakelen [wat internationaal wordt gezien als een zware misdaad], daarbij was meer dan 90% van de slachtoffers niet eens verdacht!!)……Niet vreemd dan ook dat deze VS terreur enorme stromen vluchtelingen opgang hebben gebracht en daarnaast terreur hebben gekweekt op de straten van de EU…..

De westerse reguliere media en politiek hebben ronduit propaganda gemaakt voor de VS oorlogen, terwijl men nu Russische media beschuldigt van het brengen van propaganda…… ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! Men maakt zich druk om Russische militairen aan de grens met Oekraïne, terwijl de VS een raketschild voor de deur van Rusland heeft geïnstalleerd (in Polen en Roemenië) en datzelfde land met haar NAVO-partners bijna het jaarrond militaire oefeningen houden langs de westgrens en de territoriale wateren met resp. van Rusland…… Oefeningen o.a. gericht op het binnenvallen van Russisch grondgebied…… Voorts bevinden zich troepen van meerdere NAVO-lidstaten in Oekraïne en heeft de VS dat land afgeladen met wapens…..

Onder het artikel van CounterPunch nog een bericht van de WDR 5 site, waar op deze zender vanmiddag weer fiks werd getapt uit het anti-Russische propaganda vat…….

(On
the top right hand side of this page you can choose for a translation
in the language of your choice, first choose ‘Engels’ [English] so
you can recognise your own language [the Google translation is first
in Dutch, a language most people don’t understand, while on the other
hand most people recognise there language translated in English]
, You can do the same with the German text)

(als
je het Engels en/of Duits niet machtig bent, kopieer dan de Engelse of Duitse tekst en plak
die in
deze
vertaalapp
,
de app werkt snel en de vertaling is van een redelijk goede
kwaliteit
)

 

 

 

Bill Clinton’s Role in the Crisis Over Ukraine

Photograph Source: Matt Johnson – CC BY 2.0

The militarization of American foreign policy has evolved over the
past thirty years. Ironically, this took place in the wake of the
dissolution of the Soviet Union, which should have led to reassessing
U.S. national security policy and defense spending.  Democratic
presidents have played a major role in this militarization because they
are unwilling to challenge the Pentagon and the defense industry.

Bill Clinton was initially responsible for the militarization.  He
abolished the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, and began the
expansion of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.  Barack Obama
believed that war in Afghanistan was a “good war,” and reappointed
Robert Gates as secretary of defense to appease the uniformed military. 
President Joe Biden even appointed a retired four-star general to the
position of secretary of defense, and has given diplomacy a back seat in
the twin struggles with Russia and China.  The postwar presidents
understood the need to divide Moscow and Beijing, but Biden has taken
actions that have inspired Russia and China to grow closer.

But it all started with Clinton, whose relations with the Pentagon
were tenuous from the outset.  Clinton came into office with a
reputation for manipulating the draft laws in 1969 to avoid service in
Vietnam.  Clinton, moreover, alienated the military shortly after his
inauguration when he suggested that he would allow homosexuals to serve
openly in the military.  Of course, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and
William Cohen avoided Vietnam, but Republicans typically get a pass from
the Pentagon and the press when avoiding service. Former senator John
Kerry was a Vietnam War hero, but his ultimate criticism of the war was
highlighted by the mainstream media and his Republican opposition.

Clinton bowed to military pressure time and time again on numerous
national security issues. His capitulations weakened or abandoned
agreements dealing with the International Criminal Court; a ban on
landmines; the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty; and the Chemical Warfare
Convention. Clinton bowed to the Democratic Party’s right wing in
naming James Woolsey as director of the Central Intelligence Agency. When Woolsey, a Cold Warrior, wore out his welcome on the Hill, he was
forced to resign. Clinton then named an Air Force general to succeed
Woolsey; the general was forced to withdraw his nomination, but this
earned no mention in Clinton’s autobiography.  Similarly, Clinton’s book
makes no mention of his efforts to name Admiral Bobby Inman, another
Cold Warrior, as secretary of defense.  Clinton’s CIA directors, John
Deutch and George Tenet, contributed to the decline of the CIA.

The Pentagon had so little respect for Clinton that, in 1994, it did
not respond to the efforts of the White House to create military options
for stopping the genocide in Rwanda or for countering al Qaeda in
Afghanistan.  Conversely, Clinton ordered the bombing of a
pharmaceutical plant in Khartoum, Sudan in 1998 in the wake of the
bombings of the U.S. embassies on the Horn of Africa.  The White House
argued the plant was producing lethal chemicals; no, it was producing
aspirin for all of Africa and this was known to the intelligence
community. Clinton’s White House and the Pentagon ignored the warnings
of the Department of State and the CIA to avoid using Yemen as a
refueling stop for U.S. warships because of the threat of terrorism.  As
a result, the U.S.S. Cole was targeted in 2000 with a loss of 17 U.S. sailors.

We are still dealing with the results of Clinton’s ill-informed
decision making, particularly with regard to the current crisis with
Russia over Ukraine.  Clinton’s decision to expand NATO virtually
ensured that there would be little progress in developing a strategic
approach toward Russia.  The liberated states of East Europe, in the
wake of the dissolution of the Soviet Union, wanted to be anchored to
the West, but the proper vehicle for such an arrangement was the
European Union, not NATO.  Indeed, the greatest strategic failure of the
Clinton administration was its marginalization of Russia rather than
anchoring Russia to the West, as suggested by the late George Kennan in
his strategy of containment.

