SELF-OBSESSED TRAITOR ASSANGE ARRESTED

[Cannydc]

The narrative has indeed crumbled and almost no one believes a word America says any longer ... 'cept of course the diehard MSM lot who are clinging to a crumbling edifice.

Have the US administration confirmed that what Gen. Wesley Clarke said was;

a) Official policy

b) Factually accurate

c) Confirmed by others mentioned in the anecdote

And then there's this....

"So I came back to see him a few weeks later, and by that time we were bombing in Afghanistan. "

When was this ? "As I went back through the Pentagon in November 2001, one of the senior military staff officers had time for a chat. Yes, we were still on track for going against Iraq, he said. But there was more. This was being discussed as part of a five-year campaign plan, he said, and there were a total of seven countries, beginning with Iraq, then Syria, Lebanon, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and finishing off Iran." So there was his original quote, now embellished to include mysterious 'bits of paper' and we are talking about anecdotal evidence from 18 years ago.

I guess this will all be in his new book...

Pointless adding all this guff .... you have been watching and are still watching everything he said unfold before your eyes.

Rollup - what he is doing is called 'aftertiming'. It's easy to say NOW what may or may not have been said 18 years ago, and adjust it to fit any narrative you like.

Here's an example. I was working in Labour HQ in 2007, Tony Blair was chatting to a few friends including Alistair Campbell and I distinctly heard him say that if he handed the party over to Gordon Brown it would start a lurch to the left resulting in at least a decade of Tory government and a mad Bennite like that loon Corbyn in charge, which would make Labour unelectable.

And of course, all of that will be in my new book, though not a word of it is true.

[Fletch]

The interview with Wesley Clark was in 2007 canny.

also:

AMY GOODMAN: Now, let’s talk about Iran. You have a whole website devoted to stopping war.

GEN. WESLEY CLARK: http://Www.stopiranwar.com.

AMY GOODMAN: Do you see a replay in what happened in the lead-up to the war with Iraq — the allegations of the weapons of mass destruction, the media leaping onto the bandwagon?

GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Well, in a way. But, you know, history doesn’t repeat itself exactly twice. What I did warn about when I testified in front of Congress in 2002, I said if you want to worry about a state, it shouldn’t be Iraq, it should be Iran. But this government, our administration, wanted to worry about Iraq, not Iran.

I knew why, because I had been through the Pentagon right after 9/11. 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.”

https://www.presstv.com/Detail/2018/09/ ... ing-closer

No comment about the false flag chemical weapons claim in Syria then repeating it when the world found out then canny?

[Fletch]

Every fucking thread ends up being the same debate.

About Brexit?

I agree maddog, far more important things in the news and happening than arguments between 2 groups as to what is best.

[Cannydc]

The interview with Wesley Clark was in 2007 canny.

also:

AMY GOODMAN: Now, let’s talk about Iran. You have a whole website devoted to stopping war.

GEN. WESLEY CLARK: http://Www.stopiranwar.com.

AMY GOODMAN: Do you see a replay in what happened in the lead-up to the war with Iraq — the allegations of the weapons of mass destruction, the media leaping onto the bandwagon?

GEN. WESLEY CLARK: Well, in a way. But, you know, history doesn’t repeat itself exactly twice. What I did warn about when I testified in front of Congress in 2002, I said if you want to worry about a state, it shouldn’t be Iraq, it should be Iran. But this government, our administration, wanted to worry about Iraq, not Iran.

I knew why, because I had been through the Pentagon right after 9/11. 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.”

https://www.presstv.com/Detail/2018/09/ ... ing-closer

No comment about the false flag chemical weapons claim in Syria then repeating it when the world found out then canny?

I know nothing about it. I've been 'offline for a couple of days, so probably missed it.

Obviously your mates at Sputnik will have kept you up to date with their version of pravda though, tovarisch.

