• Теги
    • избранные теги
    • Люди1040
      • Показать ещё
      Страны / Регионы640
      • Показать ещё
      • Показать ещё
      • Показать ещё
      Международные организации101
      • Показать ещё
      • Показать ещё
Джеймс Клеппер
21 апреля, 19:55

House investigators invite Sally Yates to testify on Russia

The House Intelligence Committee is working to reschedule a hearing on Russia with members of the Obama administration, including former acting Attorney General Sally Yates.The committee announced Friday that it has invited Yates, along with former CIA Director John Brennan and former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, to testify before the panel. The open hearing would be scheduled after May 2, the committee said.The three had been scheduled to testify in March, but Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) abruptly canceled the session after the Trump administration raised concerns about it. Nunes has since stepped aside from leading the Intelligence Committee’s investigation into Russia’s meddling in the presidential election, with Rep. Mike Conaway (R-Texas) taking the helm.The panel’s top Democrat, Rep. Adam Schiff of California, has been urging Republicans to reschedule the hearing — and has hinted that Yates’ testimony could be damaging for President Donald Trump.The earlier hearing, Schiff said in a March statement, would have “provided the opportunity for former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates to testify about the events leading up to former National Security Advisor [Michael] Flynn's firing, including his attempts to cover up his secret conversations with the Russian Ambassador.”The Intelligence Committee also announced Friday that it has invited FBI Director James Comey and the director of the National Security Agency, Adm. Mike Rogers, to appear at a hearing behind closed doors on May 2.

Выбор редакции
14 апреля, 11:00

The 'Smoking-Gun' Quote From The Postol Report On The Recent Syrian Gas-Attack

Authored by Eric Zuesse, After detailed decimation of President Trump’s ‘intelligence’ ‘justifying’ his invasion of Syria, the MIT specialist on such intelligence-analysis, Dr. Theodore Postol, concludes: I have worked with the intelligence community in the past, and I have grave concerns about the politicization of intelligence that seems to be occurring with more frequency in recent times – but I know that the intelligence community has highly capable analysts in it. And if those analysts were properly consulted about the claims in the White House document they would have not approved the document going forward.   I am available to expand on these comments substantially. I have only had a few hours to quickly review the alleged White House intelligence report. But a quick perusal shows without a lot of analysis that this report cannot be correct, and it also appears that this report was not properly vetted by the intelligence community.   This is a very serious matter.   President Obama was initially misinformed about supposed intelligence evidence that Syria was the perpetrator of the August 21, 2013 nerve agent attack in Damascus. This is a matter of public record.   President Obama stated that his initially false understanding was that the intelligence clearly showed that Syria was the source of the nerve agent attack. This false information was corrected when the then Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, interrupted the President while he was in an intelligence briefing. According to President Obama, Mr. Clapper told the President that the intelligence that Syria was the perpetrator of the attack was “not a slamdunk.”   The question that needs to be answered by our nation is how was the president initially misled about such a profoundly important intelligence finding? The U.S. ‘news’media hid from the public Dr. Postol’s disproof of the Obama regime’s still-continuing assertions that the 21 August 2013 sarin attack was from Syria’s government instead of from the ‘moderate rebels’ (jihadists) whom the U.S. supported. Will they hide from the U.S. public his disproof of the U.S. regime’s latest such scam backing the actual perpetrators of a war-crime — will they do now as they did then? This issue presents a challenge to the U.S. ‘news’ media, to finally show some integrity, some honor, and expose the operations of the gang at the U.S. government’s top, instead of simply continuing to pump that gang’s propaganda. Without the continuing cooperation of America’s ‘news’media, we would not now be heading toward World War III — global nuclear war. What would be the time when these ‘news’media will do their job, instead of do what they’re being paid to do, if that time is not now. If not now, then when? Will this report by Dr. Postol receive the attention from America’s ‘news’ media that they denied to his previous report demonstrating the gangsterism at the top of America’s federal government? (It exposed Obama’s lie, which America’s ‘news’media simply continued to trumpet.) This news report-and-commentary is being submitted free-of-charge for publication, to all of America’s major media. It is a challenge to all of them. *  *  * Investigative historian Eric Zuesse is the author, most recently, of  They’re Not Even Close: The Democratic vs. Republican Economic Records, 1910-2010, and of  CHRIST’S VENTRILOQUISTS: The Event that Created Christianity.

13 апреля, 23:05

The Postol Report on the recent Gas Attack in Syria

Guest Column by Eric Zuesse The Money-Quote from the Postol Report on the recent Gas Attack in Syria Eric Zuesse After detailed decimation of President Trump’s ‘intelligence’ ‘justifying’ his invasion of Syria, the MIT specialist on such intelligence-analysis, Dr. Theodore Postol, concludes: “I have worked with the intelligence community in the past, and I have… The post The Postol Report on the recent Gas Attack in Syria appeared first on PaulCraigRoberts.org.