The expansion of NATO marked a betrayal of President George H.W. Bush
and Secretary of State James A. Baker III’s commitment in 1990 to not
“leapfrog” East Germany if the Soviets removed their 380,000 troops from
the East.  The continuing flirtation of membership for both Ukraine and
Georgia, which started in 2008, has caused Russia anxieties over the
changing European balance.  Expanding NATO was a gratuitous provocation,
which belies U.S. accusations from high-level officials that the crisis
over Ukraine is a “manufactured” one by Russian President Vladimir
Putin.  In January 1990, the West German foreign minister confirmed that
there would not be an “expansion of NATO territory to the east” in the
wake of the Soviet military withdrawal.  In my interviews with Baker and
Foreign Minister Eduard Shevardnadze in 1994, Baker acknowledged (and
Shevardnadze confirmed) that he told the former foreign minister the
United States would not “leapfrog” over a reunified Germany to move
closer to the borders of the Soviet Union.  There are reports that Baker
was willing to put this commitment in writing, but that national
security adviser Brent Scowcroft convinced the president not to do so.

The sad fact is that the international calculus had nothing to do
with Clinton’s decision to expand NATO.  He was concerned that his
Republican opponent in1996, the late Robert Dole, was going to use the
failure to expand NATO in the campaign for the presidency.  Clinton, a
masterful domestic politician, moved to take the NATO issue off the
table by endorsing expansion.  This played well domestically among East
European communities in key states such as Michigan and Wisconsin. 
George W. Bush worsened the strategic situation by recruiting former
Soviet republics, the three Baltic states, for NATO and deploying a
regional missile defense in Poland and Romania.

Overall, the Clinton presidency weakened the national security
process by compromising the balance between the key instruments of
foreign policy, ending the once central role of the Department of
State.  The end to the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency and the
United State Information Service as well as the weakening of the Agency
for International Development deemphasized the civilian agencies in the
formation and conceptualization of U.S. foreign policy.  The Pentagon
was the major winner in this rebalancing; similarly, the Pentagon’s
control over the intelligence community was bolstered.  To paraphrase
Mark Twain, when the only tool in the toolbox is a hammer, then all of
our problems will look like nails.

Melvin A. Goodman is a senior fellow at the Center for
International Policy and a professor of government at Johns Hopkins
University.  A former CIA analyst, Goodman is the author of Failure of Intelligence: The Decline and Fall of the CIA and National Insecurity: The Cost of American Militarism. and A Whistleblower at the CIA. His
most recent books are “American Carnage: The Wars of Donald Trump”
(Opus Publishing, 2019) and “Containing the National Security
State” (Opus Publishing, 2021). 
Goodman is the national security columnist for counterpunch.org.

==============================

Hier nog de tekst bij het Tagesgespräch op WDR 5, waar een zogenaamde vrije journalist de luisteraar trakteert op een onversneden portie Rusland haat…..:

Kalt, aber noch kein Krieg – Wer muss sich bewegen?

Krise zwischen der Ukraine und Russland: Annalena Baerbock und Sergei Lavrov Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and German Foreign Minister
Annalena Baerbock | Pooled photo by Maxim Shemetov/ AFP via Getty Images 

Die
Lage zwischen Russland und der Ukraine bleibt angespannt.
Außenministerin Baerbock will vermitteln. Haben Sie Sorge vor einer
Eskalation? Und was kann jetzt helfen? Diskutieren Sie mit im WDR 5
Tagesgespräch!

Es ist eine schwierige Bewährungsprobe für
Annalena Baerbock: Nach Gesprächen mit der Ukraine ging es gestern
(18.01.22) zum Antrittsbesuch nach Moskau. Auf der gemeinsamen
Pressekonferenz sprach Baerbock von “fundamentalen
Meinungsverschiedenheiten”, der russische Außenminister Lawrow erinnerte
an die Sicherheitsinteressen Russlands. Die Ukraine blickt nach Westen
und zur NATO. Dem will Moskau einen Riegel vorschieben und erwartet
Garantien des Westens, dass die NATO die Ukraine nicht aufnimmt. Die
Ukraine sei frei in ihrer Wahl, so die Antwort. Viel gegenseitiges
Verständnis für die unterschiedlichen Perspektiven ist derzeit nicht
erkennbar.

Der Handlungsdruck ist hoch: Russland hat seit
Ende Dezember Militär an der ukrainischen Grenze stationiert,
mittlerweile sollen rund 100.000 Soldaten einsatzbereit sein. Während
die USA und Großbritannien die Ukraine mit Defensivwaffen beliefern,
schlägt die Ampel-Regierung deren Forderung nach Aufrüstung bislang aus –
Baerbock will stattdessen auf Diplomatie setzen. Die Sorge vor einer
Eskalation des Konflikts wächst: Laut der OSZE (Organisation für
Sicherheit und Zusammenarbeit in Europa) sei die Kriegsgefahr so groß
wie seit 30 Jahren nicht mehr.

