21stcenturywire--2020-01-14--Trump’s Flip-Flop: ‘Imminent Threat’ Not Needed to Kill Soleimani, Only His ‘Horrible Past’

This latest back-peddling move by the US President demonstrates why Washington and the media have been so insistent with their bevy of war propaganda narratives around Iran .
Ever since Washington ’ s double assassination of Iranian Quds Force leader , General Qasem Soleimani , and senior Iraqi PMU commander , Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis , on January 3rd , the White House and its mainstream media adjuncts have run an incessant propaganda campaign to try and demonize the Iranian military commander , calling him “ an evil man ” who had “ the blood of Americans and Iranians on his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ the world ’ s leading terrorist.
” For good measure , Trump even compared him to Osama bin Laden .
The propaganda seemed over-the-top at the time , but now we can see why .
A sober review of the timeline of events over the past 18 months reveals exactly how the US were preparing for this latest round of provocations with Iran , including evidence that President Trump had already green-lit the assassination of Soleimani seven months earlier .
Prior to Monday , the official Washington line on the double assassination @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of an “ imminent threat ” to US embassies and other asset stationed in the region .
Because the threat was deemed ‘ imminent ’ and therefore urgent , the White House could just about justify its action under an executive authorization of military force , effectively bypassing any Congressional and Constitutional oversight .
However , it quickly became clear during their media appearances that neither Trump , Secretary of State Mike Pompeo , nor Defense Secretary Mark Esper – where able to provide any specifics of the alleged threat which everyone was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In the end , it was Esper ’ s own proverbial face-plant on Sunday ’ s Face the Nation which finally caused the official narrative to collapse , with Esper visibly panicking on live national TV before letting slip that he actually hadn ’ t seen any of the supposed ‘ intelligence ’ which the Administration had previously assured the American public it had .
The awful realization had finally set in – that there was never any intelligence , and that just like previous rogue US Administrations , this President and his @ @ @ @ @ @ @ American people in order to preempt a new war .
Of course , all of this was just a minor formality for a seasoned Manhattan grifter like Trump , who simply moved the goal posts of the official narrative for his dubious military action .
In classic Trumpist on-the-fly revisionist style , the President now insists that “ it doesn ’ t really matter ” whether or not there was any genuine or imminent threat posed to US assets in the region , because according to Trump , the Iranian General ‘ had @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his horrible past !
” Trump ’ s newly revised justification for Washington ’ s double assassination , logged into the public record on Twitter , would not be possible if not for the break-neck propaganda blitz which has taken place over the last two weeks , with General Qasem Soleimani has been repeatedly labeled as a “ terrorist ” , and the Country of Iran as “ the world ’ s leading state sponsor of terror.
” This doesn ’ t seem to bother the entirety of the western mainstream media that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fact , they are the very definition of Fake News .
This is literally the weaponization of propaganda by the West .
Washington ’ s concerted propaganda campaign was essential in order to conceal the inconvenient truth that Soleimani was actually a key figure in the battle against ISIS in Iraq and Syria between 2014 and 2018 .
One only needs to perform a cursory glance at past coverage to note that even an avid pro-war outlet like CNN had boasted back in 2015 how General Soleimani led the fight against ISIS .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ number of top US military officials , all acknowledging his role in turning the tide against the Islamic State .
Perhaps the greatest validation of just how much of an enemy Soleimani was to radical jihadists came earlier this week when the official newspaper for ISIS , Al Naba , ran a feature heaping praise on Donald Trump for killing Iran ’ s Soleimani , while giving “ thanks to God ” that Washington and Tehran were now fighting each other – which has allowed ISIS some respite and a chance to regroup @ @ @ @ @ @ @ latest flip-flop by Trump is that the US is now attempting to set a precedent – that an “ imminent threat ” is no longer required to justify military action against anyone on its growing list of enemies .
All Washington need to do is accuse someone of being “ a really bad guy , ” albeit after the fact .
Putting aside the farcical nature of the various claims made by this US Administration , this disturbing development should be a cause for alarm to everyone who values the rule of law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
This new “ kill policy ” opens to door to new levels of deceit and barbarism by employing a policy extrajudicial state-sponsored assassinations by the United States and its allies .
As always , their key partner in this deceit is the mainstream media – an institution which rarely , if ever , pushes back against the outlandish claims made by US officials in condemning individuals and countries for their alleged offenses .
And this will not stop with international targets either .
If the public allows the government to act lawlessly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s only a matter a time before this very same policy becomes normalized at home .
Some argue that this is already happening .
The abrogation of due process and international law by western nations doesn ’ t look to be ending any time soon .
It will not end until the public and their elected representatives recognize just how far society is drifting away from its constitutional principles , and towards authoritarianism .
*** Author Patrick Henningsen is an American writer and global affairs analyst and founder of independent news and analysis @ @ @ @ @ @ @ host of the SUNDAY WIRE weekly radio show broadcast globally over the Alternate Current Radio Network ( ACR ) .
He has written for a number of international publications and has done extensive on-the-ground reporting in the Middle East including work in Syria and Iraq .
See his archive here .

By
Patrick Henningsen
21st Century Wire
This latest back-peddling move by the US President demonstrates why Washington and the media have been so insistent with their bevy of war propaganda narratives around Iran.
Ever since Washington’s double assassination of Iranian Quds Force leader, General Qasem Soleimani, and senior Iraqi PMU commander, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, on January 3rd, the White House and its mainstream media adjuncts have run an incessant propaganda campaign to try and demonize the Iranian military commander, calling him “an evil man” who had “the blood of Americans and Iranians on his hands,” as well as being “the world’s leading terrorist.”
For good measure, Trump even compared him to Osama bin Laden. The propaganda seemed over-the-top at the time, but now we can see why.
A sober review of the timeline of events over the past 18 months reveals exactly how the US were preparing for this latest round of provocations with Iran, including evidence that President Trump had already green-lit the assassination of Soleimani seven months earlier. Prior to Monday, the official Washington line on the double assassination was that the US had received intelligence of an “imminent threat” to US embassies and other assets stationed in the region. Because the threat was deemed ‘imminent’ and therefore urgent, the White House could just about justify its action under an executive authorization of military force, effectively bypassing any Congressional and Constitutional oversight. However, it quickly became clear during their media appearances that neither Trump, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, nor Defense Secretary Mark Esper – where able to provide any specifics of the alleged threat which everyone was so cock-sure about only days earlier. In the end, it was Esper’s own proverbial face-plant on Sunday’s Face the Nation which finally caused the official narrative to collapse, with Esper visibly panicking on live national TV before letting slip that he actually hadn’t seen any of the supposed ‘intelligence’ which the Administration had previously assured the American public it had.
The awful realization had finally set in – that there was never any intelligence, and that just like previous rogue US Administrations, this President and his Secretary of State had lied to the American people in order to preempt a new war.
Of course, all of this was just a minor formality for a seasoned Manhattan grifter like Trump, who simply moved the goal posts of the official narrative for his dubious military action.
In classic Trumpist on-the-fly revisionist style, the President now insists that “it doesn’t really matter” whether or not there was any genuine or imminent threat posed to US assets in the region, because according to Trump, the Iranian General ‘had it coming’, “because of his horrible past!”
The Fake News Media and their Democrat Partners are working hard to determine whether or not the future attack by terrorist Soleimani was “imminent” or not, & was my team in agreement. The answer to both is a strong YES., but it doesn’t really matter because of his horrible past! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 13, 2020
MSM’s Iran Propaganda Blitz
Trump’s newly revised justification for Washington’s double assassination, logged into the public record on Twitter, would not be possible if not for the break-neck propaganda blitz which has taken place over the last two weeks, with General Qasem Soleimani has been repeatedly labeled as a “terrorist”, and the Country of Iran as “the world’s leading state sponsor of terror.” This doesn’t seem to bother the entirety of the western mainstream media that these claims are patently false. In fact, they are the very definition of Fake News. This is literally the weaponization of propaganda by the West.
Washington’s concerted propaganda campaign was essential in order to conceal the inconvenient truth that Soleimani was actually a key figure in the battle against ISIS in Iraq and Syria between 2014 and 2018. One only needs to perform a cursory glance at past coverage to note that even an avid pro-war outlet like CNN had boasted back in 2015 how General Soleimani led the fight against ISIS. His praises were also sung by a number of top US military officials, all acknowledging his role in turning the tide against the Islamic State.
Perhaps the greatest validation of just how much of an enemy Soleimani was to radical jihadists came earlier this week when the official newspaper for ISIS, Al Naba, ran a feature heaping praise on Donald Trump for killing Iran’s Soleimani, while giving “thanks to God” that Washington and Tehran were now fighting each other – which has allowed ISIS some respite and a chance to regroup.
The really dangerous part about this latest flip-flop by Trump is that the US is now attempting to set a precedent – that an “imminent threat” is no longer required to justify military action against anyone on its growing list of enemies. All Washington needs to do is accuse someone of being “a really bad guy,” albeit after the fact.
Putting aside the farcical nature of the various claims made by this US Administration, this disturbing development should be a cause for alarm to everyone who values the rule of law and due process in a democratic society. This new “kill policy” opens the door to new levels of deceit and barbarism by employing a policy of extrajudicial state-sponsored assassinations by the United States and its allies. As always, their key partner in this deceit is the mainstream media – an institution which rarely, if ever, pushes back against the outlandish claims made by US officials in condemning individuals and countries for their alleged offenses. And this will not stop with international targets either. If the public allows the government to act lawlessly in overseas arenas, then it’s only a matter a time before this very same policy becomes normalized at home. Some argue that this is already happening.
The abrogation of due process and international law by western nations doesn’t look to be ending any time soon.
It will not end until the public and their elected representatives recognize just how far society is drifting away from its constitutional principles, and towards authoritarianism.
As bad as Trump is in trying on war w/ #Iran, I do not see much on Democratic opposition side that inspires much confidence, aside from #Tulsi. Opposition, media, are increasingly weak on the issue. America in general is taking on an increasingly immoral tone. Dangerous times. — Patrick Henningsen (@21WIRE) January 14, 2020
***
Author Patrick Henningsen is an American writer and global affairs analyst and founder of independent news and analysis site 21st Century Wire, and is host of the SUNDAY WIRE weekly radio show broadcast globally over the Alternate Current Radio Network (ACR). He has written for a number of international publications and has done extensive on-the-ground reporting in the Middle East including work in Syria and Iraq. See his archive here.
READ MORE IRAN NEWS AT: 21st Century Wire Iran Files
SUPPORT OUR INDEPENDENT MEDIA PLATFORM – BECOME A MEMBER @21WIRE.TV