13 апреля, 18:11

Trump’s Syria Strike Puts America At The Precipice Of Another Middle East War

A week after the Trump administration made the decision to launch a cruise missile strike against Syria’s Shayrat air base, it is no surprise that the attack dangerously increased tensions in the Syrian civil war and emboldened forces that aim to maintain a state of chaos in the country. But what remains to be seen is what happens after the dust settles and the real impacts of the attack come to a head, especially in the country and surrounding region. So far, all signs point to more instability and less diplomacy in the months and years ahead, with the potential for an all-out Middle East war seeming increasingly likely. The strike came at a sensitive time, when U.S. regional allies were pressing for greater U.S. intervention to confront perceived Iranian influence, Iranians were gearing up for a fast-approaching presidential election where centrist President Hassan Rouhani may be challenged by conservatives as he seeks a second term and continuing investigations into Trump’s alleged illicit dealings with Russia were still hanging in the air ahead of U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson’s visit to Moscow. Meanwhile, the Syrian war had entered its seventh year, and Syrian government and opposition representatives had sat down for face-to-face talks for the first time, spurring hope that a political resolution to the crisis was within grasp. Trump’s strike changed the dynamic and put us on a path toward confrontation. His actions in Syria will herald the following 10 consequences and side effects, which, when taken together, could unleash an imbroglio the likes of which could be worse than what followed the Iraq War. 1. The strike destroys the hope of a U.S.-Russia reset, putting global security at risk. U.S. President Donald Trump’s election ushered in hope that the battered U.S.-Russia relationship could be improved and with it, the crises in Syria, Afghanistan and Yemen. The bitter tensions between these two global powers have only served to exacerbate regional conflicts in recent years, so collaboration on issues such as terrorism would in all likelihood increase the prospects of bringing about more lasting and positive change. However, the domestic controversy surrounding Trump’s alleged ties to Russia has proved a significant obstacle to U.S.-Russia détente. Viewed in this context, Trump’s Syria strike may in part have been an attempt to weaken these allegations. Trump’s son Eric has supported this theory, stating: “If there was anything that Syria did, it was to validate the fact that there is no Russia tie.” With Tillerson in Moscow now, the precise effect this one-off strike will have on U.S.-Russia relations will have to be seen, but the situation is much colder than both may have hoped. In fact, Russian President Vladimir Putin has already indicated that trust had “deteriorated” between the two powers ahead of his meeting with the secretary of state this week and Trump has added that the relationship “may be at an all-time low.” If strikes such as these continue, they will eliminate any chance for U.S.-Russia cooperation and greatly endanger regional and international stability. 2. By immediately blaming Assad, Trump sets a dangerous precedent for U.S. intervention. Like Trump, former U.S. President Barack Obama faced stringent domestic and foreign pressure to attack Syria and overthrow Syrian President Bashar Assad after the 2013 Ghouta chemical attack. However, Obama withstood the pressures, amidst doubt of the certainty of the Syrian government’s role in the attack from Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, later also expressed by independent investigators and the United Nations. Today, similar doubt is being cast on the Syrian government’s link to the Khan Sheikhoun chemical attack, not only from Russia and Iran but also figures such as former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter, who led criticism that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction in the run-up to the Iraq War. However, unlike Obama, Trump immediately accused Assad without extensive deliberation within the U.S. government and much less an independent investigation. If it turns out Assad was not the assailant, the real perpetrators who seek Assad’s overthrow will feel emboldened to repeat the same atrocity in order to trigger U.S. intervention. Putin has already warned that new attempts to “frame” Assad are underway. If this ends up being the case and the U.S. buys into the ploy, it will find itself fighting a war on behalf of truly nefarious actors capable of committing heinous acts and covering them up at the expense of others. 3. Trump’s strikes will lack legitimacy as long as Washington avoids an independent investigation. In phone conversations with the foreign ministers of Russia, Algeria, European Union foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini and other world leaders, Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif called for an international committee to investigate the attack, certify who the culprits were and allow them to be held responsible and punished appropriately. Iran’s aim is to establish the details of the chemical attack and have America answer for its attack on another U.N. member state. Moscow has similarly described the missile strike as an “act of aggression” and is united with Iran in this goal. Russia has called for a thorough and unbiased investigation initiated by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons. If America stands against this, it will bolster Tehran and Moscow’s position that Washington has no hard evidence linking Assad to the chemical attack and that the missile strike had no legitimate basis. 4. Trump reverting to traditional U.S. unilateralist foreign policy will fail. Unilateral American actions in Afghanistan, Iraq and the American-spearheaded NATO attack on Libya have cost trillions in U.S. wealth, destabilized entire regions, led to deaths of thousands of U.S. troops, killed or displaced millions of civilians and strengthened terrorist groups across the world. Trump himself acknowledged this during his presidential campaign. Obama was also cognizant of these failures and favored multilateral over unilateral policies, the chief major achievement of which was the Iran nuclear deal. Trump’s strikes on Syria represent a return to a unilateral approach, which promises to have the same disastrous outcomes for the region, America and the world. 5. Advocating for regime change will only lead to more chaos as history has shown. America has a history of carrying out interventionist policies in many countries across the globe. A major reason for the hostile U.S.-Iran relationship today is America’s long-standing regime change policy towards Iran. Obama was the first American president to announce that he was abandoning the regime change approach on Iran and even expressed regret about the Libyan intervention. Meanwhile, Trump was fairly unique in disavowing regime change policies earlier. However, with his strike in Syria, he has ignited concerns that America is returning to regime change strategies. The track record of U.S. regime change policies ― in places like Afghanistan, Libya and Iraq ― shows they have increased instability. To continue this approach will only ensure more chaos for the region and beyond.  6. America is putting Russia in a tricky spot with no good solution for either side. While America has many allies and military bases in the Middle East, Syria, where Moscow has an established military presence, is Russia’s main ally in the region. Turning on the Syrian government at such a crucial time will thus damage the reputation Putin has created for Moscow in the Middle East and beyond. The Kremlin has focused on increasing its global influence, and the moves it makes now are critical to its global standing. Losing Assad as an ally will most certainly tarnish Russia’s alliance credibility, even in the face of such immense international pressure to turn on him. Further, comments by the White House that Russia is trying to “cover up” what happened at Khan Sheikhoun will only be perceived by Russia as insulting pressure from Trump to push Putin’s hand. If Trump decides to carry out additional strikes on Syria, Russia may decide its reputation is at stake and feel compelled to activate its Syrian missile defense systems, especially if its personnel and equipment are not given enough time to get out of harm’s way as they were with the Shayrat strike. Trump has in effect created a situation where both sides are left with no decision but to escalate, with potential nightmarish consequences. 7. The U.S. double standard on WMDs is only going to increase their presence globally. America’s political and selective approach towards weapons of mass destructions, or WMDs, continues to have negative consequences for global peace and security. During the Iran-Iraq War, the West supplied the late Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein with material, logistical and political support to launch chemical weapons attacks against Iran and his own people. All told, about 100,000 Iranians were killed or injured, including countless civilians and children. In Halabja alone, some 5,000 Iraqis were killed, including hundreds of children. America’s false WMD reasoning for the 2003 invasion of Iraq of course also hangs over any new U.S. allegations concerning WMDs. For America to now use the deaths of some 70 Syrian civilians to launch a missile strike on Syria reflects a double standard. America using the issue of chemical weapons to achieve its own ends and playing politics with civilian lives will only eliminate hopes to achieve a world free from WMDs and make their use more likely. 8. America’s selectivity toward the value of civilian lives will only cause more civilian deaths. In the weeks prior to the Khan Sheikhoun tragedy, about 200 Iraqi civilians were killed in a single U.S. airstrike in Mosul. The so-called Islamic State also recently beheaded 33 Syrians in one incident and 12 in another. According to the nonprofit Airwars, in March alone, U.S.-led coalition airstrikes have led to deaths of as many as 1,000 Iraqi and Syrian civilians. The Trump administration has taken no action to redress these humanitarian calamities, but at the same time has launched military strikes for the deaths of these 70 Syrians. This demonstrates that America selectively uses the deaths of civilians to advance its political aims. This approach can only lead to the loss of more civilian life. 9. Trump’s use of Arab allies and confrontation of Iran will only provoke Tehran. Today, it is commonly acknowledged in Washington that the Arab Persian Gulf states are putting immense pressure on Trump to confront alleged malign Iranian influence in the region. Voices from these states have been pushing the line that if the U.S. finds it “difficult to cut off the head of the snake, than the second best option is start cutting off the tail of snake.” Trump’s phone call with Saudi King Salman immediately after the strike strongly suggests the move was in part meant to satisfy regional U.S. allies. This idea of “U.S. wars with Arab money” promises not only to worsen regional conflicts, but to also put lives of American servicemen at unnecessary risk. Iran for its part will not sit silently in the face of aggression and will use its regional capabilities ― including its battle-hardened allies on the ground in Syria and Iraq ― to raise the cost of actions against it.    10. The strike’s violation of the UN charter makes it more likely others will cross international peace lines. Based on the United Nations charter, the U.N. Security Council is the only international organ that can identify threats to international peace and decide on punishments. Unilateral U.S. actions are a blatant violation of the U.N. charter and serve to discredit the U.N. as a meaningful body. Such actions are thus a major blow to international peace and encourage other powers to take unilateral action, one of the reasons that likely led to Russia vetoing the U.N. resolution on the Syria attack. Meanwhile, in America, many are also declaring that the U.S. president’s actions violated the U.S. Constitution.     Trump has taken the United States on an extremely risky path with the Shayrat strikes. America now stands at the precipice of another Middle Eastern war, one that promises to be even more of a quagmire than Iraq and will only serve to elongate the suffering of the Syrian people. The reality is that for Syria, there is no military solution ― only a political one. And Trump has sadly decided to pursue military action before giving diplomacy a chance. type=type=RelatedArticlesblockTitle=Related on WorldPost... + articlesList=58e7f9cce4b058f0a02f4951,58e79b3fe4b05413bfe2327f -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

11 апреля, 12:00

Whistleblowers On Trump’s Wag-The-Dog Attack

Did Syria & Russia have chemical weapons or did something else cause the deaths? Was Rice telling the truth when she said there were no chemical weapons? Was James Clapper telling the truth when he said there were chemical weapons? Some in the intelligence community are speaking out about what really happened. Follow David on Twitter - https://twitter.com/libertytarian Help us spread the word about the liberty movement, we're reaching millions help us reach millions more. Share the free live video feed link with your friends & family: http://www.infowars.com/show Follow Alex on TWITTER - https://twitter.com/RealAlexJones Like Alex on FACEBOOK - https://www.facebook.com/AlexanderEmerickJones Infowars on G+ - https://plus.google.com/+infowars/ :Web: http://www.infowars.com/ http://www.prisonplanet.com/ http://www.infowars.net/ :Subscribe and share your login with 20 friends: http://www.prisonplanet.tv http://www.InfowarsNews.com Visit http://www.InfowarsLife.com to get the products Alex Jones and his family trust, while supporting the growth of our expanding media operation. [http://bit.ly/2dhnhbS] Biome Defense™ [http://bit.ly/2bnEj91] Bio-True Selenium™ [http://bit.ly/1WYw8jp] Vitamin Mineral Fusion™ [http://bit.ly/1QYBNBv] Joint Formula™ [http://bit.ly/1nNuR3r] Anthroplex™ [http://bit.ly/1ljfWfJ] Living Defense™ [http://bit.ly/1Iobcj2] Deep Cleanse™ [http://bit.ly/1DsyQ6i] Knockout™ [http://bit.ly/1Kr1yfz] Brain Force™ [http://bit.ly/1R5gsqk] Liver Shield™ [http://bit.ly/1cOwQix] ProstaGuard™ [http://bit.ly/1mnchEz3] Child Ease™ [http://bit.ly/1xs9F6t] WinterSunD3™ [http://bit.ly/1L3gDSO] Ancient Defense™ [http://bit.ly/1EHbA6E] Secret-12™ [http://bit.ly/1txsOge] Oxy Powder™ [http://bit.ly/1s6cphV] Occu Power™ [http://bit.ly/1rGOLsG] DNA Force™ [http://bit.ly/1nIngBb] X2 Survival Shield™ [http://bit.ly/1kaXxKL] Super Female Vitality™ [http://bit.ly/1mhAKCO] Lung Cleanse™ [http://bit.ly/1mGbikx] Silver-Bullet - Colloidal Silver™ [http://bit.ly/1xcoUfo] Super Male Vitality™ [http://bit.ly/1z5BCP9] Survival Shield - Nascent Iodine™ [http://bit.ly/1o4sQtc] Patriot Blend 100% Organic Coffee™ [http://bit.ly/1iVL6HB] Immune Support 100% Organic Coffee™ All available at - http://www.infowarsshop.com/ INFOWARS HEALTH - START GETTING HEALTHY BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE - http://www.infowarshealth.com/ Newsletter Sign up / Infowars Underground Insider : http://www.infowars.com/newsletter The Alex Jones Show © copyright, Free Speech Systems .LLC 1995 - 2017 All Rights Reserved. May use for fair use and educational purposes

11 апреля, 01:06

Lessons From the 'Red Line' Crisis

I was chief of staff at the State Department the last time a president considered punishing Assad for using chemical weapons. The complexities we faced then are worth considering as Trump contemplates what’s next in Syria.