Haben Sie die Befürchtung, dass es zu einem Krieg
zwischen Russland und der Ukraine kommt? Ist es klüger nachzugeben und
Russland ein Zugeständnis zu machen? Welche Erwartungen haben Sie an
Außenministerin Baerbock und Deutschland? Kann diplomatisches Geschick
zur Deeskalation beitragen? Oder könnte militärische Abschreckung den
Konflikt entschärfen – wenn alle viel zu verlieren haben, halten sich
vielleicht alle zurück?

Rufen Sie uns während der Sendung an (WDR 5 Hotline 0800 5678 555).

Gast: Gemma Pörzgen, freie Journalistin mit Schwerpunkt Osteuropa (vrije journalist? Een regelrechte lobbyist voor het buitenland beleid van de VS, de NAVO en de westerse wapenindustrie in het groot!!)

Redaktion: Willi Schlichting und Jessica Eisermann

=======================================

Zie ook: ‘Hack van Oekraïense overheid door landgenoten, of nee toch Rusland en geheime diensten VS waarschuwen voor Russische false flag operatie

NAVO uitbreiding in Oost-Europa is bewezen tegen gesloten overeenkomst met Rusland…….

Stoltenberg (NAVO) speelt de vermoorde onschuld en doet of hij serieus wil overleggen met Rusland

NAVO is ‘vredesorganisatie’ als je ‘secretaris-generaal’ Jens Stoltenberg moet geloven: ‘geen kernraketten in Europa’

Aanslag
op Navalny wekt (zonder bewijs) woede in westen, terwijl door Trump
toegegeven moorden stilte opleveren in datzelfde westen

(zie de links in dat bericht naar meer berichten over het Navalny
sprookje >> een blootstelling aan novitsjok is ten allen tijde
zonder meer dodelijk!!!)

Tony Blinken heeft de Oekraïense president Zelensky de wacht aangezegd: zijn land is officieel een VS kolonie

Putin gaf het westen een memorabele les geopolitiek

De VS zet zichzelf wat betreft Rusland, China en Iran geopolitiek schaakmat‘ 

VS
eist dat Rusland haar troepen terugtrekt van de Oekraïense grens en
volgens inlichtingenbron: politiek het grootste gevaar voor burgers
VS……..
‘ En dan de volgende (!!!):

VS generaal steunt een preventieve aanval met kernwapens

Strijd opgelaaid in Oost-Oekraïne tussen het leger en ‘door Rusland gesteunde rebellen’, aldus BBC World Service

Kernwapens in Europa: Rode Kruis >> Nederland moet het VN kernwapenverbod tekenen

Franse luchtmacht oefent voor WOIII op nucleaire lange-afstands bombardementen……….

Stoltenberg (NAVO zetbaas) liegt spijkerhard aangaande overleg INF-verdrag met Rusland

Star Wars 2.0: Trump wil een ‘raketafweersysteem’ in de ruimte

Jens
Stoltenberg (NAVO zetbaas): de NAVO bombardeerde Servië om het volk te
kunnen redden, of Servië nu maar even NAVO lid wil worden……..
‘ 

Uitgelekte telefoongesprekken tussen Trump en Putin bewijzen dat ‘Russiagaters gelijk hebben……’

Oekraïne kondigt staat van beleg af vanwege ‘Russische agressie’ in de Zee van Azov

Stoltenberg (topgraaier NAVO) wil nog meer kernraketten in Europa…….

VS dreigt INF verdrag op de zeggen >> Trump verwijt de Russische ketel dat die nucleair zwart ziet

Oekraïne
het toneel van grootschalige luchtmachtoefeningen met VS en NAVO, naast
een enorme militaire VS/NAVO oefening in Noorwegen


VS en Japan stoken samen de ‘oorlogsboel’ op over de Oost-Chinese Zee

Pentagon Report Points To US Preparations For Total War

VS heeft Rusland al 3 keer met oorlog gedreigd, de laatste 2 keer in de afgelopen 1,5 week……

Zelenski (president Oekraïne) ingepakt door neonazi’s en beloften aan EU gedaan door Porosjenko

Oekraïne: opnieuw neonazi protesten op Maidanplein, vanwege Rusland vriendelijk handelen door president Zelensky

De Krim het echte verhaal: geen annexatie maar de vrijwillige aansluiting bij Rusland, zelfs Oekraïners stemden voor

Snowden vindt het ongelofelijk dat de media VS politici niet aanspreken op totaal verschillende reacties n.a.v. ‘klokkenluiden’

Joe Biden heeft al lang toegegeven dat hij Oekraïne onder druk zette een openbaar aanklager te ontslaan die zijn zoon vervolgde

Koning Willem Alexander vraagt Rusland om medewerking bij onderzoek naar rampvlucht MH17‘ (en zie de links in dat bericht naar meer informatie over rampvlucht MH17)

MH17:
JIT haalt zelfs de afscheiding van Oost-Oekraïne aan in de zoveelste
mislukte poging de schuld in de schoenen van Rusland te schuiven

Oekraïne kondigt staat van beleg af vanwege ‘Russische agressie’ in de Zee van Azov

————————————–

Wat hacken en propaganda betreft zie ook:VS
ministerie van defensie, lees: ministerie van (oorlog en) terreur:
wordt verdedigd door het westen, terwijl men Rusland en China
demoniseert

Verkiezingen Nicaragua: één grote demonisering in de westerse media, vergelijk dat eens met verkiezingen in de VS

VS propagandamachine onder de loep genomen door schrijver Nick Schou

Westerse oorlogshitserij tegen China over Taiwan: in de VS is 52% van de bevolking voor oorlog….