21stcenturywire--2020-01-13--Esper Admits No Intelligence for Soleimani ‘Threat’, MSM Still Loyal to Iran Narrative

The dominos continue to fall .
Despite repeated protestations and assurances from Trump ’ s national security clique , the public has yet to see any sign of the much-celebrated ‘ intelligence ’ which the White House claims it has , and which was supposedly the basis for the double assassination of Iranian Quds Force leader , General Qasem Soleimani , and senior Iraqi PMU commander , Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis , on January 3rd .
Yesterday , US Defense Secretary Mark Esper joined the growing chorus of Trump officials muttering , I don ’ t know .
Although due to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this month to cash-in with a lucrative board position in the defense industry , Esper now admits that he hasn ’ t seen any tangible evidence which indicated that Iran was plotting and planning to strike four US embassies in the Middle East , despite Trump ’ s repeated claims the attacks were “ imminent.
” “ The president didn ’ t cite a specific piece of evidence .
What he said was he believed , ” said Esper to CBS News flagship program , Face the Nation on Sunday .
“ I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regard to four embassies.
” When pressed again , Esper conceded that the President didn ’ t actually cite any intelligence , but that “ there probably could have been ” some type of threat , although nothing he could cite specifically .
That ’ s shorthand for , there wasn ’ t any .
From there , things continued to get worse for the Defense Secretary .
“ There was intelligence that there was an intent to target the U.S. embassy in Baghdad , ” he said .
Here , Esper is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ claiming there was intelligence which had to do with the US Embassy in Baghdad , but which is probably the same chatter from December 30th in the run-up to the US Embassy protests , likely recycled again to justify the subsequent illegal drone assassinations .
Either way , the ‘ threat ’ was concocted by Trump ’ s overly enthusiastic advisors .
From there , Esper retreats to the hollowed ground of true believer .
Indeed , there is a certain degree of faith required with most things in this Administration .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ President believes , and so therefore it must be true .
The empirical fiat is simply breathtaking : “ What the president said with regard to the four embassies is what I believe as well .
He said that he believed that they probably , they could have been targeting the embassies in the region , ” said Esper .
.
The New York Times tried to sum-up the folly as follows : Similar fabricated claims of an imminent attack were also made after the fact by recreant US Secretary of State , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ House press conference , reporters asked Pompeo for specifics on the mystery ‘ intelligence ’ that the White House claims it has .
Pompeo flanked by Trump ’ s vexatious Minster of Sanctions , Steve Mnuchin , proceeded to stumble though the questions , and looking more and more like a throwback to the Bush Administration .
Remember those halcyon days when pathological liars were all the rage ?
“ There is no doubt that there were a series of imminent attacks that were being plotted by Qassem Soleimani , ” said Pompeo @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t know precisely when , and we don ’ t know precisely where , but it was real.
” When pressed by the interviewer who asked , “ Secretary Pompeo , ” he was asked , “ what is your definition of imminent ?
” Pompeo could be seen on his back heals , before unconfidently snapping back , “ This was gon na happen .
American lives were at risk.
” In other words , ‘ We don ’ t need to show you anything .
You just have to trust @ @ @ @ @ @ @ supposed highest ranking diplomat in the country , should be cause for serious concern .
It hasn ’ t helped that the media have been extremely weak in their pursuit of the truth .
SEE ALSO : Soleimani Was Pompeo ’ s Gulf of Tonkin Incident Language is crucial in order to advance their deception .
A single word can make or break the facade of a ‘ legal justification ’ used by Washington ’ s hawks to wage war .
In this case , the key word is “ imminent.
” As @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : How this narrative was spun by the White House and the State Dept is a good example of how Washington ’ s vaunted “ IC ” ( a reverent abbreviation for the ‘ Intelligence Community ’ ) is able to constantly fall back on a familiar scam , one of the more handy tools in its bag of tricks which is used to explain away to an obedient press and a hapless public .
This is achieved by nonchalantly conceding that while there was no single piece of intelligence about an attack @ @ @ @ @ @ @ flotsam and jetsam which collectively constitutes the “ mosaic effect ” of intelligence that represents a supposed real possibility that such an attack may be on the horizon .
The more vague and arbitrary , the better .
Such is the nature of ‘ intelligence ’ in 2020 .
I know , you are probably like me thinking , “ what complete and utter bullshit , ” but know that one man ’ s bullshit is another man ’ s mosaic masterpiece .
Sadly , this is what often passes for bona fide @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Careful not to alienate or admonish the IC , the New York Times authors Peter Baker and carefully construct a soft landing for Pompeo and chums here , skillfully explaining away what is an obvious fraud in a way only ‘ national security ’ journalists can do : So we can safely conclude that there was no intelligence , and no “ imminent threat , ” and therefore , the assassinations of Soleimani and al-Muhandis were carried out under a false pretext .
In any normal country , this would be a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anything but a normal country , and certainly not the kind of normal country which Pompeo imagines Iran will blossom into one day .
Combine this with what we now know – that Israeli intelligence provided Trump with the key location data which was used to carry out the state-sanctioned murder of Soleimani and al-Muhandis , and a disturbing picture quickly emerges – one where Washington is carrying out international actions on ever specious grounds .
SEE ALSO : CONFIRMED : Israeli Supplied Key Intelligence for US Assassination of Soleimani The coverage of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ case study of how ‘ national security ’ journalism becomes co-opted .
Even a seemingly conscientious mainstream reporter will still fall-back on the safe side , possibly thinking that , ‘ Well , we think it might be bullshit , but still have to respect the ‘ intelligence ’ anyway , no matter how spurious it appears to be .
As mainstream journalists , we must always adhere to the core narrative , for fear of losing access to our valuable sources inside the IC .
At the end of the day , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of IC sources that keeps us employed as mainline journalists.
’ In other words , this is the perfect example of a self-licking ice cream cone .
Once the story is laundered through the various mainstream oracles , then the American public are left with the idea that White House and the State Department might be guilty of “ fudging ” the intelligence , but because its classified matter , then there ’ s no way of really knowing if there was no intelligence .
Unfortunately , for gallant Resistance leaders heading the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ crimes do not rise to the level of high crimes by the Executive Branch , and therefore , not worthy of impeachment .
Alas , for Democrats , only contrived , non-existent offenses are impeachable .
So here we are , back again to square one , with yet another tenuous drive to war , backed by dodgy dossiers , riddled with sexed-up or nonexistent intelligence .
In this current hyper-partisan environment , the issue of war can also morph into a political wedge issue , especially if it ’ s being framed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conflict between the West and a Muslim country .
Already , social media is awash with Trump loyalists deriding Democrat dissenters as ” aiding the Ayatollah ” of Iran .
In this divisive environment , partisan journalists who are normally sympathetic to the antiwar cause but who identify as part of political right , will be afraid to defend Iran and also careful not to push too hard against the White House for fear of being labelled as unpatriotic .
At this point , partisan antibodies start to kick in , causing journalists @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whereby they will equate the behavior of an imperial superpower like the US , with a much smaller and less powerful nation like Iran .
“ Unlike the traitorous Democrats , we ’ re not afraid to call out the crimes of the Mullahs !
” , is the battle cry heard across America ’ s conservative talk radio spectrum .
In the end , this all serves to preserve American grand strategy for the Middle East and Central Asia .
Similarly , their journalistic counterparts on the left may pursue Trump to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ beyond where it undermines Beltway ’ s prevailing Middle East policy directives – currently driven primarily by Israeli and Saudi money and influence .
Until journalists and media outlets break free of proscribed partisan boundaries and institutional loyalties , there remains very little hope for a change in Washington ’ s worldview .
Of course , the media will still allow themselves to take a few pot-shots at the Orange Man in the White House , but not at the expense of the Israeli Lobby , the defense industry , and certainly in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ security state ’ s long-term objectives .
For the mainstream media ’ s career stenographers and the establishment ’ s loyal opposition , this means preserving the over-arching foreign policy narrative .
In the case of RussiaGate and UkraineGate , this is to continually demonize and isolate Russia .
In this current standoff with Iran , the priority is also to demonize and isolate the government in Tehran , but also to present Iran as a ‘ backward ’ culture that is in need of modernization and western-style ‘ democratic reforms.
’ If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this matter interferes with any of those long-term policy goals , then the press and political opposition will back off of Trump – no matter how egregious the war crime or cover-up might be .
This was , for the most part , the media ’ s unwritten policy under Clinton , Bush , and Obama .
If anything , this has been a great lesson into how Washington really works .
To any objective observer , it should now be crystal clear : Donald Trump has not drained the swamp .
He @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Neocons .
*** Author Patrick Henningsen is an American writer and global affairs analyst and founder of independent news and analysis site 21st Century Wire , and is host of the SUNDAY WIRE weekly radio show broadcast globally over the Alternate Current Radio Network ( ACR ) .
He has written for a number of international publications and has done extensive on-the-ground reporting in the Middle East including work in Syria and Iraq .
See his archive here .