09 апреля, 15:57

Wag The Dog -- How Al Qaeda Played Donald Trump And The American Media

Once upon a time, Donald J. Trump, the New York City businessman-turned-president, berated then-President Barack Obama back in September 2013 about the fallacy of an American military strike against Syria.  At that time, the United States was considering the use of force against Syria in response to allegations (since largely disproven) that the regime of President Bashar al-Assad had used chemical weapons against civilians in the Damascus suburb of Ghouta. Trump, via tweet, declared “to our very foolish leader, do not attack Syria – if you do many very bad things will happen & from that fight the U.S. gets nothing!” President Obama, despite having publicly declaring the use of chemical weapons by the Syrian regime a “red line” which, if crossed, would demand American military action, ultimately declined to order an attack, largely on the basis of warnings by James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence, that the intelligence linking the chemical attack on Ghouta was less than definitive. President Barack Obama, in a 2016 interview with The Atlantic, observed, “there’s a playbook in Washington that presidents are supposed to follow. It’s a playbook that comes out of the foreign-policy establishment. And the playbook prescribes responses to different events, and these responses tend to be militarized responses.” While the “Washington playbook,” Obama noted, could be useful during times of crisis, it could “also be a trap that can lead to bad decisions.” His “red line” on chemical weapons usage, combined with heated rhetoric coming from his closest advisors, including Secretary of State John Kerry, hinting at a military response, was such a trap. Ultimately, President Obama opted to back off, observing that “dropping bombs on someone to prove that you’re willing to drop bombs on someone is just about the worst reason to use force.” The media, Republicans and even members of his own party excoriated Obama for this decision. Yet, in November 2016, as president-elect, Donald Trump doubled down on Obama’s eschewing of the “Washington playbook.” The situation on the ground in Syria had fundamentally changed since 2013; the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) had taken over large swaths of territory in Iraq and Syria, establishing a “capital” in the Syrian city of Raqqa and declaring the creation of an Islamic “Caliphate.”  American efforts to remove Syrian President Assad from power had begun to bar fruit, forcing Russia to intervene in September 2015 in order to prop up the beleaguered Syrian president. Trump, breaking from the mainstream positions held by most American policy makers, Republican and Democrat alike, declared that the United States should focus on fighting and defeating the Islamic State (ISIS) and not pursuing regime change in Syria. “My attitude,” Trump noted, “was you’re fighting Syria, Syria is fighting ISIS, and you have to get rid of ISIS. Russia is now totally aligned with Syria, and now you have Iran, which is becoming powerful, because of us, is aligned with Syria... Now we’re backing rebels against Syria, and we have no idea who these people are.” Moreover, Trump observed, given the robust Russian presence inside Syria, if the United States attacked Assad, “we end up fighting Russia, fighting Syria.” For more than two months, the new Trump administration seemed to breathe life into the notion that Donald Trump had, like his predecessor before him, thrown the “Washington playbook” out the window when it came to Syrian policy.  After ordering a series of new military deployments into Syria and Iraq specifically designed to confront ISIS, the Trump administration began to give public voice to a major shift in policy vis-à-vis the Syrian President. For the first time since President Obama, in August 2011, articulated regime change in Damascus as a precondition for the cessation of the civil conflict that had been raging since April 2011, American government officials articulated that this was no longer the case.  “You pick and choose your battles,” the American Ambassador to the United Nations, Nikki Haley, told reporters on March 30, 2017.  “And when we’re looking at this, it’s about changing up priorities and our priority is no longer to sit and focus on getting Assad out.”  Haley’s words were echoed by Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who observed that same day, while on an official visit to Turkey, “I think the… longer-term status of President Assad will be decided by the Syrian people.” This new policy direction lasted barely five days. Sometime in the early afternoon of April 4, 2017, troubling images and video clips began to be transmitted out of the Syrian province of Idlib by anti-government activists, including members of the so-called “White Helmets,” a volunteer rescue team whose work was captured in an eponymously-named Academy Award-winning documentary film. These images showed victims in various stages of symptomatic distress, including death, from what the activists said was exposure to chemical weapons dropped by the Syrian air force on the town of Khan Sheikhoun that very morning. Images of these tragic deaths were immediately broadcast on American media outlets, with pundits decrying the horrific and heinous nature of the chemical attack, which was nearly unanimously attributed to the Syrian government, even though the only evidence provided was the imagery and testimony of the anti-Assad activists who, just days before, were decrying the shift in American policy regarding regime change in Syria. President Trump viewed these images, and was deeply troubled by what he saw, especially the depictions of dead and suffering children. The images were used as exhibits in a passionate speech by Haley during a speech at the Security Council on April 5, 2017, where she confronted Russia and threatened unilateral American military action if the Council failed to respond to the alleged Syrian chemical attack. “Yesterday morning, we awoke to pictures, to children foaming at the mouth, suffering convulsions, being carried in the arms of desperate parents,” Haley said, holding up two examples of the images provided by the anti-Assad activists. “We saw rows of lifeless bodies, some still in diapers…we cannot close our eyes to those pictures.  We cannot close our minds of the responsibility to act.”  If the Security Council refused to take action against the Syrian government, Haley said, then “there are times in the life of states that we are compelled to take our own action.” In 2013, President Barack Obama was confronted with images of dead and injured civilians, including numerous small children, from Syria that were every bit as heartbreaking as the ones displayed by Ambassador Haley. His Secretary of State, John Kerry, had made an impassioned speech that all but called for military force against Syria.  President Obama asked for, and received, a wide-range of military options from his national security team targeting the regime of President Assad; only the intervention of James Clapper, and the doubts that existed about the veracity of the intelligence linking the Ghouta chemical attack to the Syrian government, held Obama back from giving the green light for the bombing to begin.  Like President Obama before him, President Trump asked for his national security team to prepare options for military action.  Unlike his predecessor, Donald Trump did not seek a pause in his decision making process to let his intelligence services investigate what had actually occurred in Khan Sheikhoun.  Like Nikki Haley, Donald Trump was driven by his visceral reaction to the imagery being disseminated by anti-Assad activists. In the afternoon of April 6, as he prepared to depart the White House for a summit meeting with a delegation led by the Chinese President Xi Jinping, Trump’s own cryptic words in response to a reporter’s question about any American response seem to hint that his mind was already made up. “You’ll see,” he said, before walking away. Within hours, a pair of U.S. Navy destroyers launched 59 advanced Block IV Tomahawk cruise missiles (at a cost of some $1.41 million each), targeting aircraft, hardened shelters, fuel storage, munitions supply, air defense and communications facilities at the Al Shayrat air base, located in central Syria.  Al Shayrat was home to two squadrons of Russian-made SU-22 fighter-bombers operated by the Syrian air force, one of which was tracked by American radar as taking off from Al Sharyat on the morning of April 4, 2017, and was overhead Khan Sheikhoun around the time the alleged chemical attack occurred.  The purpose of the American strike was two-fold; first, to send a message to the Syrian government and its allies that, according to Secretary of State Tillerson, “the president is willing to take decisive action when called for,” and in particular when confronted with evidence of a chemical attack from which the United States could not “turn away, turn a blind eye.”  The other purpose, according to a U.S. military spokesperson, to “reduce the Syrian government’s ability to deliver chemical weapons.”  Moreover, the policy honeymoon the Trump administration had only recently announced about regime change in Syria was over. “It’s very, very possible, and, I will tell you, it’s already happened, that my attitude toward Syria and Assad has changed very much,” President Trump told reporters before the missile strikes had commenced.  Secretary Tillerson went further: “It would seem there would be no role for him [Assad] to govern the Syrian people.” Such a reversal in policy fundamentals and direction in such a short period of time is stunning; Donald Trump didn’t simply deviate slightly off course, but rather did a complete 180-degree turn. The previous policy of avoiding entanglement in the internal affairs of Syria in favor of defeating ISIS and improving relations with Russia had been replaced by a fervent embrace of regime change, direct military engagement with the Syrian armed forces, and a confrontational stance vis-à-vis the Russian military presence in Syria. Normally, such major policy change could only be explained by a new reality driven by verifiable facts. The alleged chemical weapons attack against Khan Sheikhoun was not a new reality; chemical attacks had been occurring inside Syria on a regular basis, despite the international effort to disarm Syria’s chemical weapons capability undertaken in 2013 that played a central role in forestalling American military action at that time. International investigations of these attacks produced mixed results, with some being attributed to the Syrian government (something the Syrian government vehemently denies), and the majority being attributed to anti-regime fighters, in particular those affiliated with Al Nusra Front, an Al Qaeda affiliate. Moreover, there exists a mixed provenance when it comes to chemical weapons usage inside Syria that would seem to foreclose any knee-jerk reaction that placed the blame for what happened at Khan Sheikhoun solely on the Syrian government void of any official investigation. Yet this is precisely what occurred.  