Elaine Luria (VS Huis van Afgevaardigden) wil Biden ‘carte blanche’ geven voor oorlog tegen China‘ (ook het militaire pact AUKUS komt aan bod in dit bericht)

Brits marineschip provoceert China in de Straat van Taiwan: op weg naar Wereldoorlog III‘ (o.a. over AUKUS)

via Zuma Press

China: Ausländische Schiffe müssen sich in chinesischen Gewässern registrieren‘ 

Australië laat zich chanteren door de VS: niet langer ‘het beest China’ voeren‘ (o.a. over Aukus)

Veronderstel
dat er een terreurgroep zou zijn die in bezit was van: drones,
kruisraketten, kernkoppen, straaljagers, vliegdekschepen en bases over
de hele wereld

Militaire bases VS goed voor grote ‘defensie uitgaven’ en een garantie voor komende oorlogsvoering (o.a. over Aukus)

MIVD en media schoten 4 Russische bokken met de claim van spionage op de OPCW….

Nederland, Groot-Brittannië en VS schieten ‘4 geheime Russische spionage bokken’

Duitsland doet mee in het koor van de wolven: Russische cyberterreur!

———————————-

Voor meer terreur van de VS zie:CIA sinds oprichting: murder incorporated: een verdediging gegeven door ‘journalist’ Annie Jacobson

VS vermoordde meer dan 20 miljoen mensen sinds het einde van WOII……..‘ Tot het jaar 2000, deze eeuw zijn daar al meer dan 5 miljoen dodelijke slachtoffers aan toegevoegd….. Zie wat dat betreft ook:

De illegale oorlogen van de VS deze eeuw hebben niet 2,5 miljoen levens gekost, maar minstens 5 miljoen‘ en zie wat dat betreft ook: 

VS maakte 10 keer meer slachtoffers, dan de reguliere media rapporteerden……..‘ In de ‘oorlog tegen terreur’ die men beter had kunnen noemen: illegale oorlogen van de VS met grootschalige terreur…..

CIA 70 jaar: 70 jaar moorden, martelen, coups plegen, nazi’s beschermen, media manipulatie enz. enz………

CIA en 70 jaar desinformatie in Europese opiniebladen…………

VS buitenlandbeleid sinds WOII: een lange lijst van staatsgrepen en oorlogen……….

‘VS ‘ministerie van propaganda’ had supervisie over meer dan 800 films en minstens duizend tv series……..

Iran: moderne oorlogspropaganda ingezet door VS tegen ‘ongehoorzaam land…

VS
en GB brengen propaganda die moet verdoezelen wat er echt gebeurt in
Syrië…….. Door VS gebombardeerde ‘gifgasfabriek’ niet bestaand….

Irak oorlog: 16 jaar na 20 maart 2003 ontkent de perschef van Bush dat er is gelogen om Irak binnen te vallen…..

Het gore
lef wat sommigen hebben is niet zelden ten hemel schreiend, zoals de
perschef van president Bush (deze oorlogsmisdadiger en top-idioot mag zich president blijven noemen). Ari Fleischer (de perschef) nam het besluit e.e.a. via Twitter de wereld in
te helpen, waarschijnlijk als reactie op de dreigementen van de VS
tegen het Internationaal Strafhof dat men actie zal nemen tegen de
functionarissen, die zich bezig houden met onderzoek naar VS
oorlogsmisdaden…….

Ongelofelijk wat ploert Fleischer durft te zeggen, terwijl de hele wereld weet (of kan weten) dat de
VS heeft gelogen, leugens die meer dan 2 miljoen Irakezen het leven
heeft gekost, ofwel die mensen zijn in feite vermoord door de
VS……

Fleischer
doet net of de geheime diensten van de VS, Israël en nog een paar
landen zeker wisten dat er massavernietigingswapens lagen in Irak,
weliswaar klopte dit niet, maar dat is iets anders dan liegen, aldus de hufter….. ha!
ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! ha!

Alsof
die geheime diensten ook maar de neiging hebben om de waarheid te vertellen,
jezus!!

De
wapeninspecteurs van de VN, o.l.v. Blix, hebben uit en te na gewezen op
het feit dat Irak (onder Saddam Hoessein) geen
massavernietigingswapens had en deze zelfs niet voor hen verborgen kon
hebben…..

Overigens liet de Hoop Scheffer, oorlogsmisdadiger van het CDA, vorig jaar weten nog steeds achter de illegale oorlog tegen Irak te staan, ondanks het enorme aantal slachtoffers, een land dat voor een groot deel in puin ligt en waar de oorlog nog lang niet is afgelopen…… Irak, een land waarnaar Nederland vluchtelingen deporteert, rechtstreeks de oorlog in, dit op basis van ambtsberichten van Buitenlandse Zaken, terwijl hetzelfde ministerie nog steeds een negatief reisadvies voor Irak afgeeft….