By
Patrick Henningsen
21st Century Wire
The dominos continue to fall. Despite repeated protestations and assurances from Trump’s national security clique, the public has yet to see any sign of the much-celebrated ‘intelligence’ which the White House claims it has, and which was supposedly the basis for the double assassination of Iranian Quds Force leader, General Qasem Soleimani, and senior Iraqi PMU commander, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, on January 3rd.
Yesterday, US Defense Secretary Mark Esper joined the growing chorus of Trump officials muttering, I don’t know. Although due to his step down at the end of this month to cash-in with a lucrative board position in the defense industry, Esper now admits that he hasn’t seen any tangible evidence which indicated that Iran was plotting and planning to strike four US embassies in the Middle East, despite Trump’s repeated claims the attacks were “imminent.”
“The president didn’t cite a specific piece of evidence. What he said was he believed,” said Esper to CBS News flagship program, Face the Nation on Sunday. “I didn’t see one, with regard to four embassies.”
When pressed again, Esper conceded that the President didn’t actually cite any intelligence, but that “there probably could have been” some type of threat, although nothing he could cite specifically. That’s shorthand for, there wasn’t any.
From there, things continued to get worse for the Defense Secretary.
“There was intelligence that there was an intent to target the U.S. embassy in Baghdad,” he said. Here, Esper is employing a cheap sleight of hand by claiming there was intelligence which had to do with the US Embassy in Baghdad, but which is probably the same chatter from December 30th in the run-up to the US Embassy protests, likely recycled again to justify the subsequent illegal drone assassinations. Either way, the ‘threat’ was concocted by Trump’s overly enthusiastic advisors.
From there, Esper retreats to the hollowed ground of true believer.
Indeed, there is a certain degree of faith required with most things in this Administration. In this instance, he believes because the President believes, and so therefore it must be true. The empirical fiat is simply breathtaking:
“What the president said with regard to the four embassies is what I believe as well. He said that he believed that they probably, they could have been targeting the embassies in the region,” said Esper.
.
The New York Times tried to sum-up the folly as follows:
They had to kill him because he was planning an “imminent” attack. But how imminent they could not say. Where they could not say. When they could not say. And really, it was more about what he had already done. Or actually it was to stop him from hitting an American embassy. Or four embassies. Or not.
Similar fabricated claims of an imminent attack were also made after the fact by recreant US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo. During a recent White House press conference, reporters asked Pompeo for specifics on the mystery ‘intelligence’ that the White House claims it has. Pompeo flanked by Trump’s vexatious Minster of Sanctions, Steve Mnuchin, proceeded to stumble though the questions, and looking more and more like a throwback to the Bush Administration. Remember those halcyon days when pathological liars were all the rage?
“There is no doubt that there were a series of imminent attacks that were being plotted by Qassem Soleimani,” said Pompeo to Fox News. “We don’t know precisely when, and we don’t know precisely where, but it was real.”
When pressed by the interviewer who asked, “Secretary Pompeo,” he was asked, “what is your definition of imminent?” Pompeo could be seen on his back heals, before unconfidently snapping back, “This was gonna happen. American lives were at risk.”
https://twitter.com/i/status/1215473896654364672
In other words, ‘We don’t need to show you anything. You just have to trust us.’
Such open deception by the supposed highest ranking diplomat in the country, should be cause for serious concern. It hasn’t helped that the media have been extremely weak in their pursuit of the truth.
SEE ALSO: Soleimani Was Pompeo’s Gulf of Tonkin Incident
Language is crucial in order to advance their deception. A single word can make or break the facade of a ‘legal justification’ used by Washington’s hawks to wage war. In this case, the key word is “imminent.” As David Welna from NPR aptly points out:
The word “imminent” appears several times in the 1973 War Powers Resolution, a document that lays out the ground rules for presidents seeking to send U.S. forces “into hostilities or into situations where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances.”
How this narrative was spun by the White House and the State Dept is a good example of how Washington’s vaunted “IC” (a reverent abbreviation for the ‘Intelligence Community’) is able to constantly fall back on a familiar scam, one of the more handy tools in its bag of tricks which is used to explain away to an obedient press and a hapless public. This is achieved by nonchalantly conceding that while there was no single piece of intelligence about an attack, there is a compelling array of flotsam and jetsam which collectively constitutes the “mosaic effect” of intelligence that represents a supposed real possibility that such an attack may be on the horizon. The more vague and arbitrary, the better. Such is the nature of ‘intelligence’ in 2020.
I know, you are probably like me thinking, “what complete and utter bullshit,” but know that one man’s bullshit is another man’s mosaic masterpiece. Sadly, this is what often passes for bona fide ‘intel’ in Washington these days.
Careful not to alienate or admonish the IC, the New York Times authors Peter Baker and carefully construct a soft landing for Pompeo and chums here, skillfully explaining away what is an obvious fraud in a way only ‘national security’ journalists can do:
“Intelligence officials, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe sensitive data collection, have said there was no single definitive piece of information about a coming attack. Instead, C.I.A. officers described a “mosaic effect,” multiple scraps of information that came together indicating that General Suleimani was organizing proxy forces around the region, including in Lebanon, Yemen and Iraq, to attack American embassies and bases. Several officials said they did not have enough concrete information to describe such a threat as “imminent,” despite the administration’s assertion, but they did see a worrying pattern. A State Department official has privately said it was a mistake for Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to use the word “imminent” because it suggested a level of specificity that was not borne out by the intelligence.”
So we can safely conclude that there was no intelligence, and no “imminent threat,” and therefore, the assassinations of Soleimani and al-Muhandis were carried out under a false pretext. In any normal country, this would be a scandal, but the United States is anything but a normal country, and certainly not the kind of normal country which Pompeo imagines Iran will blossom into one day. Combine this with what we now know – that Israeli intelligence provided Trump with the key location data which was used to carry out the state-sanctioned murder of Soleimani and al-Muhandis, and a disturbing picture quickly emerges – one where Washington is carrying out international actions on ever specious grounds.
SEE ALSO: CONFIRMED: Israeli Supplied Key Intelligence for US Assassination of Soleimani
The coverage of this story also makes for a good case study of how ‘national security’ journalism becomes co-opted. Even a seemingly conscientious mainstream reporter will still fall-back on the safe side, possibly thinking that, ‘Well, we think it might be bullshit, but still have to respect the ‘intelligence’ anyway, no matter how spurious it appears to be. As mainstream journalists, we must always adhere to the core narrative, for fear of losing access to our valuable sources inside the IC. At the end of the day, it’s our impressive black book of IC sources that keeps us employed as mainline journalists.’
In other words, this is the perfect example of a self-licking ice cream cone.
Once the story is laundered through the various mainstream oracles, then the American public are left with the idea that White House and the State Department might be guilty of “fudging” the intelligence, but because its classified matter, then there’s no way of really knowing if there was no intelligence. Unfortunately, for gallant Resistance leaders heading the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives, such war crimes do not rise to the level of high crimes by the Executive Branch, and therefore, not worthy of impeachment. Alas, for Democrats, only contrived, non-existent offenses are impeachable.
So here we are, back again to square one, with yet another tenuous drive to war, backed by dodgy dossiers, riddled with sexed-up or nonexistent intelligence.
In this current hyper-partisan environment, the issue of war can also morph into a political wedge issue, especially if it’s being framed as a “clash of civilizations” conflict between the West and a Muslim country. Already, social media is awash with Trump loyalists deriding Democrat dissenters as ”aiding the Ayatollah” of Iran. In this divisive environment, partisan journalists who are normally sympathetic to the antiwar cause but who identify as part of political right, will be afraid to defend Iran and also careful not to push too hard against the White House for fear of being labelled as unpatriotic. At this point, partisan antibodies start to kick in, causing journalists to invoke a pseudo ‘objectivity’ whereby they will equate the behavior of an imperial superpower like the US, with a much smaller and less powerful nation like Iran. “Unlike the traitorous Democrats, we’re not afraid to call out the crimes of the Mullahs!”, is the battle cry heard across America’s conservative talk radio spectrum. In the end, this all serves to preserve American grand strategy for the Middle East and Central Asia. Similarly, their journalistic counterparts on the left may pursue Trump to up to a point, but not beyond where it undermines Beltway’s prevailing Middle East policy directives – currently driven primarily by Israeli and Saudi money and influence. Until journalists and media outlets break free of proscribed partisan boundaries and institutional loyalties, there remains very little hope for a change in Washington’s worldview.
Of course, the media will still allow themselves to take a few pot-shots at the Orange Man in the White House, but not at the expense of the Israeli Lobby, the defense industry, and certainly in no way that might undermine the national security state’s long-term objectives. For the mainstream media’s career stenographers and the establishment’s loyal opposition, this means preserving the over-arching foreign policy narrative. In the case of RussiaGate and UkraineGate, this is to continually demonize and isolate Russia. In this current standoff with Iran, the priority is also to demonize and isolate the government in Tehran, but also to present Iran as a ‘backward’ culture that is in need of modernization and western-style ‘democratic reforms.’ If the effort to censure the President on this matter interferes with any of those long-term policy goals, then the press and political opposition will back off of Trump – no matter how egregious the war crime or cover-up might be. This was, for the most part, the media’s unwritten policy under Clinton, Bush, and Obama.
If anything, this has been a great lesson into how Washington really works.
To any objective observer, it should now be crystal clear: Donald Trump has not drained the swamp. He has merely re-organized it, for the Neocons.
***
Author Patrick Henningsen is an American writer and global affairs analyst and founder of independent news and analysis site 21st Century Wire, and is host of the SUNDAY WIRE weekly radio show broadcast globally over the Alternate Current Radio Network (ACR). He has written for a number of international publications and has done extensive on-the-ground reporting in the Middle East including work in Syria and Iraq. See his archive here.
READ MORE IRAN NEWS AT: 21st Century Wire Iran Files
SUPPORT OUR INDEPENDENT MEDIA PLATFORM – BECOME A MEMBER @21WIRE.TV


21stcenturywire--2020-01-15--Sadr Calls for “Million Man March’ as US Refuses to Leave Iraq