Some sort of chemical event took place in Khan Sheikhoun; what is very much in question is who is responsible for the release of the chemicals that caused the deaths of so many civilians. No one disputes the fact that a Syrian air force SU-22 fighter-bomber conducted a bombing mission against a target in Khan Sheikhoun on the morning of April 4, 2017. The anti-regime activists in Khan Sheikhoun, however, have painted a narrative that has the Syrian air force dropping chemical bombs on a sleeping civilian population. A critical piece of information that has largely escaped the reporting in the mainstream media is that Khan Sheikhoun is ground zero for the Islamic jihadists who have been at the center of the anti-Assad movement in Syria since 2011. Up until February 2017, Khan Sheikhoun was occupied by a pro-ISIS group known as Liwa al-Aqsa that was engaged in an oftentimes-violent struggle with its competitor organization, Al Nusra Front (which later morphed into Tahrir al-Sham, but under any name functioning as Al Qaeda’s arm in Syria) for resources and political influence among the local population. The Russian Ministry of Defense has claimed that Liwa al-Aqsa was using facilities in and around Khan Sheikhoun to manufacture crude chemical shells and landmines intended for ISIS forces fighting in Iraq. According to the Russians the Khan Sheikhoun chemical weapons facility was mirrored on similar sites uncovered by Russian and Syrian forces following the reoccupation of rebel-controlled areas of Aleppo.  In Aleppo, the Russians discovered crude weapons production laboratories that filled mortar shells and landmines with a mix of chlorine gas and white phosphorus; after a thorough forensic investigation was conducted by military specialists, the Russians turned over samples of these weapons, together with soil samples from areas struck by weapons produced in these laboratories, to investigators from the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons for further evaluation. Al Nusra has a long history of manufacturing and employing crude chemical weapons; the 2013 chemical attack on Ghouta made use of low-grade Sarin nerve agent locally synthesized, while attacks in and around Aleppo in 2016 made use of a chlorine/white phosphorous blend.  If the Russians are correct, and the building bombed in Khan Sheikhoun on the morning of April 4, 2017 was producing and/or storing chemical weapons, the probability that viable agent and other toxic contaminants were dispersed into the surrounding neighborhood, and further disseminated by the prevailing wind, is high. The counter-narrative offered by the Russians and Syrians, however, has been minimized, mocked and ignored by both the American media and the Trump administration. So, too, has the very illogic of the premise being put forward to answer the question of why President Assad would risk everything by using chemical weapons against a target of zero military value, at a time when the strategic balance of power had shifted strongly in his favor. Likewise, why would Russia, which had invested considerable political capital in the disarmament of Syria’s chemical weapons capability after 2013, stand by idly while the Syrian air force carried out such an attack, especially when their was such a heavy Russian military presence at the base in question at the time of the attack? Such analysis seems beyond the scope and comprehension of the American fourth estate.  Instead, media outlets like CNN embrace at face value anything they are told by official American sources, including a particularly preposterous insinuation that Russia actually colluded in the chemical weapons attack; the aforementioned presence of Russian officers at Al Shayrat air base has been cited as evidence that Russia had to have known about Syria’s chemical warfare capability, and yet did nothing to prevent the attack. To sustain this illogic, the American public and decision-makers make use of a sophisticated propaganda campaign involving video images and narratives provided by forces opposed to the regime of Bashar al-Assad, including organizations like the “White Helmets,” the Syrian-American Medical Society, the Aleppo Media Center, which have a history of providing slanted information designed to promote an anti-Assad message (Donald Trump has all but acknowledged that these images played a major role in his decision to reevaluate his opinion of Bashar al-Assad and order the cruise missile attack on Al Shayrat airbase.)  Many of the fighters affiliated with Tahrir al-Sham are veterans of the battle for Aleppo, and as such are intimately familiar with the tools and trade of the extensive propaganda battle that was waged simultaneously with the actual fighting in an effort to sway western public opinion toward adopting a more aggressive stance in opposition to the Syrian government of Assad. These tools were brought to bear in promoting a counter-narrative about the Khan Sheikhoun chemical incident (ironically, many of the activists in question, including the “White Helmets,” were trained and equipped in social media manipulation tactics using money provided by the United States; that these techniques would end up being used to manipulate an American President into carrying out an act of war most likely never factored into the thinking of the State Department personnel who conceived and implemented the program). Even slick media training, however, cannot gloss over basic factual inconsistencies. Early on, the anti-Assad opposition media outlets were labeling the Khan Sheikhoun incident as a “Sarin nerve agent” attack; one doctor affiliated with Al Qaeda sent out images and commentary via social media that documented symptoms, such as dilated pupils, that he diagnosed as stemming from exposure to Sarin nerve agent. Sarin, however, is an odorless, colorless material, dispersed as either a liquid or vapor; eyewitnesses speak of a “pungent odor” and “blue-yellow” clouds, more indicative of chlorine gas. And while American media outlets, such as CNN, have spoken of munitions “filled to the brim” with Sarin nerve agent being used at Khan Sheikhoun, there is simply no evidence cited by any source that can sustain such an account.  Heartbreaking images of victims being treated by “White Helmet” rescuers have been cited as proof of Sarin-like symptoms, the medical viability of these images is in question; there are no images taken of victims at the scene of the attack. Instead, the video provided by the “White Helmets” is of decontamination and treatment carried out at a “White Helmet” base after the victims, either dead or injured, were transported there.  The lack of viable protective clothing worn by the “White Helmet” personnel while handling victims is another indication that the chemical in question was not military grade Sarin; if it were, the rescuers would themselves have become victims (some accounts speak of just this phenomena, but this occurred at the site of the attack, where the rescuers were overcome by a “pungent smelling” chemical – again, Sarin is odorless.) More than 20 victims of the Khan Sheikhoun incident were transported to Turkish hospitals for care; three subsequently died. According to the Turkish Justice Minister, autopsies conducted on the bodies confirm that the cause of death was exposure to chemical agents. The World Health Organization has indicated that the symptoms of the Khan Sheikhoun victims are consistent with both Sarin and Chlorine exposure. American media outlets have latched onto the Turkish and WHO statements as “proof” of Syrian government involvement; however, any exposure to the chlorine/white phosphorous blend associated with Al Nusra chemical weapons would produce similar symptoms.  Moreover, if Al Nusra was replicating the type of low-grade Sarin it employed at Ghouta in 2013 at Khan Sheikhoun, it is highly likely that some of the victims in question would exhibit Sarin-like symptoms. Blood samples taken from the victims could provide a more precise readout of the specific chemical exposure involved; such samples have allegedly been collected by Al Nusra-affiliated personnel, and turned over to international investigators (the notion that any serious investigatory body would allow Al Nusra to provide forensic evidence in support of an investigation where it is one of only two potential culprits is mindboggling, but that is precisely what has happened). But the Trump administration chose to act before these samples could be processed, perhaps afraid that their results would not sustain the underlying allegation of the employment of Sarin by the Syrian air force. Mainstream American media outlets have willingly and openly embraced a narrative provided by Al Qaeda affiliates whose record of using chemical weapons in Syria and distorting and manufacturing “evidence” to promote anti-Assad policies in the west, including regime change, is well documented.  These outlets have made a deliberate decision to endorse the view of Al Qaeda over a narrative provided by Russian and Syrian government authorities without any effort to fact check either position. These actions, however, do not seem to shock the conscience of the American public; when it comes to Syria, the mainstream American media and its audience has long ago ceded the narrative to Al Qaeda and other Islamist anti-regime elements. The real culprits here are the Trump administration, and President Trump himself. The president’s record of placing more weight on what he sees on television than the intelligence briefings he may or may not be getting, and his lack of intellectual curiosity and unfamiliarity with the nuances and complexities of both foreign and national security policy, created the conditions where the imagery of the Khan Sheikhoun victims that had been disseminated by pro-Al Nusra (i.e., Al Qaeda) outlets could influence critical life-or-death decisions. That President Trump could be susceptible to such obvious manipulation is not surprising, given his predilection for counter-punching on Twitter for any perceived slight; that his national security team allowed him to be manipulated thus, and did nothing to sway Trump’s opinion or forestall action pending a thorough review of the facts, is scandalous. History will show that Donald Trump, his advisors and the American media were little more than willing dupes for Al Qaeda and its affiliates, whose manipulation of the Syrian narrative resulted in a major policy shift that furthers their objectives.  The other winner in this sorry story is ISIS, which took advantage of the American strike against Al Shayrat to launch a major offensive against Syrian government forces around the city of Palmyra (Al Shayrat had served as the principal air base for operations in the Palmyra region). The breakdown in relations between Russia and the United States means that, for the foreseeable future at least, the kind of coordination that had been taking place in the fight against ISIS is a thing of the past, a fact that can only bode well for the fighters of ISIS. For a man who placed so much emphasis on defeating ISIS, President Trump’s actions can only be viewed as a self-inflicted wound, a kind of circular firing squad that marks the actions of a Keystone Cop, and not the Commander in Chief of the most powerful nation in the world.  But the person who might get the last laugh is President Assad himself. While the Pentagon has claimed that it significantly degraded the Al Shayrat air base, with 58 of 59 cruise missile hitting their targets, Russia has stated that only 23 cruise missiles impacted the facility, and these did only limited damage.  The runway was undamaged; indeed, in the afternoon of April 7, 2017, a Syrian air force fighter-bomber took off from Al Shayrat, flew to Idlib Province, where it attacked Al Nusra positions near Khan Sheikhoun.   -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