Caitlin
Johnstone schreef op haar site een uiterst scherp artikel over
deze zaak en laat van Fleischer en anderen geen spaan heel, lezen
mensen, het gaat hier om geschiedvervalsing van de eerste orde, ook
de reguliere (massa-) media doen net of hun neus bloedt als het om de
illegale Irak oorlog gaat, terwijl zij deze oorlog op valse feiten
van A tot Z hebben gepropageerd, waar de kennis over het tegendeel voor het oprapen lag…….. (over het brengen van fake news gesproken….)

On
the Anniversary Of The Iraq Invasion, Bush Press Secretary Claims
Bush Didn’t Lie

by Caitlin
Johnstone

On
the sixteenth anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, as the US
government 
threatens
punitive action
 against International
Criminal Court investigators for attempting to look into US war
crimes, former George W Bush administration Press Secretary Ari
Fleischer has decided to 
publish
a Twitter thread
 claiming
that Bush did not lie to the world about Iraq.

Here
is a transcript of the full thread by Fleischer:

The
Iraq war began sixteen years ago tomorrow. There is a myth about the
war that I have been meaning to set straight for years. After no WMDs
were found, the left claimed “Bush lied. People died.” This
accusation itself is a lie. It’s time to put it to rest.
 

The
fact is that President Bush (and I as press secretary) faithfully and
accurately reported to the public what the intelligence community
concluded. The CIA, along with the intelligence services of
Egypt, France, Israel and others concluded that Saddam had WMD. We
all turned out to be wrong. That is very different from lying.
 

After
the war, a bipartisan group was created to determine what went wrong,
particularly why the intelligence community’s conclusions about Iraq
were so different from what was found on the ground after the
war. The group of experts was named the Robb-Silberman
commission. It’s report was issued in March 2005. 
It
can be found in full here
.
Its key finding was that that a “major intelligence failure”
took place. It also stated that no intelligence service was pressured
by the Bush Administration to conclude that Saddam had WMDs.
 

Here
are the key quotes from their report:
 

“Overall
Commission Finding: The Intelligence Community’s performance in
assessing Iraq’s pre-war weapons of mass destruction programs was a
major intelligence failure.
 

Nuclear
Weapons Summary Finding: The Intelligence Community seriously
misjudged the status of Iraq’s alleged nuclear weapons program in the
2002 NIE* and other pre-Iraq war intelligence products. This
misjudgment stemmed chiefly from the Community’s failure to analyze
correctly Iraq’s reasons for attempting to procure high-strength
aluminum tubes.
 

Biological
Warfare Summary Finding: The Intelligence Community seriously
misjudged the status of Iraq’s biological weapons program in the 2002
NIE and other pre-war intelligence products. The primary reason
for this misjudgment was the Intelligence Community’s heavy reliance
on a human source–codenamed ‘Curveball’–whose information later
proved to be unreliable.
 

Chemical
Warfare Summary Finding: The Intelligence Community erred in its 2002
NIE assessment of Iraq’s alleged chemical warfare program. The
Community’s substantial overestimation of Iraq’s chemical warfare
program was due chiefly to flaws in analysis and the paucity of
quality information collected. In the case of Iraq, collectors of
intelligence absorbed the prevailing analytic consensus and tended to
reject or ignore contrary information. The result was ‘tunnel vision’
focusing on the Intelligence Community’s existing assumptions. The
Intelligence Community did not make or change any analytic judgments
in response to political pressure to reach a particular conclusion,
but the pervasive conventional wisdom that Saddam retained WMD
affected the analytic process. The CIA took too long to admit
error in Iraq, and its Weapons Intelligence, Nonproliferation, and
Arms Control Center actively discouraged analysts from investigating
errors.
 

Finally,
we closely examined the possibility that intelligence analysts were
pressured by policymakers to change their judgments about Iraq’s
nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons programs. The analysts
who worked Iraqi weapons issues universally agreed that in no
instance did political pressure cause them to skew or alter any of
their analytical judgments.”
 

That
is what the investigators reported, after been given full access to
people throughout the intelligence community. Which leads me to
conclude that there was a liar and his name was Saddam Hussein. He
created an elaborate system of lies to fool western intelligence
services and he succeeded. He wanted us to believe he had WMDs.
 

The
allegaton that “Bush lied. People died” is a liberal myth
created to politically target President Bush. I understand the anger
that was felt after no WMDs were found. But that doesn’t justify
calling the President a liar. I can only hope that serious historians
and other experts do their homework and resist falling for this myth.

Ari Fleischer
@AriFleischer

The Iraq war began sixteen years ago tomorrow. There is a myth about the war that I have been meaning to set straight for years. After no WMDs were found, the left claimed “Bush lied. People died.” This accusation itself is a lie. It’s time to put it to rest.