Following the Trump Administration ’ s double-assassination of both Iraq ’ s and Iran ’ s leading military commanders , the US immediately faced calls from the Iraqi Parliament to remove its 5,000 troops and personnel from the country .
In typical colonial fashion , the Trump Administration then threatened Baghdad with economic sanctions for daring to act independently by asking US forces to leave their country – and finally freeing itself from a 17 year-long US military occupation .
Of course , it wasn ’ t going to end there .
Adding further insult to injury , the White @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to close Iraq ’ s crucial oil trading account located at the US Federal Reserve Bank in New York .
Washington ’ s attempts at dominating Iraq continued to backfire this week , as influential religious and military figures joined in solidarity against the increasingly punitive policies of the United States .
Foreign Policy magazine describes the rapid sea change created by recent ham-fisted US actions : This renewed coalition is also creating friction with US-backed ‘ student ’ protesters who had previously destablized parts of the county this past autumn .
All @ @ @ @ @ @ @ another potential political confrontation in the Iraq , but one which may net very different results from what was witnessed before Christmas .
Iraq ’ s populist Shia leader Muqtada al-Sadr has called for a “ million-man march ” against the presence of United States troops in Iraq just days after the country ’ s parliament voted to expel foreign troops from Iraq .
“ The skies , land and sovereignty of Iraq are being violated every day by occupying forces , ” Sadr , who also leads the Sairoon political bloc , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to hold “ a million-man , peaceful , unified demonstration to condemn the American presence and its violations ” , without specifying a date or location for the march .
On January 5 , Iraq ’ s parliament passed a resolution that called on the government to expel foreign troops and cancel its request for assistance from the US-led coalition that had been working with Baghdad to fight the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant ( ISIL or ISIS ) group .
Around 5,000 US troops are left in Iraq – most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in an advisory capacity to help the Iran-backed Popular Mobilisation Forces ( PMF , or Hashd al-Shaabi ) , an umbrella group of mostly Iran-backed Shia paramilitary groups , from 2014 to 2017 in their fight against ISIL .
The parliament vote came after US air strikes killed Iran ’ s General Qassem Soleimani and Iraqi paramilitary commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis just outside Baghdad International Airport in a move ordered by US President Donald Trump .
SEE ALSO : Trump Stands Down Against Iran , U.S .
Still in Denial of ‘ New @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s resolution as a “ weak response ” , saying the move fell short of an appropriate reaction to recent developments in Iraq and calling on armed groups in Iraq to unite .
In a letter to parliament read out by a supporter at the time , Sadr listed a number of demands , including the immediate cancellation of the security agreement with the US , closure of the US embassy , expulsion of US troops in a “ humiliating manner ” , and the criminalisation of communication with the US government .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ with leaders of several armed groups within the PMF in the Iranian city of Qom .
The meeting was also attended by Kataib Hezbollah , the Iraqi armed group whose 25 fighters were killed when the US launched air strikes against it on December 30 , 2019 , in response to the killing of a US civilian contractor two days earlier .
NOTE : 21WIRE has previously reported on how supposed ‘ grassroots ’ protests are often conceived or co-opted by the US regime change agents of influence , namely the US State @ @ @ @ @ @ @ familiar conclave of US and European-based “ pro-democracy ” NGOs .
This appears to have been the case in Iraq too , as evidenced during October-December 2019 protests with Washington actively encouraging anti-Iranian sectarian divisions – which quickly escalated into violence clashes with Iraqi police reacting to protesters using arson as a weapon of desablization , burning buildings and also the Iranian consulate .
In early December , Washington used the opportunity to launch a raft of new sanctions against supposed “ Iranian militia , ” which are really Iraqi People ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what would take place in the closing days of 2019 , nearly leading to a full-scale war with Iran .
This action culminated in the forced resignation of Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi .
Somewhat predictably , these same US-backed protesters are now framing events of the last three weeks as a “ Shia ” and “ Iranian ” issue , as opposed to Iraqi independence and are curiously aligned with nearly all of Washington ’ s positions and policies .
Here , Al Jazeera reports how these same student protesters are mirroring @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in opposition to Sadr ’ s calls to end the US military occupation of Iraq : But in Baghdad ’ s Tahrir Square , the hub of the protest movement in the capital , demonstrators rejected Sadr ’ s calls on Tuesday , saying they want escalating tensions between Iran and the US to be moved out of the country .
“ We reject these calls [ for the march ] because they have nothing to do with our demands , ” a 20-year-old university student , Jaber al-Khalili , told Al Jazeera @ @ @ @ @ @ @ We are not interested in Sadr ’ s calls or those of any other political leader .
We want them [ political leaders ] all gone.
” “ This call is specific to supporters and member of the Shia armed and political groups .
These calls have nothing to do with our demands as protesters , ” said Khraybit…

By
Following the Trump Administration’s double-assassination of both Iraq’s and Iran’s leading military commanders, the US immediately faced calls from the Iraqi Parliament to remove its 5,000 troops and personnel from the country. In typical colonial fashion, the Trump Administration then threatened Baghdad with economic sanctions for daring to act independently by asking US forces to leave their country – and finally freeing itself from a 17 year-long US military occupation. Of course, it wasn’t going to end there.
Adding further insult to injury, the White House then resorted to blackmail by threatening to close Iraq’s crucial oil trading account located at the US Federal Reserve Bank in New York.
Washington’s attempts at dominating Iraq continued to backfire this week, as influential religious and military figures joined in solidarity against the increasingly punitive policies of the United States.
Foreign Policy magazine describes the rapid sea change created by recent ham-fisted US actions:
And so Suleimani may now be closer to achieving in death what he was unable to produce in life: a countermovement to the demonstrations, one that pivots Iraq back toward Iran and solidifies its political establishment. Suleimani’s assassination by the Americans has provided a much-needed shot of legitimacy to Iraq’s unpopular—and Shiite-dominated—leadership, who have not only close links to Iran but also a vested interest in suppressing the domestic popular movement against them.
This renewed coalition is also creating friction with US-backed ‘student’ protesters who had previously destablized parts of the county this past autumn. All of this is setting the stage for another potential political confrontation in Iraq, but one which may net very different results from what was witnessed before Christmas.
Al Jazeera reports…
Iraq’s populist Shia leader Muqtada al-Sadr has called for a “million-man march” against the presence of United States troops in Iraq just days after the country’s parliament voted to expel foreign troops from Iraq.
“The skies, land and sovereignty of Iraq are being violated every day by occupying forces,” Sadr, who also leads the Sairoon political bloc, wrote on Twitter.
He told Iraqis to hold “a million-man, peaceful, unified demonstration to condemn the American presence and its violations”, without specifying a date or location for the march.
On January 5, Iraq’s parliament passed a resolution that called on the government to expel foreign troops and cancel its request for assistance from the US-led coalition that had been working with Baghdad to fight the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL or ISIS) group.
Around 5,000 US troops are left in Iraq – most of them soldiers who came to Iraq in an advisory capacity to help the Iran-backed Popular Mobilisation Forces (PMF, or Hashd al-Shaabi), an umbrella group of mostly Iran-backed Shia paramilitary groups, from 2014 to 2017 in their fight against ISIL.
The parliament vote came after US air strikes killed Iran’s General Qassem Soleimani and Iraqi paramilitary commander Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis just outside Baghdad International Airport in a move ordered by US President Donald Trump.
SEE ALSO: Trump Stands Down Against Iran, U.S. Still in Denial of ‘New Middle East’
Sadr condemned parliament’s resolution as a “weak response”, saying the move fell short of an appropriate reaction to recent developments in Iraq and calling on armed groups in Iraq to unite.
In a letter to parliament read out by a supporter at the time, Sadr listed a number of demands, including the immediate cancellation of the security agreement with the US, closure of the US embassy, expulsion of US troops in a “humiliating manner”, and the criminalisation of communication with the US government.
On Monday, Sadr held a meeting with leaders of several armed groups within the PMF in the Iranian city of Qom.
The meeting was also attended by Kataib Hezbollah, the Iraqi armed group whose 25 fighters were killed when the US launched air strikes against it on December 30, 2019, in response to the killing of a US civilian contractor two days earlier.
***
NOTE: 21WIRE has previously reported on how supposed ‘grassroots’ protests are often conceived or co-opted by the US regime change agents of influence, namely the US State Department, CIA, or through a familiar conclave of US and European-based “pro-democracy” NGOs. This appears to have been the case in Iraq too, as evidenced during October-December 2019 protests with Washington actively encouraging anti-Iranian sectarian divisions – which quickly escalated into violence clashes with Iraqi police reacting to protesters using arson as a weapon of desablization, burning buildings and also the Iranian consulate. In early December, Washington used the opportunity to launch a raft of new sanctions against supposed “Iranian militia,” which are really Iraqi People’s Mobilization (PMU) militias – foreshadowing what would take place in the closing days of 2019, nearly leading to a full-scale war with Iran. This action culminated in the forced resignation of Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi. Somewhat predictably, these same US-backed protesters are now framing events of the last three weeks as a “Shia” and “Iranian” issue, as opposed to Iraqi independence and are curiously aligned with nearly all of Washington’s positions and policies.
Here, Al Jazeera reports how these same student protesters are mirroring US demands, and seem to be in opposition to Sadr’s calls to end the US military occupation of Iraq:
But in Baghdad’s Tahrir Square, the hub of the protest movement in the capital, demonstrators rejected Sadr’s calls on Tuesday, saying they want escalating tensions between Iran and the US to be moved out of the country.
“We reject these calls [for the march] because they have nothing to do with our demands,” a 20-year-old university student, Jaber al-Khalili, told Al Jazeera from the protests’ roundabout.
“We are not interested in Sadr’s calls or those of any other political leader. We want them [political leaders] all gone.”
Ali Khraybit, a 27-year-old filmmaker and protester, agreed.
“This call is specific to supporters and member of the Shia armed and political groups. These calls have nothing to do with our demands as protesters,” said Khraybit…
Continue this report at Al Jazeera
READ MORE IRAQ NEWS AT: 21st Century Wire Iraq Files
SUPPORT OUR INDEPENDENT MEDIA PLATFORM – BECOME A MEMBER @21WIRE.TV


21stcenturywire--2020-01-15--(VIDEO) ‘5 Lies About Iran’s Strikes – Debunked’