06 апреля, 16:48

Devin Nunes Will Temporarily Step Down From Leading Russia Investigation

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); House Intelligence Committee Chair Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) will temporarily step down from leading the panel’s investigation into possible ties between President Donald Trump’s team and the Russian government, he said in a statement Thursday. Nunes said he will have Rep. Mike Conaway (R-Texas), with assistance from Reps. Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) and Tom Rooney (R-Fla.), lead the investigation in his place. The California Republican’s decision to step aside marks a victory for Democrats, who have alleged that Nunes, a close ally of the president, was unfit to oversee the probe. In his statement, Nunes mentioned the calls from several groups for the Office of Congressional Ethics to investigate a possible violation of ethics rules on his part ― charges that Nunes said “are entirely false and politically motivated.” Soon after Nunes announced his recusal, the House Ethics Committee said it would investigate allegations that Nunes made “unauthorized disclosures of classified information.” The committee’s investigation was triggered by internal concerns from panel members, not by the outside groups Nunes mentioned. In its statement, the ethics committee cited internal rule 18(a) as its justification for launching the investigation into Nunes. That rule states that even in the absence of a filed complaint or referral from the Office of Congressional Ethics, “the Committee may consider any information in its possession indicating that a Member, officer, or employee may have committed a violation.” Nunes said he planned to speak with the ethics committee “at the earliest possible opportunity in order to expedite the dismissal of these false claims.” House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) said in a statement that he still trusted Nunes but supported Nunes’ decision to step aside.  “It is clear that this process would be a distraction for the House Intelligence Committee’s investigation into Russian interference in our election,” Ryan said. Ryan has resisted calls from Democrats to remove Nunes as chairman of the panel. White House officials would not comment on Nunes’ recusal, saying Thursday that it was “an internal matter for the House.” The House Intelligence Committee is one of two congressional panels currently probing Moscow’s alleged interference in the 2016 election and its possible collusion with the Trump team. The FBI is also conducting a separate investigation. As a former member of Trump’s transition team, Nunes was a controversial figure from the beginning to lead the House committee’s investigation. Turmoil within the House panel has played out in recent weeks in an unusually public way, prompting calls for an independent panel, modeled after the 9/11 Commission, to conduct its own investigation. The chairman muddied the situation further by claiming in mid-March that Trump surrogates, and possibly the president himself, had been subject to incidental surveillance during the final months of the Obama administration. Nunes later walked back his claim, saying he needed more information before he could know “for sure” if Trump and his team were surveilled. At a series of press conferences on March 22, Nunes said that he’d privately briefed Trump on the contents of several dozen intelligence reports provided to him by an unspecified source. The contents of these surveillance reports are typically classified. When asked several times by reporters about his source, Nunes refused to rule out current White House officials. CNN later reported that Nunes met his source on the White House grounds the day before the announcement. Nunes had said he was concerned that Trump surrogates appeared in internal reports. After his announcement, Nunes told his Democratic counterpart on the intelligence committee, Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), that few Trump surrogates were identified by name in the reports, but that he was able to deduce some individuals from their descriptions. Nunes conceded that there are legitimate reasons for intelligence officials to identify Americans who are not the targets of surveillance. And he said that the surveillance reports he read appeared to be the result of a legal effort to monitor suspected foreign spies. Nunes also claimed that the secret reports made no mention of Russia and were therefore unrelated to the committee’s investigation.   The chairman’s decision to brief the press and the president on the documents without first consulting Schiff shattered the committee’s fragile bipartisan cooperation. Critics accused Nunes of exaggerating information about routine surveillance in a way that seemed intended to vindicate the president’s unsubstantiated claim that Trump Tower was wiretapped by former President Barack Obama. (FBI Director James Comey has said there is no evidence that Obama wiretapped Trump Tower, and Nunes himself has disavowed Trump’s claim.) What initially appeared to be a bizarre breach of committee protocol began to look more in the days that followed like a coordinated cover-up between Nunes and the White House. On March 24, Nunes told reporters he had decided to “postpone” a public hearing in which former acting Attorney General Sally Yates, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, and former CIA Director John Brennan were scheduled to testify about Moscow’s alleged election meddling and possible ties between Trump surrogates and Russian officials. Schiff characterized the postponement as a cancellation intended to “choke off” information from the public. He called on Nunes last week to recuse himself from the Russian investigation. On Thursday, Schiff said that Nunes’ decision was in the “best interests of the committee” and that he looked forward to getting the investigation back on track.  The Washington Post reported on March 28 that the White House sought to block Yates from testifying, on the grounds that the subject of her testimony was protected under the presidential communication privilege. (The White House denied that it had made any such attempt.) On March 30, The New York Times reported that two White House officials, Ezra Cohen-Watnick and Michael Ellis, helped find and provide the surveillance reports to Nunes. Before joining the White House, Ellis worked as general counsel on the House Intelligence Committee with Nunes.  See Nunes’ full statement below: Several leftwing activist groups have filed accusations against me with the Office of Congressional Ethics. The charges are entirely false and politically motivated, and are being leveled just as the American people are beginning to learn the truth about the improper unmasking of the identities of U.S. citizens and other abuses of power. Despite the baselessness of the charges, I believe it is in the best interests of the House Intelligence Committee and the Congress for me to have Representative Mike Conaway, with assistance from Representatives Trey Gowdy and Tom Rooney, temporarily take charge of the Committee’s Russia investigation while the House Ethics Committee looks into this matter. I will continue to fulfill all my other responsibilities as Committee Chairman, and I am requesting to speak to the Ethics Committee at the earliest possible opportunity in order to expedite the dismissal of these false claims. Paul Blumenthal and Marina Fang contributed reporting. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

04 апреля, 17:30

Graham: Congress should look into Susan Rice reports

Sen. Lindsey Graham said Tuesday that Congress should look into reports that Susan Rice, former President Barack Obama’s national security adviser, had requested that the names of Trump transition team officials be unmasked in some intelligence reports.“I'm not going to prejudge here, but I think every American should know whether or not the national security adviser to President Obama was involved in unmasking Trump transition figures for political purposes,” Graham told Fox News. “It should be easy to figure out, and we will.”Rep. Devin Nunes, the Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, provoked controversy last month when he said the communications of some Trump transition officials seemed to have been incidentally picked up by U.S. intelligence officials last year. Nunes said the monitoring appeared to have been legal, meaning the Trump officials may have been speaking to foreigners who were under surveillance by the U.S. when their communications were picked up. But he raised the concern that the Trump officials monitored should not have been identified, or “unmasked,” in the intelligence reports he saw. News reports on Monday suggested that Rice had requested some of the unmasking in question. The reports prompted accusations from conservatives and Trump allies that she might have done so for political reasons.Graham made a point to say that he did not know whether Rice acted improperly, or whether the reports were true, and he said lawmakers need to speak with former Obama administration officials John Brennan and James Clapper about the alleged unmasking requests. "When it comes to Susan Rice, you need to verify, not trust," Graham said.“It wouldn't surprise me if somebody in the Obama administration like Susan Rice would do this,” said the South Carolina Republican. “But I'm not going to prejudge. There's a way to find out. I intend to find out.”Other Republicans made similar calls on Tuesday. Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas told conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt that the Senate Intelligence Committee should review the documents and the unmasking requests, saying the reports raise "serious questions.""Our intelligence surveillance activities are obviously very controversial," Cotton said. "They’ve been more so over the last four years since the Edward Snowden disclosures. The last thing we need are political operatives in the White House fooling around with intelligence to make it harder to pass the laws we need to keep America safe."Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, a libertarian-leaning Republican, said on MSNBC that Rice “ought to be under subpoena.” Saying that he had been “warning about these back-door searches for years, and that they could be politicized,” Paul said: “The facts will come out with Susan Rice, but I think she ought to be under subpoena, and she needs to be asked, 'Did you talk to the president about it? Did President Obama know about this?'”Paul also reiterated his defense of President Donald Trump’s still-unsupported claims that Obama ordered a wiretap of his Trump Tower phone lines, suggesting that the reports about Rice are “actually eerily similar to what Trump accused them of, which is eavesdropping on conversations for political reasons.”No evidence has emerged to suggest that Obama ordered surveillance of Trump or his associates, and FBI Director James Comey said last month that there was no evidence to support Trump’s claim. Kelsey Sutton contributed to this report.

03 апреля, 15:18

Donald Trump Trusts 'Fox & Friends' Over His Own Intelligence Community

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); President Donald Trump on Monday touted a “Fox & Friends” report that the previous administration spied on him during the election ― an idea that has been widely debunked. As Trump congratulated “Fox & Friends” on its “amazing reporting,” he was ignoring analysis from his own intelligence officials that there’s no evidence such surveillance occurred.  Such amazing reporting on unmasking and the crooked scheme against us by @foxandfriends. "Spied on before nomination." The real story.— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 3, 2017 .@FoxNews from multiple sources: "There was electronic surveillance of Trump, and people close to Trump. This is unprecedented." @FBI— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 3, 2017 Just minutes earlier, Trump’s favorite morning show tweeted that a “bombshell report over the weekend shows a ‘very high up’ Obama official unmasking Trump associates for political purposes.” Trump often praises the program and tweets about stories its hosts have recently discussed. Trump has for weeks claimed that former President Barack Obama spied on him. But FBI Director James Comey last month told Congress that there is “no information” to support the president’s claims. National Security Agency Director Mike Rogers made a similar comment. And James Clapper, who served as director of national intelligence during the time the alleged spying would have occurred, has also denied the reports. Several members of Congress have called on Trump to retract the allegations, but so far he’s only doubled down. The real story turns out to be SURVEILLANCE and LEAKING! Find the leakers.— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 2, 2017 -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

29 марта, 17:41

Nunes tries to blame Democrats for troubled Russia probe

Schiff fires back, questioning why Nunes called off a hearing with former Obama officials.