11.2K

2:44 AM – Mar 20, 2019

Twitter Ads info and privacy


Ari
Fleischer is lying. It is an absolute proven fact that George W Bush
and his administration 
lied
extensively
 about
the degree of certainty in intelligence regarding Saddam Hussein
possessing weapons of mass destruction, having ties to Al Qaeda, and
seeking nuclear weapons, all of which (along with Vice President
Cheney’s claim that the US invaders would be “
greeted
as liberators
“)
proved false. The Bush administration did not know the things they
claimed to know with any degree of certainty, but they claimed that
they were certain in order to manufacture support for war. Claiming
to know something you do not know is lying, especially when it’s to
advance an ulterior motive.

“Evidence
from intelligence sources, secret communications and statements by
people now in custody reveal that Saddam Hussein aids and protects
terrorists, including members of Al Qaeda,” Bush 
claimed
in January 2003
.
“Secretly, and without fingerprints, he could provide one of his
hidden
 
weapons
to terrorists, or help them develop their own.”

“Simply
stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass
destruction,” Cheney 
claimed
in August 2002
.
“There is no doubt he is amassing them to use against our
friends, against our allies, and against us.”

“The
United States knows that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction,”
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld 
said
in December 2002
.
“Any country on the face of the earth with an active
intelligence program knows that Iraq has weapons of mass
destruction.”

“We
are absolutely sure they have continued to develop weapons of mass
destruction, and we are sure they have in their possession weapons of
mass destruction,” Secretary of State Colin Powell 
said
in December 2002
.

“My
colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources,
solid sources,” Powell told the United Nations Security Council
in his infamous 
Iraq
presentation
 in
February 2003. “These are not assertions. What we’re giving
you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence.”

“People
will continue to debate this issue, but there is no doubt in my
mind,” Powell said in the same presentation. “These illicit
procurement efforts show that Saddam Hussein is very much focused on
putting in place the key missing piece from his nuclear weapons
program, the ability to produce fissile material.”

Powell was
not nearly as certain
 as
he claimed to be. None of them were. Facts revealed after the
invasion prove that for all their public claims of complete and total
certainty that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, was aiding and
abetting Al Qaida, and was developing nuclear weapons, behind the
veil of government secrecy there was nothing like certainty at all.

For
starters, Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi, who was cited in Powell’s
presentation and who Fleischer refers to by the code name “Curveball”
in the above thread, 
was
known to have been lying
 about
bioweapons long before the invasion. Despite the confident assertions
made by the Bush administration about Janabi’s claims to the public,
no American personnel were present when he made those claims, and
he 
told
the 
Guardianin
2011
 that
the BND (the German intelligence agency who interrogated him) had
known he was lying all along.

“The
BND [German intelligence] knew in 2000 that I was lying after they
talked to my former boss, Dr Bassil Latif, who told them there were
no mobile bioweapons factories,” Janabi said. “For 18
months after that they left me alone because they knew I was telling
lies even though I never admitted it.

Believe
me, back then, I thought the whole thing was over for me. Then all of
a sudden [in the run up to the 2003 invasion] they came back to me
and started asking for more details about what I had told them. I
still don’t know why the BND then passed on my information to the CIA
and it ended up in Powell’s speech.”

Colonel
Lawrence Wilkerson was Powell’s chief of staff and helped him prepare
his UN presentation on Iraq. When asked on MSNBC if he believed he
was lied to about Janabi following the 2011 revelation,
Wilkerson 
told
Cenk Uygur
 that
“I cannot come to any other conclusion, especially when I have
discovered that no US personnel were present when Curveball was
interrogated by the BND, the German intelligence service. That we
accepted that, that we even had a head of the European division for
the CIA, Tyler Drumheller, who at the last minute during Powell’s
preparation, during my preparation of the secretary, had told both
Tenet and McLaughlin that Curveball might not be reliable. That
information was never relayed to the Secretary of State, or to me. I
have some serious doubts about it now. I think there was some
manipulation of this material, and there was some outright lying.”

When asked
by Uygur
 who
he thought lied to him, Wilkerson said one of WINPAC’s two WMD
experts at the time may have been answering directly to Dick Cheney’s
office.

declassified
report from 2002
 titled Iraq:
Status of WMD Programs 
reveals
that while the Bush administration was making its claims of absolute
certainty regarding the dangers posed by the Iraqi government, behind
the scenes it was damn near the opposite. Some choice excerpts:

Our
assessments rely heavily on analytic assumptions and judgment rather
than hard evidence. 

The evidentiary base is particularly sparse for
Iraqi nuclear programs.”

We
range from 0% to about 75% knowledge on various aspects of their
program.”

“Our
knowledge of the Iraqi (nuclear) weapons program is based
largely—perhaps 90%—on analysis of imprecise intelligence.”

“We
cannot confirm the identity of any Iraqi facilities that produce,
test, fill, or store biological weapons.”

Our
knowledge of what biological weapons the Iraqis are able to
produce is nearly complete. Our knowledge of how and where they
are produced is nearly 90% incomplete.”

We
do not know the status of enrichment capabilities. We do not know
with confidence the location of any nuclear-weapon-related
facilities.”

Please
take a look at this material as to what we don’t know about WMD. It
is big.” (That one was from Rumsfeld.)

We
don’t know with any precision how much we don’t know.”

This
is not the language of certainty. Yet certainty was presented to the
public to manufacture support for a war which murdered a million
Iraqis.

