A few weeks ago a question came to me: did the same people
who are now pushing the Russia hacking narrative also push the Weapons of Mass
Destruction narrative, and do those who contradicted the WMD story now call
shenanigans on the Russian hacking story? It didn’t come to me as
a question, really, as I felt convinced I knew the answer.
Nevertheless, I began to track as best I could the major voices
from each story to see how they responded to the other. While many who are reporting
on the Russian Hacking story were out of the loop in the leadup to the Iraq
War, and others from the time of the Iraq War are now either dead, disgraced or
have moved on to other things, there are enough journalists, politicians, and
think tank operatives involved in both. My research as of date is limited, but I
find it to be revealing. And, of course, it almost unequivocally corresponded
to my initial suspicions: that everyone who had it absolutely wrong about Iraq’s
possession of WMDs are now arguing that Russia has hacked our presidential election,
while those who opposed the WMDs narrative are similarly opposed to the story
being shouted out throughout mainstream media. Keep in mind, this is
preliminary work, with many more names to be added to the list. Make of it what
you will.
This shouldn't be a matter of whether you like the
individuals involved, it is simply a case of recording their positions regarding
the Iraq War and the current Russia Hacking Narrative as the events were/are relevant.
Curiously, although there is no question regarding Russia, I have been unable
to find a document or video clip of Rachel Maddow’s position on the Iraq War
prior to its onset. I know that is a huge omission, but I'm hoping others can provide evidence.
You would expect it to fall along partisan lines, but there seems to be little if any correlation.
Hillary Clinton is the obvious person to start with. I
shouldn’t have to prove to you her support of the RH story, but here is a
little reminder of her selling the WMD falsity.
The Washington Post is the next logical step. They have been
the source of nearly all the Russian Hacking stories. And of course, their
source has not been the work of journalists but the words of unnamed sources
within the intelligence agencies, those very agencies that were used to sell
the WMD story. Here is mention of The Washington Post story apologizing
for its shoddy journalism. Oops. Oh, well. No harm, no foul.
Similar with the New York Times. Here they are quoted
admitting they made a mistake and also saying they’ve learned from it and won’t
do it again. Here Robert Parry says—in 2007, mind you—that they haven’t learned
a lesson at all.
Here they are going all in on the RHN, not merely echoing what has been said
but driving it further.
Let’s switch for a moment to Ray McGovern, a former CIA
analyst. He told us before the Iraq War began that Saddam Hussein had no
weapons of mass destruction but was ignored. Today he is saying the DNC was not
hacked but leaked.
Warren Strobel on RT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q-SpncweAqY&t=78s
Warren Strobel on WMDs (Courtesy of FAIR): “Lack of Hard
Evidence of Iraqi Weapons Worries Top U.S. Officials,” the newspaper chain’s
Jonathan Landay reported, “Senior U.S. officials with access to top-secret
intelligence on Iraq say they have detected no alarming increase in the threat
that Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein poses to American security and Middle East
stability.” Throughout the run-up to the war, Landay and his Knight Ridder
colleague Warren Strobel filed story after story raising questions about Bush
administration claims, with headlines like “Some in Bush Administration Have
Misgivings About Iraq Policy” (10/8/02) and “Infighting Among U.S. Intelligence
Agencies Fuels Dispute Over Iraq” (10/27/02).
Ari Fleischer, President Goerge W. Bush’s spokesman: WMDs. As for the RHN, “I
accept as fact that Russia interfered in our election.”
Robert Kagan was one of the principal members of The Project
For A New American Century, a driving force behind the Iraq war and the WMD
narrative. Here’s a quote from Mr. Kagan: ““Obviously the administration
intends to publicize all the weapons of mass destruction U.S. forces find — and
there will be plenty.” As far as Russian hacking, Robert Parry describes Mr.
Kagan’s opinion thus: “In a Washington Post op-ed on March 7, Robert Kagan, a
co-founder of the Project for the New American Century and a key architect of
the Iraq War, jabbed at Republicans for serving as “Russia’s accomplices after
the fact” by not investigating more aggressively.”
Now seeing as how I’ve mentioned Robert Parry twice, let me
explain who he was. In 2003, he was busy reporting about the false narrative
Bush et al used as pretense for the invasion of Iraq. We will put him down as
one who refused to accept the pushed narrative of WMDs, as evidenced in this article.
“Well,” you might ask, “what does this man who so obviously
got the story right despite the overwhelming push to the contrary have to say
about a similar hard sell, say the Russian hacking narrative? Here’s what a
Yahoo search comes up with when the words Robert
Parry Russian Hacking are typed in. I think the titles tell the story
fairly well:
But back to the PNAC (Project For A New American Century).
As we all recall, this was a think tank whose mission was to project American
power throughout the world in the 21st Century, their hallmark
achievement being the Iraq War, which they back in no small part by pushing the
WMD story. Let’s do a little “Where are they now?” segment, shall we?
William Kristol is the other prime mover in PNAC, along with
Robert Kagan. Here is what he said regarding WMDs: (?3:52 in http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/314364-bill-kristol-trump-treats-putin-with-more-respect-than-a-civil)
This gives some perspective on his opinion of the Trump/Putin connection: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/314364-bill-kristol-trump-treats-putin-with-more-respect-than-a-civil
Phil Donahue was anti-Iraq war and was yanked from his show
on MSNBC in 2003 because of it. Watch what he says here. Since then you
have not heard him on American mainstream media. Here is the pro-Russia
bashing he is subject to when his unheard voice comes out against the anti
Russian narrative in 2013. Watch one of the greatest proponents for women’s
rights and the plight of the poor be called a “rich white American”. Imagine
how much richer he would be if he said the things the establishment wanted him
to say. He would be earning money with a TV show, that’s for sure. MSNBC, what
do they have to say about Russian hacking?