28 марта, 18:51

Schiff: Yates would have testified on Flynn ‘cover-up’

Rep. Adam Schiff, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, says a hearing set for Tuesday with former acting Attorney General Sally Yates — which was canceled by Republicans — would have featured explosive testimony on Michael Flynn’s efforts to "cover up" his conversations with Russia’s ambassador.The intelligence panel was scheduled to hold a public hearing with members of the Obama administration, including Yates, but Republicans nixed the session last week after the Trump administration raised concerns about Yates' possible testimony.Schiff said Yates planned to testify on phone conversations between the Russian ambassador and Flynn, who was fired as national security adviser last month after it became clear he misled his colleagues about the nature of those conversations.“Today's hearing would also have provided the opportunity for former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates to testify about the events leading up to former National Security Advisor Flynn's firing, including his attempts to cover up his secret conversations with the Russian Ambassador,” Schiff said in a statement.“We would urge that the open hearing be rescheduled without further delay,” Schiff continued, “and that Ms. Yates be permitted to testify freely and openly so that the public may understand, among other matters, when the president was informed that his national security advisor had misled the vice president and through him, the country, and why the president waited as long as he did to fire Mr. Flynn.”The flare-up over the canceled hearing is the latest clash between Schiff and the panel’s Republican chairman, Rep. Devin Nunes of California.Schiff, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi of California and other top Democrats on Monday called for Nunes to recuse himself from the Intelligence Committee’s investigation into Russia’s meddling in the presidential election.As part of the investigation, the panel is looking into allegations of collusion between Russia and President Donald Trump's campaign — and Democrats say Nunes is too close to the White House to lead such a probe.Nunes on Tuesday rebuffed questions from reporters about recusing himself.“The Russian investigation will continue,” he said. “Thanks for asking.”A spokesman for Nunes, Jack Langer, said the Intelligence panel still wants to speak to Yates, despite canceling Tuesday's hearing.The Washington Post reported Tuesday that the Trump administration sought to block Yates from testifying before the intelligence panel, which was also set to hear from former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and former CIA Director John Brennan.The Justice Department notified Yates that some of her possible testimony would be barred by presidential communications privilege. After Yates’ lawyer made clear she still wanted to testify, the hearing was canceled, according to the Post.In a statement, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer called the Post story “entirely false.”“The White House has taken no action to prevent Sally Yates from testifying and the Department of Justice specifically told her that it would not stop her and to suggest otherwise is completely irresponsible," the White House said.Yates was fired by Trump in January after refusing to defend his first travel ban executive order in court.

28 марта, 17:40

Nunes, White House defiant as Russia controversy deepens

The House intelligence chairman says there's no reason for him to step down from probe into ties between Trump's campaign and Russia.

27 марта, 20:10

Finally Obama's Cybergate Plumbers To Be Exposed

The House Intelligence Committee has a bumpy road ahead of them this week. Committee chairman Devin Nunes announced a closed door meeting with FBI Director James Comey and NSA Director Mike Rogers in an apparent bid to disseminate potential bombshell information regarding the sharing of unmasked surveillance targets amongst the Intelligence community widened by Former President Obama on his way out of office. The scheduled March 28th hearing with former DNI Director James Clapper, Former CIA Director John Brennan and former thorn in President Donald Trump’s side Former Deputy Attorney General Sally Yates has been postponed. Creating an even greater rift between House Intelligence Chairs Democrat Adam Schiff and Republican Devin Nunes. Help us spread the word about the liberty movement, we're reaching millions help us reach millions more. Share the free live video feed link with your friends & family: http://www.infowars.com/show Follow Alex on TWITTER - https://twitter.com/RealAlexJones Like Alex on FACEBOOK - https://www.facebook.com/AlexanderEmerickJones Infowars on G+ - https://plus.google.com/+infowars/ :Web: http://www.infowars.com/ http://www.prisonplanet.com/ http://www.infowars.net/ :Subscribe and share your login with 20 friends: http://www.prisonplanet.tv http://www.InfowarsNews.com Visit http://www.InfowarsLife.com to get the products Alex Jones and his family trust, while supporting the growth of our expanding media operation. [http://bit.ly/2dhnhbS] Biome Defense™ [http://bit.ly/2bnEj91] Bio-True Selenium™ [http://bit.ly/1WYw8jp] Vitamin Mineral Fusion™ [http://bit.ly/1QYBNBv] Joint Formula™ [http://bit.ly/1nNuR3r] Anthroplex™ [http://bit.ly/1ljfWfJ] Living Defense™ [http://bit.ly/1Iobcj2] Deep Cleanse™ [http://bit.ly/1DsyQ6i] Knockout™ [http://bit.ly/1Kr1yfz] Brain Force™ [http://bit.ly/1R5gsqk] Liver Shield™ [http://bit.ly/1cOwQix] ProstaGuard™ [http://bit.ly/1mnchEz3] Child Ease™ [http://bit.ly/1xs9F6t] WinterSunD3™ [http://bit.ly/1L3gDSO] Ancient Defense™ [http://bit.ly/1EHbA6E] Secret-12™ [http://bit.ly/1txsOge] Oxy Powder™ [http://bit.ly/1s6cphV] Occu Power™ [http://bit.ly/1rGOLsG] DNA Force™ [http://bit.ly/1nIngBb] X2 Survival Shield™ [http://bit.ly/1kaXxKL] Super Female Vitality™ [http://bit.ly/1mhAKCO] Lung Cleanse™ [http://bit.ly/1mGbikx] Silver-Bullet - Colloidal Silver™ [http://bit.ly/1xcoUfo] Super Male Vitality™ [http://bit.ly/1z5BCP9] Survival Shield - Nascent Iodine™ [http://bit.ly/1o4sQtc] Patriot Blend 100% Organic Coffee™ [http://bit.ly/1iVL6HB] Immune Support 100% Organic Coffee™ All available at - http://www.infowarsshop.com/ INFOWARS HEALTH - START GETTING HEALTHY BEFORE IT'S TOO LATE - http://www.infowarshealth.com/ Newsletter Sign up / Infowars Underground Insider : http://www.infowars.com/newsletter The Alex Jones Show © copyright, Free Speech Systems .LLC 1995 - 2017 All Rights Reserved. May use for fair use and educational purposes

27 марта, 18:44

Grassley requests information from firm behind Trump dossier

Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley is requesting information about the relationship between the FBI and the opposition research firm behind an unsubstantiated dossier whose contents included salacious allegations against President Donald Trump and his campaign aides.Grassley has sent a letter to the firm, Fusion GPS, asking for the firm to disclose who funded the dossier, which was compiled by a former British intelligence agent, and whether the company was in touch with the FBI or Justice Department about it.“When political opposition research becomes the basis for law enforcement or intelligence efforts, it raises substantial questions about the independence of law enforcement and intelligence from politics,” Grassley wrote in the letter.Then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said in January the intelligence community did not rely on the dossier for its assessment that Russia sought to sway November’s presidential election toward Trump.Last month, though, The Washington Post reported that the FBI reached an agreement with the former British intelligence agent, Christopher Steele, to continue his research — though the deal reportedly never came to fruition.Steele’s dossier, published in January by BuzzFeed News, alleged that Russia has compromising information on Trump and that Trump aides colluded with Russia in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.Grassley is asking Fusion GPS to explain by April 7 who paid for Steele’s work, which is believed to have originally been funded by Republicans opposed to Trump and then by Democratic groups. The Iowa Republican wants to know whether Steele was ever paid simultaneously by the FBI and Fusion GPS, and whether the firm itself ever communicated with the FBI.Fusion GPS did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