The
2002 
Downing
Street memo
,
made public in 2005, reveals a secret meeting between senior
officials of the British government, intelligence and defense
agencies discussing what they knew about America’s plans for war.
The 
text
of the document
 contains
an assertion by the head of MI6 that Bush had already determined that
the invasion of Iraq would take place, and it was only a matter of
fixing bits of intelligence around a narrative to make the case.

“Military
action was now seen as inevitable,” the document reads. “Bush
wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the
conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were
being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN
route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi
regime’s record. There was little discussion in Washington of the
aftermath after military action.”

“It
seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action,
even if the timing was not yet decided,” the document quotes
Foreign Secretary Jack Straw as saying. “But the case was thin.”

In
2008
hearing before the House Judiciary Committee
,
attorney and author Vincent Bugliosi pointed out that the fact
that Bush lied about Iraq could be proven by the difference between
the classified 2002 National Intelligence Estimate and its
declassified white paper which was made available to the public.
 
The
classified version contained dissents from the consensus and language
which made it clear that the reader was reading assessments and
opinions by the CIA and other intelligence agencies, whereas the
unclassified version saw these things deleted, presenting the
assessments as absolute fact.

“The
evidence that he lied about weapons of mass destruction, by the way,
which is not the basis for this book, are right in front of
me,” 
Bugliosi
said
.
“I have it right here. Here is the evidence. This document here
is the National Intelligence Estimate. I didn’t name it before. I
talked about a classified report. This is it right here. October 1st,
2002, classified NIE report. It is called Iraq’s Continuing
 
Programs
of Weapons of Mass Destruction. In this document right here, the CIA
and 15 other U.S. intelligence agencies use words like this, ‘we
assess that’ or ‘we judge that’ Hussein has weapons of mass
destruction. This document here is the white paper that was given to
you folks here in Congress and the American people. And the words ‘we
assess that’ or ‘we judge that’ were removed, meaning that you folks
here heard a fact, and in fact, it was only an opinion.

“Number
two, on nuclear weapons, this document right here, the classified
report has several important dissents. This document right here, the
white paper that you folks were given and the American people, all of
those dissents were deleted.”

Over
and over and over again we saw the same thing: uncertainty presented
as certainty. Guesses presented as fact. Opinions presented as proof.
That’s a lie. Bush lied. We know this with as much certainty as his
administration was pretending to have in the lead-up to the Iraq
invasion. There was a pre-existing agenda to invade Iraq, and
justifications were advanced to provide an excuse for that invasion
with such extreme aggression that now-National Security Advisor John
Bolton literally 
threatened
to murder an international official’s children
 for
making diplomacy work with Saddam.

Here
are a few more 
courtesy
of 
Vox
:

In
October 2002, Bush said that Saddam Hussein had a 
“massive
stockpile”
 of
biological weapons. But as 
CIA Director
George Tenet
 noted
in early 2004, the CIA had informed policymakers it had “no
specific information on the types or quantities of weapons agent or
stockpiles at Baghdad’s disposal.” The “massive stockpile”
was just literally made up.

In
December 2002, Bush declared, 
“We
do not know whether or not [Iraq] has a nuclear weapon.”
 That
was not what the National Intelligence Estimate said. As Tenet would
later testify, “We said that Saddam did not have a nuclear weapon
and probably would have been unable to make one until 2007 to 2009.”
Bush did know whether or not Iraq had a nuclear weapon — and lied
and said he didn’t know to hype the threat.

On
CNN in September 2002, Condoleezza Rice claimed that aluminum tubes
purchased by Iraq were “only really suited for nuclear weapons
programs.” This was 
precisely
the opposite of what nuclear experts at the Energy Department
 were
saying; they argue that not only was it very possible the tubes were
for nonnuclear purposes but that it was very likely they were too.
Even more dire assessments about the tubes from other agencies were
exaggerated by administration officials — and in any case, the
claim that they’re “only really suited” for nuclear weapons is
just false.

On
numerous occasions, Dick Cheney cited a report that 9/11 conspirator
Mohammed Atta had met in Prague with an Iraqi intelligence officer.
He said this after 
the
CIA and FBI concluded that this meeting never took place
.

More
generally on the question of Iraq and al-Qaeda, on September 18,
2001, Rice 
received
a memo summarizing intelligence on the relationship
,
which concluded there was little evidence of links. Nonetheless Bush
continued to 
claim
that Hussein was “a threat because he’s dealing with
al-Qaeda”
 more
than a year later.
 

In
August 2002, 
Dick
Cheney declared
,
“Simply stated, there’s no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has
weapons of mass destruction.” But as 
Corn
notes
,
at that time there was “no confirmed intelligence at this point
establishing that Saddam had revived a major WMD operation.” Gen.
Anthony Zinni, who had heard the same intelligence and attended
Cheney’s speech, would 
later
say in a documentary
,
“It was a total shock. I couldn’t believe the vice president was
saying this, you know? In doing work with the CIA on Iraq WMD,
through all the briefings I heard at Langley, I never saw one piece
of credible evidence that there was an ongoing program.”