Bruce P. Jackson, the other project director of PNAC, was
also a member of Project of Transitional Democracies, which concentrated on
influencing politics in the area that was the former Soviet Union (i.e. areas
formally under the Russia’s sphere of influence). Here
is an interesting article on how he not only supported the Iraq War, he grew
rich through this and similar work. And while he was smart enough not to get
his fingers on the Russian Election Hacking narrative, here
is his opinion on Putin. The desire to demonize Putin and Putin’s Russia was
not an overnight thing.
Dianne Feinstein: Feinstein
supported the Iraq war resolution in the vote of October 11, 2002; she has
claimed that she was misled by President Bush on the reasons for going to war.
However, former UN
Weapons Inspector in
Iraq Scott Ritter has stated that Feinstein in summer 2002
acknowledged to him that she knew the Bush administration had not provided any
convincing intelligence to back up its claims about the Iraqi weapons of mass
destruction.
Let’s turn to a minute to The Alliance For Securing
Democracy, a group that was assembled to protect us from Russian influence on
Twitter on elsewhere. What were their opinions regarding the Iraq War? I’m
sticking with those members old enough to have been influential back in 2003.
Jamie
Fly said the Iraq War was worth it and done for the right reasons
Michael
McFaul wrote of the impending Iraq War without opposing it or denying the
existence of WMDs, saying
Iraq alone was too narrow a focus: “The Iraqi dictatorship (and not simply
President Hussein) is certainly part of the problem, but Iraq cannot be the
only front of the war on terrorism.”
Bill
Kristol is mentioned elsewhere.
David
J. Kramer is a late-comer to the game, so I could find no opinion of his
regarding the lead-up to the war against Iraq, but here
is an article co-written by him pushing an obviously anti-Russian bent before
it was thought to blame Russian interference for Trump’s election. Note that
while the intense hatred for Russia is already present, no suggestion of Russian
interference is mentioned. The hatred came decades before the assertions of
interference. Oh wait, he was a member of the Project
For A New American Century, that pushed the Iraq war so strongly.
James
Stavridis did not propagandize for the Iraq WMDs narrative, he merely helped prosecute
the war as an Admiral.
Mike
Rogers, as a congressman, fully supported
the war
Katrina vanden Heuvel https://www.salon.com/2017/03/21/watch-nation-editor-katrina-vanden-heuvel-on-the-putin-hunt-and-the-rise-of-neo-mccarthyism-on-the-left/
Joe Scarborough: Here he reminds of us his total support for
the war: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iy1Oj6lCIIc
Robert Mueller has this to say regarding WMDS
-
Adam Schiff is the Democrat’s pit bull for the Russian
Hacking narrative, pushing not just the story but also the story that nobody but
Trump disbelieves it: “Mr. President, the Russians hacked our election and
interfered. No one disputes this now, but you. This is what is called ‘fact’.”
As witnessed in this article, Adam Schiff’s statement is not true, and his
total certainty on the issue is similar to his total certainty on the issue of
WMDs. Care to guess what side he was on? He later stated that he regretted the
vote, saying, “Unfortunately, our intelligence was dead wrong on that, on
Saddam at that time.” I’m glad to see the incident didn’t shake his faith in
our intelligence. So certain was he of the Russian influence, he even accused
Tucker Carlson of “carrying
water for the Kremlin”.
Dick Durbin: https://video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?fr=yhs-itm-001&hsimp=yhs-001&hspart=itm&p=richard+wolff+russia+election#id=1&vid=6958756dd0ba6712a105614a107e208c&action=click.
Now to his credit, he did oppose the Iraq War. As a member of the Intelligence
Committee, he claims
he received information that was different from what the American Public was
getting and that the Bush Administration was actively misleading people. But as
he explains, he couldn’t tell anyone about it because he was sworn to secrecy.
WTF?
This was the CIA’s position on WMDs in Iraq. Go ahead try and spin this. And of course, their position on Russian interference
Nancy Pelosi said: “Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process.”
William Cohen had this to say about WMDs: “Saddam has delayed; he has duped; he has deceived the inspectors from the very first day on the job. I have another chart which shows exactly what I’m talking about. From the very beginning, he declared he had no offensive biological weapons programs. Then, when confronted with evidence following the defection of his son-in-law, he admitted they had produced more than 2100 gallons of anthrax. … But the UN inspectors believe that Saddam Hussein still has his weapons of mass destruction capability—enough ingredients to make 200 tons of VX nerve gas; 31,000 artillery shells and rockets filled with nerve and mustard gas; 17 tons of media to grow biological agents; large quantities of anthrax and other biological agents.” Here he shows his confidence that Russia influenced our election
And where are all these
politicians, journalists, and TV personalities who spoke out against the Iraq
War that was based on the WMD narrative? I remember Scott Ritter being accused
of some unspecified allegations of sexual impropriety. But here he is on RT. As
I noted before, Phil Donahue had his show taken off the air when he opposed the
WMD narrative, but you can see him here, on RT. Chris Hedges lost his job at
the New York Times, but he now has a weekly show on RT. Jessie Ventura was paid
to not do his show for MSNBC after coming out against the Iraq War, but he now
has a show on RT. Katrina vanden Heuvel frequently appears on RT. Here’s Ray McGovern on RT. John
Pilger? Check him out on RT.
What penalty did those who got it wrong pay? None. What
penalty did those who got it right pay? They were exiled. They lost their jobs
in mainstream media and in congress. They were pushed further from the “center”
into the edges, places like RT, one of the few news outlets that still permits
the voices of the dissenting to find an audience.
No comments:
Post a Comment