During the last three weeks , the world saw an incredible military and political exchange take place between the United @ @ @ @ @ really happened and why ?
Maram Sulsi aka Syrian Girl , breaks down some of @ @ @ @ @ recent standoff between Washington and Tehran .
Both western mainstream media , and social media @ @ @ @ @ aspects of this story to suit various geopolitical or partisan bents .
To this point @ @ @ @ @ The myth of invincibility is what allows the US to start these wars , the @ @ @ @ @ ”

By
During the last three weeks, the world saw an incredible military and political exchange take place between the United States and Iran. What really happened and why?
Maram Sulsi aka Syrian Girl, breaks down some of the common misconceptions regarding the recent standoff between Washington and Tehran. Both western mainstream media, and social media punditry, have spun various aspects of this story to suit various geopolitical or partisan bents. To this point, she states, “The myth of invincibility is what allows the US to start these wars, the truth must be shown.”
Watch, “5 LIES ABOUT IRAN’S STRIKES – DEBUNKED”:
.
READ MORE IRAN NEWS AT: 21st Century Wire Iran Files
SUPPORT OUR INDEPENDENT MEDIA PLATFORM – BECOME A MEMBER @21WIRE.TV


21stcenturywire--2020-01-15--Western Media Coverage of Russia: A Perfect Case Study in Propaganda

The notion of “ fake news ” has entered our vocabulary as a pejorative term for dissemination of bogus information , usually by social media , sometimes by traditional print and electronic channels which happen to hold positions contradicting the tenets of our conventional wisdom , i.e.
, liberal democracy .
The term has been applied to Russian state owned media such as RT to justify denying such outlets normal journalistic credentials and privileges .
In this essay , I will employ the more traditional term propaganda , which I take to mean the manipulation of information which may or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to achieve objectives of denigrating rivals for influence and power in the world , and in particular for denigrating Russia and the “ Putin regime.
” The working tools of such propaganda are • tendentious determination of what constitutes news , which build on the inherent predisposition of journalism to feature the negative and omit the positive from daily reporting while they carry this predisposition to preposterous lengths • the abandonment of journalism ’ s traditional “ intermediation , ” meaning provision of necessary context to make sense of the facts set out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In this regard , the propagandistic journalist does not deliver the essential element of paid-for journalism which should distinguish it from free “ fake news ” on social media and on the internet more broadly • silence , meaning under-reporting or zero reporting of inconvenient news which contradicts the conventional wisdom or might prompt the reader-viewer to think for himself or herself .
As a colleague and comrade in arms , professor Steve Cohen of Princeton and NYU , has said in his latest book War with Russia ?
: the century @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ All the news that ’ s fit to print ” has in our day turned into “ All the news that fits.
” Demonstrations of the arguments I present here could easily fill a book if not a library shelf .
However , I think for purposes of this essay , it suffices to adduce several examples of the three violations of professional journalism giving us a constant stream of propaganda about Russia and its political leadership by offering a few reports drawn from the very cream of our print and electronic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chosen as markers the Financial Times and the BBC .
The use of propaganda methods in their coverage of Russia is all the more telling and damaging , given that in a great many domains these channels otherwise represent some of the highest quality standards to be found in reporting anywhere today and consequently enjoy the respect of their subscribers and visitors , who little suspect they could be so prejudicial in their coverage of select domains like Russia .
As 2019 drew to a close , many of our media outlets drew @ @ @ @ @ @ @ just celebrated thirtieth anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall with the retreat of Soviet armed forces from Eastern Europe that it touched off ; and the soon to be celebrated twentieth year of Vladimir Putin ’ s hold on power in the Kremlin .
Both subjects may be fairly called news worthy and so fully correspond to traditional journalistic values .
What has been exceptional and unacceptable has come in the second category of violations listed above – lack of context .
Starting in October 2019 , the BBC ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dedicated to the fall of the Berlin Wall .
During the Christmas to New Year ’ s period , the BBC aired one program which consisted of two parts .
In the first half , Rosenberg considered the impact of the withdrawal of Russian forces from East Germany on the Russians themselves and interviewed the former chief of those forces , who explained at length how they “ came home ” to shocking living conditions in the provinces , how they were abandoned to their fate by their own government .
The tone @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ hardships and it was good that their side of the story from the ground up was given the microphone .
What implied criticism there was of the powers that be came from a patriotic source .
However , the second half of the program was turned over to a certain Lydia Shevtsova , a very outspoken Putin-hater , formerly with the Carnegie Center Moscow , till she was finally booted out and moved to a more congenial and supportive think tank , Chatham House , in London , where her anti-Russian vitriol @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ex-British ambassador to Moscow Sir Andrew Wood .
Among the gem quotations which Shevtsova delivered was the claim that Russia under Putin is a declining power which is capable only of disrupting the world order , a spoiler not capable of any creative or productive contribution .
Of course , Shevtsova has a right to her opinions , however the BBC had an obligation to its audience to explain exactly who the lady is and , if they wanted to practice fair play , to offer an alternative interpretation of what Vladimir @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the global stage today .
They did not do either .
The result was pure propaganda not news and analysis .
As for violations in the categories one and two above , a very good example arose following the recent publication of a study performed by the Levada Center public opinion polling organization in Moscow during October which showed that “ 53 per cent of 18-to-24 year-olds wanted to leave the country.
” This was written about by many of our news peddlers , including FT .
The decision to feature this factoid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Putin regime ’ is a failure fits well with tendentiousness of our news coverage .
Meanwhile , nearly all coverage of that study , including in the Financial Times , offered no contextual information whatsoever , when the context was begging to be told .
The article in FT which carried the Levada Center findings was published on 9 January as “ Generation Putin : how young Russians view the only leader they ’ ve ever known.
” The remarks on Levada followed directly on another statement begging for context : “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ three times the rate of the total population , according to 2018 data , compared with just twice the rate in 2000.
” First , as regards those 53 % would-be “ leavers , ” one might ask : and so , why don ’ t they just leave ?
Russia today is truly a free country : anyone other than convicted felons who wants a passport can get it , and get it rather quickly .
And thanks to the efforts of their remarkably hardworking Ministry of Foreign Affairs , most of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ visa requirement .
But for that matter , getting a Schengen visa for the EU is not so complicated either .
However , those 53 % are , in fact , not going anywhere .
They are just sounding off about their youthful disgruntlement with a world created and run by their parents .
At the same time , as the Financial Times editorial board knows full well , young , middle-aged and even old have been leaving the Baltic States , Bulgaria , Romania and other former Soviet Bloc countries in droves @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the present day .
That was the subject of an article published in the FT on the next day , 10 January 2020 under a title which speaks for itself : “ Shrinking Europe.
” The states I mentioned here have seen 25 and 30 % loss of their population to citizens voting with their feet and departing the shrinking economies and personal prospects which result directly from deindustrialization and economic colonization by Germany and other founding Member States of the EU since 1991 .
The issue appears in the news now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Andrej Plenkovic , the Croatian prime minister , has decided to elevate population decline to the top of his agenda as Zagreb assumes the EU ’ s rotating presidency.
” Good for him !
Now that the skeleton has finally come out of the EU closet , all the stories about Russia ’ s demographic crisis can be put in context – by those few who wish to do so .
Second , as regards unemployment in Russia today , I believe that similar ratios of youth unemployment to the general population @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Western Europe if not in the world at large .
The fact that this ratio has worsened comparatively in Russia since 2000 may be explained by the anomalous situation in Russia prevailing throughout the 1990s in step with the economic collapse that accompanied the transition to a market economy .
Precisely the older generations , those over 40 , were thrown into the street and their children or grandchildren were the first to be hired by the newly emerging industrial conglomerates , not to mention by Western multinationals settling in .
What has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to more normal distribution of employment and unemployment in the population as the Russian economy stabilizes .
Moreover , it would have been helpful had the author named the current level of youth and general unemployment in Russia .
In fact , the general unemployment in Russia stands at something like 5 % , so youth unemployment would be 15 % by his reckoning .
I assure you that there are many EU Member States that would be delighted to have similarly low unemployment rates .
Here in Brussels the general rate has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or more , while youth unemployment has always been considerably higher .
For those who find my examples above too subtle to support my argument for egregious propagandistic treatment of Russia in our media , allow me to introduce violation number three , silence , in a way that should sweep away all objections to my thesis .
I draw your attention to an event that occurred in the past week about which you probably know nothing , or perhaps a wee bit from the odd man out reporting in the Wall Street @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I am talking about the visit of Vladimir Putin to Damascus on Tuesday , 7 January .
To their credit , the WSJ carried a short article in their 8 January edition , but went no further than to note this was the second visit by Putin since the Russians joined the fight in support of President Bashar Assad back in September 2015 , turning the tide in the civil war his way .
That is true , but only represents a tiny slice of what all our journalists , including the WSJ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ learn from watching Russian state television on the 7th .
What our media chose not to report was passed over in silence because it shows the complexity of Russia ’ s policy in the Middle East that includes but goes well outside the domain of pure geopolitics .
This is so not least because of the date chosen for the visit , which happens to be Orthodox Christmas .
On the evening of the 6th , that is to say on Christmas eve , by the Russian Orthodox calendar , Russian state television @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the Christ the Savior cathedral in Moscow officiated by Patriarch Kirill , with prime minister Medvedev present on behalf of the Government .
Then it cut to the service in St. Petersburg , where Vladimir Putin sat in the congregation , as is his custom .
The commentator mentioned in passing that the Patriarch ’ s father , a parish priest , just happened to be the one who baptized Vladimir Putin as a child where they all lived , in the Northern Capital .
The next coverage of Putin on state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , where he obviously arrived on a night flight from Petersburg .
I did not see video coverage , perhaps because the journalist pool was very limited for security reasons .
But still photos and reports on state television informed us that Putin had not merely held talks with President Assad on the Russian military base outside the capital , but had strolled together with him down the streets of Damascus , had visited the main church in the ( still existing ) Christian quarter of the city , had presented to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Virgin and had also gone on to visit the city ’ s oldest and largest mosque .
What you have here is precisely the second line of justification for Russian presence in Syria alongside military/geopolitical reasons : resuming Russia ’ s 19th century role as protector of the Orthodox population in the Holy Land and the broader Middle East .
A similar role was exercised back then by France on behalf of the Catholic populations , but that since has been totally negated by rampant secularism and multiculturalism in Western Europe .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s visit to Damascus was back-to-back with other very high visibility political statements : his visit to Istanbul on the 8th for the official opening of the TurkSteam gas pipeline and for lengthy talks with President Erdogan that ended in a joint statement calling for a truce in the Libyan civil war for which Russia and Turkey support opposing sides ; and his visit on the 9th to Russian naval exercises in the Eastern Mediterranean that included the launch of Russia ’ s latest hypersonic missiles , the reality of which U.S. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ acknowledge .
With this I rest my case on the unfortunate propagandistic behavior of our media which deprive the broad Western public of any chance to make sense of the most dangerous military and political standoff of our age .
Gilbert Doctorow is a Brussels-based political analyst .
His latest book Does Russia Have a Future ?
was published in August 2017 .
Reprinted with permission from his blog .