In
2007 General Wesley Clark 
told Democracy
Now
 that
he’d actually been informed of the decision to invade Iraq
immediately after 9/11, while the crosshairs were turning on
Afghanistan and well before the public narrative was being amped up
in demand of an invasion of Iraq. His comments read as follows:

About
ten days after 9/11, I went through the Pentagon and I saw Secretary
Rumsfeld and Deputy Secretary Wolfowitz. I went downstairs just to
say hello to some of the people on the Joint Staff who used to work
for me, and one of the generals called me in.
 

He
said, “Sir, you’ve got to come in and talk to me a second.”
I said, “Well, you’re too busy.” He said, “No, no.”
He says, “We’ve made the decision we’re going to war with Iraq.”
This was on or about the 20th of September. I said, “We’re going
to war with Iraq? Why?” He said, “I don’t know.” He
said, “I guess they don’t know what else to do.” So I said,
“Well, did they find some information connecting Saddam to
al-Qaeda?” He said, “No, no.” He says, “There’s
nothing new that way. They just made the decision to go to war with
Iraq.” He said, “I guess it’s like we don’t know what to do
about terrorists, but we’ve got a good military and we can take down
governments.” And he said, “I guess if the only tool you
have is a hammer, every problem has to look like a nail.”
 

So
I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were
bombing in Afghanistan. I said, “Are we still going to war with
Iraq?” And he said, “Oh, it’s worse than that.” He
reached over on his desk. He picked up a piece of paper. And he said,
“I just got this down from upstairs” — meaning the
Secretary of Defense’s office — “today.” And he said,
“This is a memo that describes how we’re going to take out seven
countries in five years, starting with Iraq, and then Syria, Lebanon,
Libya, Somalia, Sudan and, finishing off, Iran.” I said, “Is
it classified?” He said, “Yes, sir.” I said, “Well,
don’t show it to me.” And I saw him a year or so ago, and I
said, “You remember that?” He said, “Sir, I didn’t
show you that memo! I didn’t show it to you!”

Iraq,
Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Iran. If you’ve been
following the behaviors of the US war machine, Iraq won’t be the only
painfully familiar name on that list.

Ari Fleischer
@AriFleischer

It remains important to learn what we’ve attacked and where. How widespread?
In addition to military targets, I hope we targeted Assad’s palace in Damascus. Leave him alive but destroy his prestige. Leave him without a home, as Assad has left millions of Syrians w/o theirs.

1,914

2:12 AM – Apr 14, 2018 · New York, USA

Twitter Ads info and privacy

Ari Fleischer
@AriFleischer

“In the last few months of 2018, Iran officially entered a deep recession.” Time to step up the sanctions… https://en.radiofarda.com/a/iran-official-figures-alarming-unemployment-2019/29698225.html 

941

1:36 PM – Jan 10, 2019

Iran’s Official Figures Indicate Alarming Unemployment Rate Later This Year

The official unemployment rate has reached 27 percent among young Iranians and over 40 percent among university graduates, says Omid Ali Parsai, chairman of the Iranian Statistical Center.

en.radiofarda.com






Ari
Fleischer is a liar. He 
was
in the thick
 of
the Bush administration’s campaign to sell the Iraq war to the
American public, and to this day he 
continues trying to
sell
 them
on 
new
acts
 of depraved
US interventionism
.
He’s just as much a warmongering neocon inside as he was when he was
behind a podium defending Bush’s wars in the press room, so it’s no
wonder he wants to preserve the image of his insatiable death cult.
Fleischer wants to preserve his legacy, yes, but he also wants to
preserve support for the war machine whose feet he worships at, hence
his ham-fisted attempt at narrative manipulation regarding the
unforgivable Iraq invasion.

The
responses to Fleischer’s Twitter thread have been overwhelmingly
negative, though, so it doesn’t look like anyone’s buying it. In our
new political landscape, where the image of George W Bush is
being 
continually
rehabilitated
,
that gives me a bit of hope.

These
monsters lied to start a war which snuffed out a million human lives
and destabilized an entire region, and they did it right in front of
our faces. The fact that they’re now trying to lie about the thing we
all watched them do is as insulting as it is infuriating. Never let
them pull the wool over your eyes, and never forget what they did.
Forgiveness is 
highly
overrated
.

Thanks
for reading! My articles are entirely reader-supported, so if you
enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me
on
 Facebook,
following my antics on
 Twitter, throwing
some money into my hat on 
Patreon or Paypalpurchasing
some of my 
sweet
merchandise
, buying
my new book 
Rogue
Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone
,
or my previous book 
Woke:
A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers
.
The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see
the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for
my 
website,
which will get you an email notification for everything I publish.

Bitcoin
donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2

Caitlin
Johnstone
 |
March 20, 2019 at 3:25 pm | Tags: 
Ari
Fleisher
bushgeorge
w bush
invasioniraqliednewsPoliticswar |
Categories: 
ArticleNews |
URL: 
https://wp.me/p9tj6M-1Bl

* NIE: National Intelligence Estimate

===============================

Voor meer berichten over de illegale oorlog tegen Irak, klik op het labels Irak, direct onder dit bericht. Let
wel: na een aantal berichten wordt het laatst gelezen bericht telkens
herhaald, dan onder het laatst gelezen bericht even opnieuw op het
gekozen label klikken, enz. enz.