THE REACTION OF THE US STATE DEPARTMENT TO MH17

Upon the first news of MH17, the US State Department issued this statement:

We are horrified by the crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17. There are no words adequate to express our condolences to the families of the nearly 300 victims. We offer our sympathies and support to the Governments of Malaysia and the Netherlands at this difficult time, as well as to all those whose citizens may have been on board. We are reviewing whether any American citizens were aboard the flight. The United States Government remains prepared to assist with a credible, international investigation any way we can, and we will continue to be in touch with all relevant partners as we seek the facts of what happened today.

[source : Crash of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 in Eastern Ukraine, US State Dept, http://www.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2014/07/229440.htm, 17th July 2014]

Four days later at a State Dept daily press briefing, the following discussion occured:

QUESTION: But first just to follow up on this notion of the disclosure potentially of some of our intelligence information or product by way of satisfying the world’s questions about this affair. Perhaps the more apt analogy than 2002-2003 is Adlai Stevenson at the UN where we had a very serious charge that the Soviet Union at that time had installed missiles on Cuba, and we shared our photographic reconnaissance by way of making that point.

Is that the kind of thing you say the Administration’s considering doing here to satisfy the world’s questions about this?

MS. HARF: I would actually compare it to a more recent event, which is when we talked about the chemical weapons use in Syria. That’s something I lived through, so I know more acutely than Adlai Stevenson’s activities at the UN. But on that, there were a lot of questions, and we attempted to, as the days went on, make more information available until we got to a point where we basically put out an intelligence assessment, not – we didn’t put out every piece of information, but we were able to get as much out there. That’s what we’re trying to do right now. Obviously, it’s always a balance.

QUESTION: Some sort of white paper, as we saw in the Syrian conflict?

MS. HARF: I have no idea what that would look like, but we’re trying to put as much information out as possible.

QUESTION: The reason I ask this is because Secretary Kerry himself seemed to me to be rather forward-leaning in his discussion publicly of intelligence product --

MS. HARF: Absolutely.

QUESTION: -- in a way that was inconsistent with the repeated statements we get from podiums like this that we cannot discuss sources and methods. So, for example, he stated, “We ourselves tracked the imagery of the launch of this surface-to-air missile. We have the trajectory recorded. We have the intercepts of their conversations. We know this from voice identification. We have a video.”

MS. HARF: Yeah.

QUESTION: It seems to me that, having displayed so much of that information across the country on various channels yesterday, the Administration should be quite prepared to back that up.

MS. HARF: It’s in no way inconsistent, James. I think the balance we always try to strike is when we can put as much information out publicly without threat to sources and methods. Many times we can’t. That’s not just something we say because it’s fun to say. Having worked in the intelligence community, it is a fact. But in cases like this, in cases like Syria’s chemical weapons, we endeavor to put as much out as possible when we can do so. And that’s why I was making the point that he was quite forward-leaning yesterday, because we believe it’s important.

[source : Daily Press Briefing, US State Dept, http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/dpb/2014/07/229550.htm#UKRAINE, 21st July 2014]

So Harf basically says, "trust us"!

Should we trust the USA who said Iraq was involved in 9/11 and had WMDs?

Should we trust the USA who is implementing the plan for war and regime change in seven countries in five years that General Wesley Clark revealed?

Should we trust the USA who has unleashed the most medieval international cutthroat Jihadis onto Syria as Seymour Hersh revealed in 2007 would happen?

Should we trust the USA who has been waging war against, and executing violent revolutions in, nearly every nation on God's green Earth?

But from all this extensive intelligence and analysis that the USA says it has, and says it wants to make public but for some reason can't, and in the words of John Kerry "enormous" amounts of evidence, what do we get?

We get this.



I would like to draw your attention to the clouds, or lack thereof in this image. Apparently there was quite a lot of cloud in that area that day. There aren't that many in this image.

And why did it take the USA 4 days to collate this image that a schoolboy or girl could conjure up in 10 minutes?

We do have to ask, why is NATO relying on social media and Eliot Higgins so much when Higgins has some kind of secret undisclosed relationship with the warmongering CIA Neocon Atlantic Council?

Perhaps if we ask him really, really nicely then he might expose that relationship?