By
Gilbert Doctorow
Antiwar.com
The notion of “fake news” has entered our vocabulary as a pejorative term for dissemination of bogus information, usually by social media, sometimes by traditional print and electronic channels which happen to hold positions contradicting the tenets of our conventional wisdom, i.e., liberal democracy. The term has been applied to Russian state owned media such as RT to justify denying such outlets normal journalistic credentials and privileges.
In this essay, I will employ the more traditional term propaganda, which I take to mean the manipulation of information which may or may not be factually true in order to achieve objectives of denigrating rivals for influence and power in the world, and in particular for denigrating Russia and the “Putin regime.”
The working tools of such propaganda are
tendentious determination of what constitutes news, which build on the inherent predisposition of journalism to feature the negative and omit the positive from daily reporting while they carry this predisposition to preposterous lengths
.
the abandonment of journalism’s traditional “intermediation,” meaning provision of necessary context to make sense of the facts set out in the body of a news report. In this regard, the propagandistic journalist does not deliver the essential element of paid-for journalism which should distinguish it from free “fake news” on social media and on the internet more broadly
.
silence, meaning under-reporting or zero reporting of inconvenient news which contradicts the conventional wisdom or might prompt the reader-viewer to think for himself or herself. As a colleague and comrade in arms, professor Steve Cohen of Princeton and NYU, has said in his latest book War with Russia?: the century old motto of The New York Times “All the news that’s fit to print” has in our day turned into “All the news that fits.”
Demonstrations of the arguments I present here could easily fill a book if not a library shelf. However, I think for purposes of this essay, it suffices to adduce several examples of the three violations of professional journalism giving us a constant stream of propaganda about Russia and its political leadership by offering a few reports drawn from the very cream of our print and electronic media. In particular, I have chosen as markers the Financial Times and the BBC. The use of propaganda methods in their coverage of Russia is all the more telling and damaging, given that in a great many domains these channels otherwise represent some of the highest quality standards to be found in reporting anywhere today and consequently enjoy the respect of their subscribers and visitors, who little suspect they could be so prejudicial in their coverage of select domains like Russia.
As 2019 drew to a close, many of our media outlets drew attention to two Russia-related anniversaries: the just celebrated thirtieth anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall with the retreat of Soviet armed forces from Eastern Europe that it touched off; and the soon to be celebrated twentieth year of Vladimir Putin’s hold on power in the Kremlin. Both subjects may be fairly called news worthy and so fully correspond to traditional journalistic values. What has been exceptional and unacceptable has come in the second category of violations listed above – lack of context.
Starting in October 2019, the BBC’s Moscow correspondent Steve Rosenberg did several programs dedicated to the fall of the Berlin Wall. During the Christmas to New Year’s period, the BBC aired one program which consisted of two parts. In the first half, Rosenberg considered the impact of the withdrawal of Russian forces from East Germany on the Russians themselves and interviewed the former chief of those forces, who explained at length how they “came home” to shocking living conditions in the provinces, how they were abandoned to their fate by their own government. The tone of the reporting was sympathetic to Russians’ hardships and it was good that their side of the story from the ground up was given the microphone. What implied criticism there was of the powers that be came from a patriotic source. However, the second half of the program was turned over to a certain Lydia Shevtsova, a very outspoken Putin-hater, formerly with the Carnegie Center Moscow, till she was finally booted out and moved to a more congenial and supportive think tank, Chatham House, in London, where her anti-Russian vitriol is encouraged and disseminated by her co-author, ex-British ambassador to Moscow Sir Andrew Wood. Among the gem quotations which Shevtsova delivered was the claim that Russia under Putin is a declining power which is capable only of disrupting the world order, a spoiler not capable of any creative or productive contribution. Of course, Shevtsova has a right to her opinions, however the BBC had an obligation to its audience to explain exactly who the lady is and, if they wanted to practice fair play, to offer an alternative interpretation of what Vladimir Putin’s Russia stands for on the global stage today. They did not do either. The result was pure propaganda not news and analysis.
As for violations in the categories one and two above, a very good example arose following the recent publication of a study performed by the Levada Center public opinion polling organization in Moscow during October which showed that “53 per cent of 18-to-24 year-olds wanted to leave the country.” This was written about by many of our news peddlers, including FT. The decision to feature this factoid and use it to support claims that the Putin regime’ is a failure fits well with tendentiousness of our news coverage. Meanwhile, nearly all coverage of that study, including in the Financial Times, offered no contextual information whatsoever, when the context was begging to be told.
The article in FT which carried the Levada Center findings was published on 9 January as “Generation Putin: how young Russians view the only leader they’ve ever known.” The remarks on Levada followed directly on another statement begging for context: “Youth unemployment in Russia is more than three times the rate of the total population, according to 2018 data, compared with just twice the rate in 2000.”
First, as regards those 53% would-be “leavers,” one might ask: and so, why don’t they just leave? Russia today is truly a free country: anyone other than convicted felons who wants a passport can get it, and get it rather quickly. And thanks to the efforts of their remarkably hardworking Ministry of Foreign Affairs, most of the world welcomes Russian travelers without a visa requirement. But for that matter, getting a Schengen visa for the EU is not so complicated either.
However, those 53% are, in fact, not going anywhere. They are just sounding off about their youthful disgruntlement with a world created and run by their parents.
At the same time, as the Financial Times editorial board knows full well, young, middle-aged and even old have been leaving the Baltic States, Bulgaria, Romania and other former Soviet Bloc countries in droves, for the past thirty years up to the present day. That was the subject of an article published in the FT on the next day, 10 January 2020 under a title which speaks for itself: “Shrinking Europe.” The states I mentioned here have seen 25 and 30% loss of their population to citizens voting with their feet and departing the shrinking economies and personal prospects which result directly from deindustrialization and economic colonization by Germany and other founding Member States of the EU since 1991. The issue appears in the news now because, as the FT explains, “Andrej Plenkovic, the Croatian prime minister, has decided to elevate population decline to the top of his agenda as Zagreb assumes the EU’s rotating presidency.” Good for him! Now that the skeleton has finally come out of the EU closet, all the stories about Russia’s demographic crisis can be put in context – by those few who wish to do so.
Second, as regards unemployment in Russia today, I believe that similar ratios of youth unemployment to the general population unemployment can be found most everywhere in Western Europe if not in the world at large. The fact that this ratio has worsened comparatively in Russia since 2000 may be explained by the anomalous situation in Russia prevailing throughout the 1990s in step with the economic collapse that accompanied the transition to a market economy. Precisely the older generations, those over 40, were thrown into the street and their children or grandchildren were the first to be hired by the newly emerging industrial conglomerates, not to mention by Western multinationals settling in. What has happened since 2000 is merely a reversion to more normal distribution of employment and unemployment in the population as the Russian economy stabilizes.
Moreover, it would have been helpful had the author named the current level of youth and general unemployment in Russia. In fact, the general unemployment in Russia stands at something like 5%, so youth unemployment would be 15% by his reckoning. I assure you that there are many EU Member States that would be delighted to have similarly low unemployment rates. Here in Brussels the general rate has been over 20% for ten years or more, while youth unemployment has always been considerably higher.
Dear Reader!
For those who find my examples above too subtle to support my argument for egregious propagandistic treatment of Russia in our media, allow me to introduce violation number three, silence, in a way that should sweep away all objections to my thesis.
I draw your attention to an event that occurred in the past week about which you probably know nothing, or perhaps a wee bit from the odd man out reporting in the Wall Street Journal and a few other outlets. I am talking about the visit of Vladimir Putin to Damascus on Tuesday, 7 January. To their credit, the WSJ carried a short article in their 8 January edition, but went no further than to note this was the second visit by Putin since the Russians joined the fight in support of President Bashar Assad back in September 2015, turning the tide in the civil war his way. That is true, but only represents a tiny slice of what all our journalists, including the WSJ’s could have and possibly did learn from watching Russian state television on the 7th. What our media chose not to report was passed over in silence because it shows the complexity of Russia’s policy in the Middle East that includes but goes well outside the domain of pure geopolitics. This is so not least because of the date chosen for the visit, which happens to be Orthodox Christmas.
On the evening of the 6th, that is to say on Christmas eve, by the Russian Orthodox calendar, Russian state television broadcast live coverage of the Christmas service in the Christ the Savior cathedral in Moscow officiated by Patriarch Kirill, with prime minister Medvedev present on behalf of the Government. Then it cut to the service in St. Petersburg, where Vladimir Putin sat in the congregation, as is his custom. The commentator mentioned in passing that the Patriarch’s father, a parish priest, just happened to be the one who baptized Vladimir Putin as a child where they all lived, in the Northern Capital.
The next coverage of Putin on state television was from Damascus on the 7th, where he obviously arrived on a night flight from Petersburg. I did not see video coverage, perhaps because the journalist pool was very limited for security reasons. But still photos and reports on state television informed us that Putin had not merely held talks with President Assad on the Russian military base outside the capital, but had strolled together with him down the streets of Damascus, had visited the main church in the (still existing) Christian quarter of the city, had presented to the Patriarch of Antioch an icon of the Virgin and had also gone on to visit the city’s oldest and largest mosque.
What you have here is precisely the second line of justification for Russian presence in Syria alongside military/geopolitical reasons: resuming Russia’s 19th century role as protector of the Orthodox population in the Holy Land and the broader Middle East. A similar role was exercised back then by France on behalf of the Catholic populations, but that since has been totally negated by rampant secularism and multiculturalism in Western Europe.
It also has to be said that Putin’s visit to Damascus was back-to-back with other very high visibility political statements: his visit to Istanbul on the 8th for the official opening of the TurkSteam gas pipeline and for lengthy talks with President Erdogan that ended in a joint statement calling for a truce in the Libyan civil war for which Russia and Turkey support opposing sides; and his visit on the 9th to Russian naval exercises in the Eastern Mediterranean that included the launch of Russia’s latest hypersonic missiles, the reality of which U.S. and other Western experts have yet to acknowledge.
With this I rest my case on the unfortunate propagandistic behavior of our media which deprive the broad Western public of any chance to make sense of the most dangerous military and political standoff of our age.
Gilbert Doctorow is a Brussels-based political analyst. His latest book Does Russia Have a Future? was published in August 2017. Reprinted with permission from his blog.
© Gilbert Doctorow, 2020
READ MORE RUSSIAGATE NEWS AT: 21st Century Wire Russiagate Files
SUPPORT OUR INDEPENDENT MEDIA PLATFORM – BECOME A MEMBER @21WIRE.TV


