by Scott Creighton
(H/T Gretavo from WTCdemolition)
Peppered into the mix with information we already know, the CIA backed psyop called “Wikileaks” likes to toss out some pure disinformation which helps their various causes. In today’s case it’s nothing less than trying, once again, to connect 9/11 to Saddam Hussain in an obvious attempt to provide cover for the Bush administration’s illegal invasion of Iraq.
Back in April, the Weekly Standard (neocon shill rag) published an article titled “WikiLeaks: The Iraq-Al Qaeda Connection Confirmed, Again“. As the story goes, an Iraqi named Jawad Jabber Sadkhan was identified by others who were tortured (they leave that part out) as a key link between Saddam’s organization and al Qaeda, the Taliban, 9/11, the London Bombings,and of course let’s not forget… Iran.
“An Uzbek named Oybek Jamoldinivich Jabbarov, told authorities that Sadkhan “admitted working as a liaison between [the] Taliban Intelligence Directorate and Iraqi President, Saddam Hussein.” Jabbarov explained that Sadkhan and another Iraqi once held at Guantanamo, Hassan Abdul Said, “traveled between Iraq and Afghanistan ferrying unidentified supplies from Iraq through Iran on multiple occasions.” Propaganda Rag
Interestingly enough, according to the Weekly Standard rag, this guy behaved an awful lot like the U.S. military. In fact, with a resume like this, he could probably get a job at JSOC or the JTTF or even maybe cash-in with Blackwater.
“Sadkhan “coerced immigrants into service upon threat of imprisonment and torture,” according to the U.S. government’s reporting, and also “employed a team of interrogators who beat and tortured Shiite and Uzbeki prisoners.” According to some reports, Sadkhan’s fighting group also indiscriminately killed Afghan women and children.” Propaganda Rag
This fascinating Wikileaks story was picked up today by the Front Page, the “news” blog for the David Horowitz “Freedom” Center. The propagandists over at the “Freedom” Center sum it up quite nicely…
“The disclosures show that the Iraqi regime and Al-Qaeda were willing to maintain a relationship despite their political and theological differences. Critics of Operation Iraqi Freedom are right that no “operational” link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda was discovered, but they are wrong to dismiss the seriousness of the links that were.” “Freedom” Center
That’s pretty straight forward, isn’t it? Telling us dissenters that it’s ok that we questioned the fake evidence they presented before linking 9/11 to Saddam Hussain, but now we have to consider this “deeper” intel if we want to get the complete picture.
Of course the “deeper” intel is based on nothing but information gleaned from illegally torturing people and time after time we are told by intelligence officials that information garnered from torture is completely useless because the victim of that torture will say anything to make it stop.
We have also learned since then that the Bush administration was running the torture program at Gitmo with the expressed purpose of creating intel which would make the non-existent connection between al Qaeda and Saddam for them so that they could use it to prevent their administration from being charged with war crimes.
I suppose we also need to forget that all of this “information” is based entirely on a U.S. intelligence analyst’s review of the information that was “leaked” by an organization with DEEP ties to the CIA which has also released other highly questionable information in the past.
One could easily say that this is pretty obvious. It really is like Winston’s job at the Ministry of Truth where he would pull up uncomfortable news stories and re-write them based on whatever Big Brother needed at the moment. In this case, Big Brother hands the new Truth to their Wikileaks organization, which is basically at this point nothing more than three globalist media giants, and they disseminate the info to others like the Weekly Standard and the “Freedom” Center, who dutifully re-write inconvenient history.
Now I hate to have to keep explaining this to people like Glenn Greenwald who went out last month at the FAIR 25th anniversary celebration and promoted the validity of Wikileaks all over again. At some point you think Greenwald would figure out what was happening, especially since his talk at FAIR was about propaganda. Boy, the NSA and the State Department must have laughed their asses off at that one. Greenwald talking about pure propaganda and left gate-keepers in the media since 9/11 and then he goes into a full on defense of Wikileaks.
What Glenn should have said was this; “It’s easy and relatively safe for me to come out here and expose propaganda and left-wing gate-keepers years after their efforts are long since over and the damage their campaigns caused is already done.”
Take for instance Glenn Greenwald’s writing on Libya. Glenn likes to point out that the administration isn’t bombing Yemen and Bahrain while they are intervening in their oh-so-humanitarian fashion in Libya. He talks about how the Libyan action is illegal based on the lack of congressional support or any kind of resolution giving the Obama administration authority to do it.
Now, on the surface that would seem… ok. Helpful to some degree.
But now that Yemen has gotten rid of it’s dictator, the U.S. is stepping up their bombing campaign. They just happen to be bombing the people, not the oppressive regime. And don’t worry Glenn. They just passed a resolution giving the Obama administration 2 weeks to produce some kind of FF event in Libya which will justify the congress into passing a pro-war resolution on Libya which will make the whole thing “legal” in your eyes.
But all of that misses the point of Libya, doesn’t it? Which to my knowledge, Mr. Greenwald hasn’t addressed at all. In fact, Greenwald peppers into his own writings little gems that make one sit up and wonder what Glenn is really doing with his dissent:
“I understand — and absolutely believe — that many people who support the intervention in Libya are doing so for good and noble reasons: disgust at standing by and watching Gadaffi murder hundreds or thousands of rebels. I also believe that some people who supported the attack on Iraq did so out of disgust for Saddam Hussein and a desire to see him removed from power. It’s commendable to oppose that type of despotism, and I understand — and share — the impulse.” Glenn Greenwald
Let me give you a head’s up, for all of you Glenn Greenwald fans out there… Gadhafi did not “murder hundreds or thousands of rebels”. He responded with strong rhetoric to the ARMED INSURGENCY that the United States and Great Britain had created in the east and he was WARNING the al Qaeda linked “rebels” that they would suffer if they chose the side of the Color Revolution that was starting in his country.
Perhaps Mr. Greenwald should take a look at the facts about life under Gadhafi before relegating the man to “despot” status. Of course you would think a lawyer would have had enough sense to have already done that.
I wonder if Mr. Greenwald will be repeating the “systemic rape” propaganda as well even though that has also been widely dismissed as a complete fabrication. His friend Amy Goodman is helping promote that bullshit propaganda.
“The charge of rape as a political weapon was spread — without evidence — against Serb forces to justify U.S. plans for the first NATO bombing campaign in the history of the military alliance in 1994 in Bosnia and was used again in 1999 in Serbia in the first NATO occupation. The rape charge was used to soften up the U.S. and European population for the criminal war against Yugoslavia. Now a similar plan is in the works for Libya.” Global Research
Isn’t it curious that the Clintons were in charge back then just as a Clinton is in charge of the State Department now?
And isn’t it curious that this kind of propaganda being leveled at Libya by the likes of Amy Goodman and Glenn Greenwald is also helping to cover-up the real intentions behind Clinton’s State Department orchestrated regime change in Libya?
“The $26.5 million in new humanitarian aid for Libya announced by the U.S. on Thursday doesn’t bring the council closer to unlocking $34 billion of frozen assets by the U.S., largely due to legal obstacles that were widely recognized among allies at the meeting.” Wall Street Journal
Someone should send Mr. Greenwald this link to a real journalist’s report on Libya.
By promoting Wikileaks and the MYTHOLOGY of the pretext of the invasion of Libya, Glenn Greenwald is doing EXACTLY the same thing that he condemned at his FAIR speech. He’s just doing it to a slightly more critical crowd than the average U.S. citizen. he’s peppering into the mix of information that we know, or some of us know, blatant disinformation. Who does that sound like?