25 марта, 00:46

BREAKING: House Republicans

Like what you read below? Sign up for HUFFPOST HILL and get a cheeky dose of political news every evening! If you like your health care, you can keep it … for now. Knowing the Democratic Party, it will probably bungle this political opportunity with an awkwardly staged press conference on the Capitol steps in which Nancy Pelosi annoyingly proffers her own variation of “Make America Great Again,” followed by some press releases with clumsily-inserted Hamilton references. And Donald Trump is skipping Mar-a-Lago this weekend, disappointing its members and the not insignificant number of waiters with tiny cameras in their bowties. This is HUFFPOST HILL for Friday, March 24th, 2017: IT’S FUNNY BECAUSE REPUBLICANS HAD SEVEN YEARS TO GET THIS RIGHT - And they didn’t. Jeffrey Young and Jonathan Cohn: “House Republican leaders on Friday pulled their bill to repeal the Affordable Care Act, signaling defeat on what was supposed to be a major legislative accomplishment for President Donald Trump. The news was first reported by Robert Costa of The Washington Post, who spoke to the president directly, following a meeting between Trump and House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.). Trump said he agreed to pulling the bill once Ryan made it clear the legislation lacked the votes to pass. In subsequent remarks, both Trump and Ryan indicated they were ready to move on from health care to other issues. .. ‘We came really close today, but we came up short,’ Ryan said at a press conference. ‘This is a disappointing day for us.’” [HuffPost] TRUMP: FORGET THE STUFF I SAID BEFORE - Jordan Fabian: “President Trump on Friday blamed Democrats, not Republicans, for the stunning collapse of the GOP healthcare plan. ‘We were very close, it was a very tight margin. We had no Democrat support, no votes from the Democrats,’ Trump said, flanked by Vice President Pence and Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price in the Oval Office. ‘I think the losers are Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer because now they own ObamaCare,’ the president added, referring to the House and Senate Democratic leaders. ... Trump sought to distance himself from the promise to repeal ObamaCare. ‘I never said repeal and replace it in 64 days,’ the president said.” [The Hill] @SopanDeb: Trump, 11/1/16: “When we win on November 8th and elect a Republican Congress, we will be able to immediately repeal and replace Obamacare.” It’s almost like this whole thing was rushed: “Rep. Mark Amodei (R-Nev.) is one of the moderate Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives who [planned] to vote against his party’s Obamacare replacement bill on Friday ― partly, he says, because the process of drafting the legislation has been too rushed.  Amodei said he hadn’t even had a chance to read the latest changes to the bill, which House Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) unveiled on Thursday evening ahead of Friday’s vote.” [HuffPost’s Arthur Delaney] Howard Fineman gives the president some free advice: “Among other things, President Trump has to learn that in Washington, you can’t simply build your own design. You have to build what other people want. Your job is to find consensus and entice others – many others ― into thinking that your vision is theirs. Projects get ‘built’ here more with rewards than threats. It is not a brutal game of ‘the last man standing.’ It’s ‘we’re all in this together,’ even when the ‘we’ is just your own party.” [HuffPost] Et tu, Wall Street? “U.S. equities closed mixed Friday after a choppy trading session with NBC News reporting the House pulled a key health-care bill. ‘I think you will have a rally if he pulls the bill. He didn’t have the votes to get it done,’ said Art Cashin, director of floor operations at the NYSE for UBS. ‘They’ll now move on to tax reform. at least that’s what the market will believe and the market will move on.’” [CNBC] TRUMP, BELIEVE IT OR NOT, DIDN’T SEEM TO LISTEN TO HIMSELF - Kind of like that time Barack Obama couldn’t get single-payer health care because he didn’t listen to the dreams of his father. Philip Bump: “There are, it seems, 11 core tenets to Trump’s dealmaking. Trump would be among the first to admit that his ability to come out on top was not foolproof; he did, after all, also write a book called ‘The Art of the Comeback” which doesn’t get quite the same amount of play as the first. But it may gain new currency over the next few weeks as Trump and his Republican allies try to figure out a way forward after their big push to overhaul Obamacare, the American Health Care Act, flopped on Friday. Why did the health-care bill founder? Perhaps in part because Trump — the guy who pledged during the campaign that only he could fix America’s problems, largely by making the best deals — didn’t adhere to those 11 key principles.” [WaPo] Like HuffPost Hill? Then order Eliot’s book, The Beltway Bible: A Totally Serious A-Z Guide To Our No-Good, Corrupt, Incompetent, Terrible, Depressing, and Sometimes Hilarious Government Does somebody keep forwarding you this newsletter? Get your own copy. It’s free! Sign up here. Send tips/stories/photos/events/fundraisers/job movement/juicy miscellanea to [email protected] Follow us on Twitter - @HuffPostHill MEANWHILE, DEVIN NUNES IS STILL BIFFING IT - It seems to us that the intelligence committee is where lawmakers go to feel cool and in the loop. Devin Nunes seems to be neither at the moment. Jessica Schulberg and Alanna Horowitz Satlin: “The Republican leader of the House Intelligence Committee called off a public hearing scheduled for Tuesday on possible ties between President Donald Trump’s associates and the Russian government, saying the group will hold a closed-door meeting first. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), the highest ranking Democrat on the committee, called the decision by Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) ‘a dodge’ and an ‘attempt to choke off public info.’ While Nunes characterized the change as a postponement, Schiff called it a cancellation. Former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates, former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper and former CIA Director John Brennan had agreed to testify in front of the committee on March 28. But Nunes said the public hearing was being postponed because the committee needed to first hear from FBI Director James Comey and National Security Agency Director Mike Rogers in a private setting.” [HuffPost] Also: “The House Intelligence Committee will also interview Trump’s former campaign manager, Paul Manafort, who volunteered to meet with the panel amid unsettling new reports about his ties to Russia, Nunes said. Manafort, who stepped down as Trump’s campaign chair in August, worked for a close Kremlin ally to help advance Russia’s interests in the U.S., according to The Associated Press. Nunes did not say whether or not Manafort would testify publicly, but Schiff urged the former campaign manager to appear in both an open and closed setting.” [Ibid.] MIKE FLYNN: EXTRAJUDICIAL ACTIVITY ADVOCATE AND TRUMP ADVISER - Don’t call it “kidnapping,” call it, “involuntary exfiltration.” James V. Grimaldi, Dion Nissenbaum and Margaret Coker: “Retired Army Lt. Gen. Mike Flynn, while serving as an adviser to the Trump campaign, met with top Turkish government ministers and discussed removing a Muslim cleric from the U.S. and taking him to Turkey, according to former Central Intelligence Agency Director James Woolsey, who attended, and others who were briefed on the meeting. The discussion late last summer involved ideas about how to get Fethullah Gulen, a cleric whom Turkey has accused of orchestrating last summer’s failed military coup, to Turkey without going through the U.S. extradition legal process, according to Mr. Woolsey and those who were briefed. Mr. Woolsey told The Wall Street Journal he arrived at the meeting in New York on Sept. 19 in the middle of the discussion and found the topic startling and the actions being discussed possibly illegal.” [WSJ] PRO-TRUMP OUTSIDE GROUP ASLEEP AT THE WHEEL - Maybe the employees are too busy spending their weekends at Mar-a-Lago. Gotta set examples for your people, y’know. Shane Goldmacher: “Amid the biggest policy showdown of Donald Trump’s presidency, top White House aides are perplexed that an outside group created to boost him at such critical junctions was missing in action. The pro-Trump nonprofit, America First Policies, has been gripped by its own internal headaches as two of the six announced members of its leadership team have left in recent days, according to two officials involved with the group...With the health care law hanging in the balance, there were no TV ads, no brushbacks of wayward GOP lawmakers and no pointed reminders in key districts that every Republican nationwide ran on a platform or repealing and replacing President Barack Obama’s namesake health care law.” [Politico] DISCORD IN #MAGA-LAND - In fairness, to Secretary Tillerson, his wife hasn’t told him to nix the Paris agreement. Chris D’Angelo: “Myron Ebell, the longtime climate-science denier who led President Donald Trump’s Environmental Protection Agency transition team until Trump’s inauguration, says Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is among the “swamp creatures” that have infiltrated the president’s administration.  Speaking Friday at a climate conference hosted by the Heartland Institute, a conservative think tank, Ebell took issue with Tillerson voicing support for keeping the United States in the historic Paris climate agreement — a pact Trump has promised to withdraw the U.S. from. ‘Rex Tillerson thinks it’s really nice to be able to go to international meetings and pal around with his fellow foreign ministers,’ he said. ‘Tillerson may be from Texas and he may have been CEO of Exxon, but he’s part of the swamp.’” [HuffPost] NEVER FORGET - “As congressional Republicans mark the seventh anniversary of the Affordable Care Act by trying to repeal it, let us pause to reflect on a somewhat less auspicious anniversary. A year ago Friday, Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) called Donald Trump a ‘sniveling coward.’” [HuffPost] @seungminkim: Points for creativity: Dems led by Udall unveil the “Making Access Records Available to Lead American Government Openness (MAR-A-LAGO) Act” STAY CLASSY, CAPITOL POLICE - Daniel Marans: “Disability rights activists from across the country who were arrested this week at a Capitol building protest of the Republican health care bill will have to return to Washington to pay $50 fines. The 54 far-flung activists who converged on Capitol Hill Wednesday to demonstrate against Medicaid cuts in the GOP legislation must pay their fines in person within 15 days of their arrests, U.S. Capitol Police told The Huffington Post.” [HuffPost] BECAUSE YOU’VE READ THIS FAR - Here’s a boy reconciling himself with llamas. PIZZAGATE GUNMAN SENTENCED - Ending D.C.’s nightmare until Mike Cernovich suggests that there’s a vote buying operation being run out of Georgetown Cupcake. Ryan Reilly: “A conspiracy-driven man who fired his assault rifle inside a D.C. pizza restaurant pled guilty on Friday to federal and local charges. Edgar Welch, 28, reportedly entered the local Comet Ping Pong on Dec. 4, 2016, wielding his rifle and threatening the restaurant’s employees and customers. On Friday, he pled guilty to a federal charge of interstate transportation of a firearm and ammunition as well as a local charge of assault with a dangerous weapon. Under a plea agreement, the government agreed to recommend a reduction in his sentence if Welch “clearly demonstrates acceptance of responsibility.” His plea agreement indicates that Welch was previously convicted of driving while impaired in his home state of North Carolina.” [HuffPost] COMFORT FOOD - The Trump administration’s eerie similarities to “Arrested Development.” - Setting up a 1988 IBM desktop computer. - Transform any image into a waving flag. TWITTERAMA @Alex_Roarty: GOP aide on CapHill: “I’m starting to think that while we’re pretty good at winning elections, we’re not great at the whole governing thing” @BrandyLJensen: kinda fascinated by the interior lives of people who accuse me of body shaming the president @aedwardslevy: HOW A BILL BECOMES A NAHHH Got something to add? Send tips/quotes/stories/photos/events/fundraisers/job movement/juicy miscellanea to Eliot Nelson ([email protected]) -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

24 марта, 19:48

The House Intelligence Committee's Civil War

Republican Chairman Devin Nunes has canceled a public hearing, as Democrats accuse him of bowing to pressure from the White House and demand an independent investigation.