21stcenturywire--2020-01-15--What is a ‘Normal’ Nation?

What is a ‘Normal’ Nation?

Take a moment to ask yourself a question : Yesterday the President of the United States , Donald Trump , announced that he is sending more American troops to Saudi Arabia , at the request of the Crown Prince , in order to protect their ‘ national interests ’ .
In answer to a question about how this fits with his promise to ‘ bring the troops home ’ , the President said that this is different… because the Saudis are paying $ 1 billion dollars… Meanwhile , Secretary Pompeo reiterated his three-pronged strategy of ‘ maximum pressure ’ on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Military Deterrence… he completed his statement by repeating the mantra : “ We just want Iran to behave like a normal nation ” It ’ s tempting to think that Secretary Pompeo has suffered a massive irony bypass… but you would be doing yourself a disservice to do so .
This is an exercise in Orwellian Doublethink… to believe in the lie that you know you ’ re telling ; to forget , and to remember events , exactly as is necessary to fulfil the agenda .
A little poem ; my @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Pompeo , expressing this doublethink : The ‘ selective amnesia ’ that is prevalent in Washington is by no means exclusive to the ‘ Shining City on the Hill ’ .
They had some good teachers , including of course , the British .
For the past 70 years we have been relegated to playing a supportive role in the game of global empire , but we are never far behind the US .
Here ’ s our cringeworthy Foreign Secretary , Dominic Raab : Is it normal to believe everything your government @ @ @ @ @ @ @ know that they are lying to you , but to let it wash over you because ‘ what can I do ?
’ .
Is it normal to put aside the memory of the lies that led to Iraq…the lies that led to Libya…the lies that have been told about Syria…and to think , if you bother to think at all : “ They wouldn ’ t do it again would they ?
” Yes they would .
They will lie to you until you don ’ t know what the truth is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ even care .
That… is the goal .
I will never accept that as ‘ normal ’ .

Take a moment to ask yourself a question:
What is a normal nation?
Yesterday the President of the United States, Donald Trump, announced that he is sending more American troops to Saudi Arabia, at the request of the Crown Prince, in order to protect their ‘national interests’.
In answer to a question about how this fits with his promise to ‘bring the troops home’, the President said that this is different… because the Saudis are paying $1 billion dollars…
Meanwhile, Secretary Pompeo reiterated his three-pronged strategy of ‘maximum pressure’ on Iran: Economic Pressure, Diplomatic Isolation and Military Deterrence… he completed his statement by repeating the mantra: “We just want Iran to behave like a normal nation”


21stcenturywire--2020-01-15--Galloway: Boris Rejection of ‘IndyRef2’ Could Be Silver Lining for SNP

Will Westminster allow Scotland another referendum on independence from the United Kingdom ?
This week , UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson rejected a request from SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon for a second independence referendum .
In a comment made to RT , broadcaster and former UK MP George Galloway described the snap reaction by the PM as contrary to the inherent right of self-determination .
This raises a number of fundamental questions which , in the wake of Brexit , are being given renewed consideration .
Is the UK really a voluntary union , or is rule by force ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sturgeon ’ s request for a second independence referendum , has risked Britain ’ s marriage with Scotland ending in a messy divorce .
The land of ‘ Neverendum , ’ a ‘ Brigadoon ’ Scotland , shrouded in the mists of Celtic obscurantism , where new “ once in a lifetime ” referenda reappear every six years , is no doubt a source of frustration to many of my fellow Scots as they struggle with a health and education crisis and many succumb to the worst level of drug-deaths in Europe .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ birthplace Dundee – is literally THE drug-death capital of Europe .
The Scottish education system , once a boulevard ahead of the English and known from the Scottish Enlightenment onwards as one of the best in the world ( if not for us , you might know neither penicillin nor the steam engine ) is now languishing in the doldrums and shame of shames behind the English .
The Scottish health service , over which my 84 year-old mother spoke to me in tears at Christmas , is equally in an even more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Wales .
The Scottish Parliament controlled by the SNP and their Green Party allies has considerable powers and budgets , but seems to lack the will to concentrate on real-life , real-time problems for long .
If only Scotland could be “ free ” is the mantra ( albeit thereafter shackled by the European Union ) .
A separatist party , which has been in power for a decade and achieved precious little , is one which by definition must keep the pure flame of national grudge alive .
Otherwise people might @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , it ’ s the SNP micturating on them .
I have fought separatism all my life and not just in Scotland .
I opposed the breakup of Yugoslavia and of Czechoslovakia .
I still cry over the break-up of the USSR .
I oppose the partition of Ireland , of Cyprus , of Israel-Palestine .
So I ’ m not your natural supporter of the partition of a small island of English-speaking people which has grafted together like bone over 300 years .
And I ’ m not and never will be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
But make no mistake .
I will fight for Scotland ’ s right to choose whether or not to continue to remain in a voluntary union with England and Wales as often and as many times as it likes .
Scotland has the right to leave .
It follows that only the Scots can decide that question .
It further follows that only they can decide when to decide and how often .
Of course , constant recourse to constitutional referenda may invite ridicule and certainly potentially fall victim to the political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ facts are chiels that winna ding ” as the national poet Robert Burns said .
And the facts are these .
The United Kingdom is a voluntary union of three countries and six-counties of somebody else ’ s country – Ireland .
Those six counties have the right to call a border-poll any time they can secure an Assembly decision to hold one .
Soon they will and the long-frustrated century long illogical and illegal partition of the island will be over .
It follows ineluctably that if the Scottish Parliament decides to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Union , no British Prime Minister can deny them – unless seeking to provoke a Catalonia or worse on the green and pleasant land .
If Scotland could only choose to remain in its current marriage when the other partner allowed her to , that would cease to be a marriage of equals and fall foul of all international norms on forced marriage of people , and peoples .
And nothing could more certainly ensure it would all end in a messy divorce than to deny Scotland its inalienable right to self-determination , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ this week with his peremptory dismissal of Nicola Sturgeon ’ s demand for IndyRef2 .
With an airy wave of his privileged hand , Johnson sought to put Nicola Sturgeon back in her box .
But she is a jack-in-the-box and Johnson ’ s insouciance was precisely the response she was hoping for .
He could have said – fairly – that the British state was rather busy implementing the results of the referendum to leave the European Union at the moment , but when that was achieved – by the end of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ happy to sit down with Ms Sturgeon and discuss all options and all questions without preconditions .
And that meanwhile perhaps she might get on with her job running Scotland ’ s devolved government .
That would have been the smart course .
But as the wisest fool in Christendom , Boris Johnson frequently eschews common sense as we shall increasingly see .
Instead , he has handed the initiative to the SNP and given them a new grudge to nurse .
And nobody does the politics of grudge better than Nicola Sturgeon @