[Fletch]

US Accuses Syria Of More Chemical Attacks Just As Chemical Weapons Narrative Crumbles

The Institute for Public Accuracy published a report today about the leaked engineering assessment from the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons investigation into an alleged chemical attack in Douma, Syria which directly contradicts the findings of the official OPCW report on the matter. Until the unauthorized release of this internal document the public was kept entirely uninformed of its existence, despite the serious military consequences of the questions it raises; the official story that the Syrian government had dropped chemical weapons in Douma was used to justify an airstrike on Syria days later.

“A leaked OPCW document challenges claim that Assad used chemical weapons in Douma in April 2018, the basis for US military strikes,” tweeted journalist Aaron Maté of the new IPA report. “So far, Western media has ignored it, w/ only exceptions at the margins. Ted Postol is a leading expert; this should be impossible to ignore now.”

Hours later, the US State Department issued a statement once again accusing the Syrian government of using chemical weapons, and now when you search Google for information on chemical weapons in Syria, the results you get look like this:



So that’s convenient.

The State Department’s release actually reads like a government trying to regain control of an important narrative. It begins with an unsubstantiated allegation of a chlorine gas attack by the Syrian government this past Sunday, and warns that the US and its allies will respond militarily if chemical weapons have been used.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/51655.htm

Explain that then raven and canny.

Coincidence?

Lies and withholding information from the public that when discovered and released, they muddy the waters of searches for it by repeating the claim but moving the date?

Why would they do that if not to try and obscure the findings previously hidden from the public?

Bump for canny...from the page before this one...

[Cannydc]

Still know absolutely nothing about it, Fletch.

And please bear in mind that if I were to take note of, read, inwardly digest and relentlessly pursue every CT loaded post here and elsewhere, I'd have no time for the beach, the BBQ and the cold beer. Life's too short. Mine's a Stella.

[Fletch]

Still know absolutely nothing about it, Fletch.

And please bear in mind that if I were to take note of, read, inwardly digest and relentlessly pursue every CT loaded post here and elsewhere, I'd have no time for the beach, the BBQ and the cold beer. Life's too short. Mine's a Stella.

[Cannydc]

[Fletch]

Professional Assange Smearers Finally Realize His Fate Is Tied To Theirs
By Caitlin Johnstone

Rachel Maddow has aired a segment condemning the new indictment against Julian Assange for 17 alleged violations of the Espionage Act.

Yes, that Rachel Maddow.

MSNBC’s top host began the segment after it was introduced by Chris Hayes, agreeing with her colleague that it’s surprising that more news outlets aren’t giving this story more “wall to wall” coverage, given its immense significance. She recapped Assange’s various legal struggles up until this point, then accurately described Assange’s new Espionage Act charges for publishing secret documents.

“And these new charges are not about stealing classified information or outsmarting computer systems in order to illegally obtain classified information,” Maddow said. “It’s not about that. These new charges are trying to prosecute Assange for publishing that stolen, secret material which was obtained by somebody else. And that is a whole different kettle of fish then what he was initially charged with.”

“By charging Assange for publishing that stuff that was taken by Manning, by issuing these charges today, the Justice Department has just done something you might have otherwise thought was impossible,” Maddow added after explaining the unprecedented nature of this case. “The Justice Department today, the Trump administration today, just put every journalistic institution in this country on Julian Assange’s side of the ledger. On his side of the fight. Which, I know, is unimaginable. But that is because the government is now trying to assert this brand new right to criminally prosecute people for publishing secret stuff, and newspapers and magazines and investigative journalists and all sorts of different entities publish secret stuff all the time. That is the bread and butter of what we do.”

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/51658.htm

Oh dear, it's dawning on the msm that they too will be in the firing line.

Controlling the narrative has been the job of the msm for decades, now it may well come back to bite them.

[Cannydc]

Rachel Maddow

Never heard of her.

However, asserting that were she, or any journalist who comes across stolen/hacked secret material and publishes it with no regard to potential damage to national interest should be immune to prosecution is both alarming and by equal degree ridiculous.

Russia and China must be laughing their socks off.

And although most people would have been equally appalled that personal phone accounts were hacked and personal, highly private details published by UK media outlets, your complete lack of morals seems to allow you to condone it, Fletch.