24 марта, 17:52

Top Dem Accuses GOP Rep. Of 'Attempt To Choke Off Public Info' On Russia Investigation

function onPlayerReadyVidible(e){'undefined'!=typeof HPTrack&&HPTrack.Vid.Vidible_track(e)}!function(e,i){if(e.vdb_Player){if('object'==typeof commercial_video){var a='',o='m.fwsitesection='+commercial_video.site_and_category;if(a+=o,commercial_video['package']){var c='&m.fwkeyvalues=sponsorship%3D'+commercial_video['package'];a+=c}e.setAttribute('vdb_params',a)}i(e.vdb_Player)}else{var t=arguments.callee;setTimeout(function(){t(e,i)},0)}}(document.getElementById('vidible_1'),onPlayerReadyVidible); The Republican leader of the House Intelligence Committee has postponed a public hearing on the group’s investigation into President Donald Trump’s ties to Russia in order to hold a more private one first. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.),  the highest ranking Democrat on the committee, called the decision “a dodge” and an “attempt to choke off public info.” Former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates, former director of national intelligence James Clapper, and former CIA Director John Brennan had been scheduled to testify in front of the committee on March 28th. Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), said the committee needed to first hear from FBI Director James Comey and National Security Agency Director Mike Rogers in a closed setting before the planned hearing. BREAKING: Chairman just cancelled open Intelligence Committee hearing with Clapper, Brennan and Yates in attempt to choke off public info.— Adam Schiff (@RepAdamSchiff) March 24, 2017 Trump’s former campaign manager, Paul Manafort, has offered to testify before the House committee amid unsettling new reports about his ties to Russia, Nunes said. Paul Manafort, who stepped down as Trump’s campaign chair in August, worked for a close Kremlin ally to help advance Russia’s interests in the U.S., according to The Associated Press.  Nunes did not say whether or not Manafort would testify publicly.  Manafort isn’t the only member of Trump’s campaign under scrutiny. Several other former Trump advisers, including former national security adviser Michael Flynn and longtime Trump confidant Roger Stone, have also been flagged as having potential suspect contact with the Russian government. Flynn resigned as national security adviser after admitting that he misled the White House about conversations he’d had with Russia before Trump’s inauguration. The FBI has also been probing Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election. The White House has said Trump was not aware of Manafort’s record with Russia before bringing him on board. White House press secretary Sean Spicer backtracked even further, comparing Manafort to a stranger that Trump may have sat next to once on a plane. This is a developing story and will be updated. -- This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

24 марта, 17:48

Nunes: Manafort has agreed to be interviewed by House intel committee

Paul Manafort has agreed to be interviewed by the House and Senate Intelligence Committees as part of their investigations into Russia’s meddling in the presidential election.Manafort, President Donald Trump’s former campaign chairman, has come under increasing scrutiny in recent weeks of his lobbying work on behalf of clients aligned with Russia, including an Associated Press report that Manfort worked a decade ago to advance the interests of Vladimir Putin.House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) said it had not yet been decided whether Manafort would appear before his panel for a public hearing or a private interview.At a press briefing, Nunes also announced the cancelation of a public hearing on Tuesday with members of the Obama administration to discuss Russia's interference in the 2016 election.Scheduled to testify were former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, former CIA Director John Brennan and former acting Attorney General Sally Yates.Rep. Adam Schiff of California, the intelligence panel's top Democrat, blasted the decision. He suggested it might have been done to avoid the kind of bad publicity for the White House that followed a public hearing earlier this week, when FBI Director James Comey confirmed the FBI is investigating possible collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign.“There must have been very strong pushback from the White House about the nature of Monday's hearing,” Schiff said Friday. “It's hard for me to come to any other conclusion about why an agreed-upon hearing would be suddenly canceled.”Nunes said Manafort's counsel had contacted the committee and offered his client for an interview. Manafort’s counsel reached out to the Senate Intelligence Committee with the same offer, according to a Senate source.Representatives for Manafort, who is represented by Reginald Brown with the law firm WilmerHale, emphasized that the appearances would be voluntary interviews, suggesting that it would not be sworn testimony.“Manafort instructed his representatives to reach out to Committee Staff and offer to provide information voluntarily regarding recent allegations about Russian interference in the election,” said Jason Maloni, a spokesman for Manafort. “As Mr. Manafort has always maintained, he looks forward to meeting with those conducting serious investigations of these issues to discuss the facts.”Kenneth P. Vogel contributed to this report.

23 марта, 05:06

What’s Really Behind Trump’s Laptop Ban

Skeptics scoffed. But Al Qaeda has been devising ingenious ways to blow up planes for years.

01 октября 2014, 00:30

«Исламское государство» — проект американского происхождения

Подняв флаг борьбы с «Исламским государством» (ИГ), США наносят теперь авиаудары по позициям ИГ не только в Ираке, но и в Сирии. Делается это без согласия правительства Сирии и без принятия соответствующего решения Советом Безопасности ООН. Начинают оправдываться опасения Москвы и Тегерана на тот счёт, что целью ракетно-бомбовых ударов является окончательное уничтожение сирийской инфраструктуры. По заявлению представителя Пентагона Джона Кирби, США нанесли авиаудары по 12 нефтеперерабатывающим заводам в Сирии. Якобы их контролировали боевики-экстремисты. Таких атак по позициям ИГ, говорит Джон Кирби, «будет больше». Здесь следует напомнить, что мятеж в Сирии, продолжающийся четвёртый год, стал разрастаться практически синхронно с подписанием 25 июня 2011 г. в Бушере меморандума о строительстве нового газопровода Иран – Ирак – Сирия. Борьбу американцев с правительством Башара Асада справедливо называют войной за нефть и газ. Дамаск попал в число врагов Америки в 2009 году, когда Асад отказался принять американский план строительства газопровода из Катара в Европу. Вместо этого Сирия предпочла сделку с Ираном, дав согласие на участие в строительстве газопровода через Ирак к своим портам на Средиземном море. Именно тогда всемирную известность приобрели слова бывшего госсекретаря США Генри Киссинджера: «Нефть слишком важна, чтобы оставлять ее арабам». Создание халифата на обширной территории Ирака и Сирии ведет к потере Соединенными Штатами (ExxonMobil Corporation) и Великобританией (BP и Royal Dutch Shell) позиций в нефтегазовом секторе Ирака и возможности доступа (после приближаемой американцами смены режима в Дамаске) к сирийским запасам углеводородов. Пока террористы ИГ воевали с сирийскими правительственными войсками, они американцев устраивали, но как только они вторглись в Ирак и объявили о создании собственного государства, Америка объявила им войну. Никаких двойных стандартов у США здесь нет. Налицо неизменное стремление американской элиты к мировому господству, и война с «Исламским государством» – всего лишь локальная операция. В позиции США много нестыковок и противоречий, а объясняются они тем, что Вашингтону всё труднее диктовать свои условия остальному миру. Нет сомнения в том, что Сирия остается для США главной мишенью на Ближнем Востоке, в том числе с точки зрения реализации планов по ослаблению России. «Исламское государство» — это проект американского происхождения, его цель — создание мощной дестабилизирующей волны, которая распространится вглубь Евразии. На первом этапе, переключая внимание международного сообщества на борьбу с ИГ, американцы подготавливают под шумок свержение президента Башара Асада. Именно так оценивают односторонние действия Вашингтона против «Исламского государства» многие страны мира. Поэтому не получилось у Обамы и формирование «широкой» коалиции. Американцам удалось добиться возмещения своих расходов монархиями Персидского залива (Бахрейн, Катар, Саудовская Аравия и ОАЭ), удалось склонить Иорданию предоставить свою инфраструктуру, привлечь к нанесению авиаударов некоторых союзников по НАТО - Великобританию, Францию, Бельгию и Данию. По данным Госдепартамента, 54 страны и три международные организации - ЕС, НАТО и Лига арабских государств – тоже обещали внести в эту кампанию свой вклад. Однако анонсированное Джоном Керри «всемирное» участие в коалиции не состоялось. Доверие к Америке осталось лишь у немногих. Мир еще не забыл, как в 2003 году США вторглись в Ирак без санкции ООН. Вашингтон тогда заявлял, что Ирак ведёт разработки оружия массового поражения и разоружить его нужно силой. Голосование в СБ ООН по этому вопросу так и не состоялось, поскольку Россия, Китай и Франция дали понять, что наложат вето на любой проект резолюции, подразумевающий применение военной силы против Ирака. Тогда, как и сейчас, США вызывающе пренебрегли международным общественным мнением, агрессия против Ирака началась, страна была разрушена, и последствия этого мы наблюдаем по сей день. Сегодня история повторяется. Джеймс Клеппер, глава Национальной разведки США, во время своего ежегодного выступления перед сенатской комиссией по разведке (29 января 2014) отчитался в угрозах, нависших над Америкой. Коснулся он и Сирии, сообщив ничему не соответствующие данные о составе «повстанцев». Его главный тезис состоял в том, что на 80% это «умеренные» противники режима, которые вполне могут принимать финансовую помощь США, за предоставление которой американский сенат в свое время тайно проголосовал. Теперь эти «умеренные» в одночасье превратились в непримиримых террористов, и против одной из их организаций американцы начали войну. Заметим: не против террористов вообще, а лишь против «Исламского государства». Интересно, а что думают руководители американской разведки об «умеренности» группировки «Джебхат ан-Нусра», этого сирийского отделения «Аль-Каиды»? В ответ на авиаудары по территории Сирии лидеры «Джебхат ан-Нусра» уже заявили о готовности противостоять Америке совместно с ИГ. Своими действиями американцы консолидируют терроризм. В эфире телеканала CBS Обама заявил, что в свое время американским военным удалось нанести поражение «Аль-Каиде» в Ираке, после чего организация «ушла в подполье», но «за последние два года, воспользовавшись хаосом во время гражданской войны в Сирии, боевики смогли восстановить свои силы». О том, что хаос и гражданская война в Сирии - прямое следствие действий США на Ближнем Востоке, американский президент не сказал. Председатель Объединенного комитета начальников штабов США генерал Мартин Демпси считает, что для успешной борьбы с группировкой «Исламское государство» в Ираке и Сирии необходимо провести наземную операцию. По мнению Демпси, нужно принять политическое решение и ввести войска в эти страны. Если это произойдёт, дестабилизирующая волна начнёт распространяться за пределы Сирии и Ирака, ряды террористов пополнятся новыми непримиримыми бойцами, а перед военно-промышленным комплексом США откроются захватывающие дух перспективы.