Will Westminster allow Scotland another referendum on independence from the United Kingdom?
This week, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson rejected a request from SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon for a second independence referendum. In a comment made to RT, broadcaster and former UK MP George Galloway described the snap reaction by the PM as contrary to the inherent right of self-determination.
The inalienable right of the Scottish people to self-determination means that they have every right to hold another referendum.
This raises a number of fundamental questions which, in the wake of Brexit, are being given renewed consideration. Is the UK really a voluntary union, or is rule by force?
George Galloway writes for RT International…
Boris Johnson, by foolishly dismissing Nicola Sturgeon’s request for a second independence referendum, has risked Britain’s marriage with Scotland ending in a messy divorce.
The land of ‘Neverendum,’ a ‘Brigadoon’ Scotland, shrouded in the mists of Celtic obscurantism, where new “once in a lifetime” referenda reappear every six years, is no doubt a source of frustration to many of my fellow Scots as they struggle with a health and education crisis and many succumb to the worst level of drug-deaths in Europe. Indeed, their flagship city – my birthplace Dundee – is literally THE drug-death capital of Europe.
The Scottish education system, once a boulevard ahead of the English and known from the Scottish Enlightenment onwards as one of the best in the world (if not for us, you might know neither penicillin nor the steam engine) is now languishing in the doldrums and shame of shames behind the English. The Scottish health service, over which my 84 year-old mother spoke to me in tears at Christmas, is equally in an even more parlous state than the NHS in England and Wales.
The Scottish Parliament controlled by the SNP and their Green Party allies has considerable powers and budgets, but seems to lack the will to concentrate on real-life, real-time problems for long.
If only Scotland could be “free” is the mantra (albeit thereafter shackled by the European Union).
A separatist party, which has been in power for a decade and achieved precious little, is one which by definition must keep the pure flame of national grudge alive. Otherwise people might conclude that it isn’t raining, it’s the SNP micturating on them.
I have fought separatism all my life and not just in Scotland. I opposed the breakup of Yugoslavia and of Czechoslovakia. I still cry over the break-up of the USSR. I oppose the partition of Ireland, of Cyprus, of Israel-Palestine. So I’m not your natural supporter of the partition of a small island of English-speaking people which has grafted together like bone over 300 years. And I’m not and never will be. I’m a Union Man.
But make no mistake. I will fight for Scotland’s right to choose whether or not to continue to remain in a voluntary union with England and Wales as often and as many times as it likes.
Scotland has the right to leave. It follows that only the Scots can decide that question. It further follows that only they can decide when to decide and how often. Of course, constant recourse to constitutional referenda may invite ridicule and certainly potentially fall victim to the political law of diminishing returns. But “facts are chiels that winna ding” as the national poet Robert Burns said. And the facts are these. The United Kingdom is a voluntary union of three countries and six-counties of somebody else’s country – Ireland. Those six counties have the right to call a border-poll any time they can secure an Assembly decision to hold one. Soon they will and the long-frustrated century long illogical and illegal partition of the island will be over. It follows ineluctably that if the Scottish Parliament decides to have yet another referendum on leaving the Union, no British Prime Minister can deny them – unless seeking to provoke a Catalonia or worse on the green and pleasant land.
If Scotland could only choose to remain in its current marriage when the other partner allowed her to, that would cease to be a marriage of equals and fall foul of all international norms on forced marriage of people, and peoples.
And nothing could more certainly ensure it would all end in a messy divorce than to deny Scotland its inalienable right to self-determination, which is what Boris Johnson foolishly did this week with his peremptory dismissal of Nicola Sturgeon’s demand for IndyRef2. With an airy wave of his privileged hand, Johnson sought to put Nicola Sturgeon back in her box. But she is a jack-in-the-box and Johnson’s insouciance was precisely the response she was hoping for.
He could have said – fairly – that the British state was rather busy implementing the results of the referendum to leave the European Union at the moment, but when that was achieved – by the end of 2020 – he would of course be happy to sit down with Ms Sturgeon and discuss all options and all questions without preconditions. And that meanwhile perhaps she might get on with her job running Scotland’s devolved government.
That would have been the smart course. But as the wisest fool in Christendom, Boris Johnson frequently eschews common sense as we shall increasingly see.
Instead, he has handed the initiative to the SNP and given them a new grudge to nurse. And nobody does the politics of grudge better than Nicola Sturgeon.
***
READ MORE SCOTLAND NEWS AT: 21st Century Wire Scotland Files
SUPPORT OUR INDEPENDENT MEDIA PLATFORM – BECOME A MEMBER @21WIRE.TV


21stcenturywire--2020-01-17--UKC News: Impeachment Circus, EU Kills Iran Nuclear Deal, Silicon Valley Censorship Regime

This week saw the dramatic commencement of Act Two of Capitol Hill ’ s Impeachment Circus , as House Democrats @ @ @ @ @ the foyer to the Senate for the trial of Donald Trump .
They didn ’ @ @ @ @ @ great start though .
Meanwhile , EU leaders finally caved into pressure from the Trump @ @ @ @ @ and Britain in helping to sabotage the JCPOA Iran Nuclear Deal .
We break down @ @ @ @ @ and what it really means .
Also , UK government is attempting to implement the @ @ @ @ @ history , coupled with a state-sponsored propaganda arm which seems to be employing the exact @ @ @ @ @ Cold War , while in America , Silicon Valley firms have entered into an open @ @ @ @ @ government to crush free speech online .
All this and more .
Co-hosts Patrick Henningsen @ @ @ @ @ the top stories from this week .
Watch : .
SEE MORE UK COLUMN NEWS @ @

By
This week saw the dramatic commencement of Act Two of Capitol Hill’s Impeachment Circus, as House Democrats made the arduous journey across the foyer to the Senate for the trial of Donald Trump. They didn’t get off to a great start though. Meanwhile, EU leaders finally caved into pressure from the Trump Administration, joining the US and Britain in helping to sabotage the JCPOA Iran Nuclear Deal. We break down all of the key points and what it really means. Also, UK government is attempting to implement the most draconian censorship regimes in history, coupled with a state-sponsored propaganda arm which seems to be employing the exact same methods used during the Cold War, while in America, Silicon Valley firms have entered into an open fascist arrangement with the Federal government to crush free speech online. All this and more.
Co-hosts Patrick Henningsen and Mike Robinson break down the top stories from this week. Watch:
.
SEE MORE UK COLUMN NEWS PROGRAMS HERE
SUPPORT OUR INDEPENDENT MEDIA PLATFORM – BECOME A MEMBER @21WIRE.TV


21stcenturywire--2020-01-16--Explained: Why the US Hated and Assassinated Iran’s General Soleimani

Since Washington ’ s double assassination of Iranian Quds Force leader , General Qasem Soleimani , and senior Iraqi PMU @ @ @ @ @ , on January 3rd , the White House and its mainstream media adjuncts have run @ @ @ @ @ try and demonize the Iranian military commander , calling him “ an evil man ” @ @ @ @ @ of Americans and Iranians on his hands , ” as well as being “ the @ @ @ @ @ ” To understand the real story behind U.S. hatred towards Soleimani and why he was @ @ @ @ @ at the historical facts on the ground hold the key – something you won ’ @ @ @ @ @ , explains Kevork Almassian of Syriana Analysis in this new video report : In short @ @ @ @ @ Israel wanted Soleimani dead .
His role was essential in fighting and defeating terrorists in @ @ @ @ @ stopping Israel ’ s expansion into Lebanon and Gaza .
For a full transcript of @ @ @ @ @ Syriana Analysis .

By
Since Washington’s double assassination of Iranian Quds Force leader, General Qasem Soleimani, and senior Iraqi PMU commander, Abu Mahdi al-Muhandis, on January 3rd, the White House and its mainstream media adjuncts have run an incessant propaganda campaign to try and demonize the Iranian military commander, calling him “an evil man” who had “the blood of Americans and Iranians on his hands,” as well as being “the world’s leading terrorist.”
To understand the real story behind U.S. hatred towards Soleimani and why he was assassinated, a brief look at the historical facts on the ground hold the key – something you won’t find in MSM coverage, explains Kevork Almassian of Syriana Analysis in this new video report:
In short, both the US and Israel wanted Soleimani dead. His role was essential in fighting and defeating terrorists in Syria and Iraq, and stopping Israel’s expansion into Lebanon and Gaza.
For a full transcript of this video report, visit Syriana Analysis.
READ MORE IRAN NEWS AT: 21st Century Wire Iran Files
SUPPORT OUR INDEPENDENT MEDIA PLATFORM – BECOME A MEMBER @21WIRE.TV


21stcenturywire--2020-01-17--Document Analysis: Debunking Fake ‘DoD Iran FOIA Request’

There is a letter making the rounds on the internet , about a supposed Freedom of Information ( FIOA ) request from one Bennie Thompson ( Chairman of the US House Committee on Homeland Security ) , to James P. Hogan , a “ Chief DoD FOIA Policy ” officer .
Is it real , or is it fake ?
Among other things , the letter claims that the Iranian missile strike on US Ain al-Assad base in Iraq on Jan 8 , 2020 caused : – 285 casualties ( 139 deaths plus 146 injuries ) – Extensive damage to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two cargo aircraft and 3 MQ-1 Predator drones – Extensive damage to the Base Command Center , 3 hangars , 3 barracks , and 10 military tents .
– Relative damage to the Air Traffic Control Tower and the base ’ s runway .
The most extraordinary claim in this document is that the Iranian missiles caused “ 285 casualties , 139 deaths plus 146 injuries.
” Really ?
This is major , especially since the US official announcement was one of zero casualties .
However , by applying some basic common sense @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and how letters are drafted and formatted , you can quickly identify multiple anomalies in this document .
In this case , it took us just 5 minutes of Google searching to discover this letter was a forgery .
In this short video recorded Wednesday evening , 21WIRE editor Patrick Henningsen conducts a basic forensic document analysis on a suspect US Department of Defense making the rounds online .
Watch :

By
There is a letter making the rounds on the internet, about a supposed Freedom of Information (FIOA) request from one Bennie Thompson (Chairman of the US House Committee on Homeland Security), to James P. Hogan, a “Chief DoD FOIA Policy” officer. Is it real, or is it fake?
Among other things, the letter claims that the Iranian missile strike on US Ain al-Assad base in Iraq on Jan 8, 2020 caused:
– 285 casualties (139 deaths plus 146 injuries)
– Extensive damage to 15 helicopters, including 1 Blackhawk, two cargo aircraft and 3 MQ-1 Predator drones
– Extensive damage to the Base Command Center, 3 hangars, 3 barracks, and 10 military tents.
– Relative damage to the Air Traffic Control Tower and the base’s runway.
The most extraordinary claim in this document is that the Iranian missiles caused “285 casualties, 139 deaths plus 146 injuries.” Really? This is major, especially since the US official announcement was one of zero casualties. However, by applying some basic common sense knowledge of how FOIA requests generally work, and how letters are drafted and formatted, you can quickly identify multiple anomalies in this document. In this case, it took us just 5 minutes of Google searching to discover this letter was a forgery.
In this short video recorded Wednesday evening, 21WIRE editor Patrick Henningsen conducts a basic forensic document analysis on a suspect US Department of Defense making the rounds online. Watch:
.
READ MORE IRAN NEWS AT: 21st Century Wire Iran Files
SUPPORT OUR INDEPENDENT MEDIA PLATFORM – BECOME A MEMBER @21WIRE.TV