Moon of Alabama Brecht quote
April 25, 2014

Kerry Lies, Repeats Debunked State Department Claim

The Russian President Vladimir Putin once famously called John Kerry a "liar". Kerry now again confirmed Putin's claim.

In Remarks on Ukraine U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry yesterday asserted:

Some of the individual special operations personnel, who were active on Russia’s behalf in Chechnya, Georgia, and Crimea have been photographed in Slovyansk, Donetsk, and Luhansk.

Pictures allegedly proving that some protesters in east-Ukraine were Russian "special operation personal" were "reported" on on page 1 of Monday's New York Times. The pictures were distributed by the State Department but originally from the Ukrainian coup-government.

With a little open source research Internet commentators at Reddit immediately found that some of those pictures:

  • allegedly taken in Russia were actually taken in Ukraine
  • showing allegedly the same person were of two different ones
  • were intentionally lowered in resolution to disguise them while high resolution copies were available elsewhere
  • showing "Russian equipment" were of Ukrainian weapons and U.S./EU sourced equipment.

On Wednesday the New York Times somewhat retracted and corrected the story but now only on page 9 of its print edition.

Veteran journalist Robert Parry compared the NYT behavior with the NYT distributed lies about "Saddam's centrifuges":

Many of the flaws in the photographic evidence were there to see before Monday’s front-page article, but the newspaper was apparently blinded by its anti-Russian bias.

For instance, the article devoted much attention to the Russian skill at “masking” the presence of its troops, but that claim would seem to be contradicted by these allegedly secret warriors posing for public photos.

Parry was interviewed on The Real News.

TIME magazine talked with one of the Russian "special operations personal" in east-Ukraine who had been depicted as having served with Russia in the war with Georgia and found him to be a Cossack petty criminal under indictment in Russia:

His men then gathered around to laugh at the photos of Mozhaev and the man in Georgia, slapping Mozhaev on the back as he learned that he was not only famous, but a famous Russian special-forces agent. “That guy looks more like Osama bin Laden than our Babay,” one of the gunmen remarked.

Yesterday the New York Times Public Editor criticized the paper's handling of the story:

It all feels rather familiar – the rushed publication of something exciting, often based on an executive branch leak. And then, afterward, with a kind of “morning after” feeling, here comes a more sober, less prominently displayed followup story, to deal with objections while not clarifying much of anything.

The pictures from the coup government in Ukraine distributed through the U.S. State Department are obviously fakery and purely anti-Russian propaganda. The story of Russian "special operations personnel" in east-Ukraine is a lie. It has been debunked as such in several U.S. publications. Despite that Kerry yesterday repeated it proving himself to be exactly what Putin had claimed, a liar.

Posted by b on April 25, 2014 at 8:55 UTC | Permalink

« previous page

Western "journalism" (New York table waiter) version:

Russia Responds to Threat of More Sanctions By Violating Ukraine's Airspace

"What did Russia do after being threatened with more sanctions by the United States, the European Union, and the leaders of the G7 on Friday? It repeatedly violated Ukraine's airspace with fighter jets, of course."

The adult version: Neither Russian troops, nor planes crossed into Ukraine – acting DM Koval

"Ukraine's acting Defence Minister Mikhail Koval has said that neither Russian troops, nor aircraft crossed into Ukraine during a military exercise. He was speaking to reporters in Kiev on Saturday. He added that Russian troops came within 2 or 3 kilometres of the Ukrainian border. According to his assessments, the peak of the Russian troops' activity off the Ukrainian border was on April 24th and 25th."

Posted by: scalawag | Apr 26 2014 19:00 utc | 101

we are striking them because of their evil and injustice in the whole of the Islamic World, especially in Iraq and Palestine and their occupation of the Land of the Two Holy Sanctuaries."

and yet we have 1,000's of al Q in Syria at the moment, right next door to Israel.

So far the main targets of Al Q have been secular states which are enemies of Israel, such as Iraq, Syria Libya etc.

DO let me know when Al Q start liberating the Palestinians now, won't ya?

Posted by: tst | Apr 26 2014 19:12 utc | 102

Of course Tom, you are right, and because of its intransigent support of Israel, and support of others cooperating with that strategy, not to mention its war profiteers, the US has lost two more wars and its position noticeably eroded in the Middle East.

Posted by: amspirnational | Apr 26 2014 21:34 utc | 103

Of course Tom, you are right, and because of its intransigent support of Israel, and support of others cooperating with that strategy, not to mention its war profiteers, the US has lost two more wars and its position noticeably eroded in the Middle East.

Posted by: amspirnational | Apr 26, 2014 5:34:23 PM | 105

and if only that were his argument, then he might be correct. If he had confined himself to arguing only that US support for Zios is detrimental to the US I would have no problem agreeing with him.

BUT that is not what he is arguing, as anyone can plainly see.

TM is attempting to argue in favour of the "official" Anglo-Zionist narrative, which is "On 911 the US was the victim of a Fundamentalist-Muslim terrorist attack, mainly because of it's support for Israel and it's activities in the Muslim world".