You should be a Sun journalist.

[Rolluplostinspace]

Rachel Maddow

Never heard of her.

However, asserting that were she, or any journalist who comes across stolen/hacked secret material and publishes it with no regard to potential damage to national interest should be immune to prosecution is both alarming and by equal degree ridiculous.

Russia and China must be laughing their socks off.

And although most people would have been equally appalled that personal phone accounts were hacked and personal, highly private details published by UK media outlets, your complete lack of morals seems to allow you to condone it, Fletch.

You should be a Sun journalist.

There would have been no Watergate with you around that's for sure.
You know national security and all that.

[Cannydc]

Rachel Maddow

Never heard of her.

However, asserting that were she, or any journalist who comes across stolen/hacked secret material and publishes it with no regard to potential damage to national interest should be immune to prosecution is both alarming and by equal degree ridiculous.

Russia and China must be laughing their socks off.

And although most people would have been equally appalled that personal phone accounts were hacked and personal, highly private details published by UK media outlets, your complete lack of morals seems to allow you to condone it, Fletch.

You should be a Sun journalist.

There would have been no Watergate with you around that's for sure.
You know national security and all that.

That is complete pants, and you know it.

Watergate was essentially a five man break-in to the Democratic National Committee (DNC) headquarters , a criminal act normally investigated by the police.

Proper investigative journalism led to the discovery that Nixon was complicit in the crime.

No personal information was leaked, no classified information handed to the Russians and Chinese via the media.

We have now moved on from investigative journalism to hacking dead kid's phones. And you approve ?

[Rolluplostinspace]

Rachel Maddow

Never heard of her.

However, asserting that were she, or any journalist who comes across stolen/hacked secret material and publishes it with no regard to potential damage to national interest should be immune to prosecution is both alarming and by equal degree ridiculous.

Russia and China must be laughing their socks off.

And although most people would have been equally appalled that personal phone accounts were hacked and personal, highly private details published by UK media outlets, your complete lack of morals seems to allow you to condone it, Fletch.

You should be a Sun journalist.

There would have been no Watergate with you around that's for sure.
You know national security and all that.

We have now moved on from investigative journalism to hacking dead kid's phones. And you approve ?

You obviously approve because that was the MSM that did that.

[Cannydc]

Rachel Maddow

Never heard of her.

However, asserting that were she, or any journalist who comes across stolen/hacked secret material and publishes it with no regard to potential damage to national interest should be immune to prosecution is both alarming and by equal degree ridiculous.

Russia and China must be laughing their socks off.

And although most people would have been equally appalled that personal phone accounts were hacked and personal, highly private details published by UK media outlets, your complete lack of morals seems to allow you to condone it, Fletch.

You should be a Sun journalist.

There would have been no Watergate with you around that's for sure.
You know national security and all that.

We have now moved on from investigative journalism to hacking dead kid's phones. And you approve ?

You obviously approve because that was the MSM that did that.

Really?

You think?

You and Fletch are the ones who think that computer hacking, phone hacking, stealing state secrets and publishing the resulting proceeds of crime are legitimate and a perfectly moral way to behave. You have no concern for any victims, nor for economic or any other damage that may result. You may approve - I certainly don't.

[Rolluplostinspace]

Rachel Maddow

Never heard of her.

However, asserting that were she, or any journalist who comes across stolen/hacked secret material and publishes it with no regard to potential damage to national interest should be immune to prosecution is both alarming and by equal degree ridiculous.

Russia and China must be laughing their socks off.

And although most people would have been equally appalled that personal phone accounts were hacked and personal, highly private details published by UK media outlets, your complete lack of morals seems to allow you to condone it, Fletch.

You should be a Sun journalist.

There would have been no Watergate with you around that's for sure.
You know national security and all that.

We have now moved on from investigative journalism to hacking dead kid's phones. And you approve ?

You obviously approve because that was the MSM that did that.

You know damn well it was Murdoch's people at The News of The World.