He is foolishly and ignorantly claiming that the Anglo-zionist narrative is the "truth", that Al Q is a real honest-to-God enemy of the US and not merely a tool of it's Security Services

this is nonsense, plain and simple, and easily proven so - he rants about there being "evidence" to support his ridiculous Anglo-Zionist narrative but when pressed for same, produces nothing that looks remotely like actual "evidence"

The US/Anglo-Zios created Al Q, and years later the US/Anglo-Zios still help finance, arm and train Al Q - the evidence for this is undeniable and we can see it just by looking at the events in Syria.

That they do it through proxies mostly is immaterial, there is more than enough evidence that US/Anglo-Zios have always supported Al Q, which for some strange reason the poor deluded man is attempting nonetheless to deny.

To now claim that the Org that the US/Anglo-Zios created and helped finance arm and train from day one is some sort of enemy of the US/Anglo-Zios is just nonsense, peddled by the dishonest to the gullible

Posted by: tst | Apr 26 2014 22:54 utc | 104


I said nothing about "official" and I said nothing about "Fundamentalist Muslim." And STOP using the phrase "official narrative," do you have no idea how ignorant you sound? You are parroting the ignorance spread by manipulative people who trick others into thinking they are rebelling against officialdom by accepting their hair-brained theories. And as I have pointed out several times, the powers that be go out of their way to suppress and lie about the main motive so for you to claim the "Anglo-Zionist narrative" pushes "support for Israel" as the reason for the attack is wrong. Their narrative, as much as they can get away with it, is to claim this is over "values" and "hatred of our freedoms."

I showed you how Friedman denied the demands:

You ignored most of my questions and posted non-sequiturs. You never answered who it is that is writing things like "thugs in the White House hiding the Truth, and their stupid and foolish leader … denying reality … the reality is that we are striking them because of their evil and injustice in the whole of the Islamic World, especially in Iraq and Palestine and their occupation of the Land of the Two Holy Sanctuaries. "

I posted info on why the U.S. was targeted. Why you think talking about terrorists groups in Syria is a counterargument is beyond me.

I have shown a pattern of suppression and lies about the main motive for the repeated attacks and you want to ignore that and regurgitate the ignorance spread by the likes of Mike Rivero's "What Really Happened" who is so illogical that he pushes BOTH the claim that "bin Laden was murdered" AND that "bin Laden died of natural causes." And Rivero REFUSES to be reasoned with, he REFUSES to even engage in any communication to discuss his position.

I posted links to evidence ( ) but you choose to ignore it:
Abdulaziz Alomari, one of the hijackers aboard Flight 11 with Mohammed Atta, said in his video will, "My work is a message those who heard me and to all those who saw me at the same time it is a message to the infidels that you should leave the Arabian peninsula defeated and stop giving a hand of help to the coward Jews in Palestine."

Ahmed Al Haznawi, a hijacker aboard Flight 93, said in his video will, "Here is Palestine for more than a half-century, its wound has continued to bleed."

In March of 2002, MSNBC aired "The Making of the Death Pilots." In that documentary, German friend Ralph Bodenstein who traveled, worked and talked a lot with Mohammed Atta. Ralph said, "He (Atta) was most imbued actually about Israeli politics in the region and about US protection of these Israeli politics in the region. And he was to a degree personally suffering from that."

You irrationalists are poison, look how you have to interject your stupidity into comments on a blog post that has nothing to do with 9/11. Look how you undermine efforts at justice by attacking people who are exposing the lies being spread against Russia on the issue of Ukraine.

Posted by: Tom Murphy | Apr 26 2014 23:39 utc | 105

Oh just fuck off tom, you're an idiot

Posted by: tst | Apr 26 2014 23:43 utc | 106

All that you have shown is that you pretty much believe everything you read about nasty muslims attacking the US on 911.

There is no evidence whatsoever that Atta and friends were even on those planes. The only video evidence from the airports showing what is alleged to be Atta has the wrong date-time stamp. that you are so convinced by such flimsy "evidence" is just proof of your own gullibility

I said nothing about "official" and I said nothing about "Fundamentalist Muslim." And STOP using the phrase "official narrative,

No. I'll use any phrase I think suitable, to describe your nonsense. The fact you even make such demands is bizarre tbh.

No one ever claimed you used those phrases, so please stop dishonestly pretending that they did so.

Nonetheless it IS the "official narrative" of: "nasty Muslim, enemies of the US, incenced by the treatment of Palestinian etc etc carried out 911" that you are peddling here, and as stated it is nonsense.

You ignore completly the history of the US setting up this Org and financing training etc its operatives. Whether you do so out of Dishonesty or just plain ignorance of those facts is hard to discern, but recent events in places like Syria and Libya have proven beyond doubt the Al Q is a tool of US security Services.

That you refuse to acknowledge that is your own problem

That you seem convinced by that nonsensical "official" narrative is obvious, but your belief in that nonsensical narrative doesnt make it any less nonsensical

Posted by: tst | Apr 27 2014 0:09 utc | 107

foff! My favorite nitpicker.

Posted by: dh | Apr 27 2014 0:20 utc | 108

You claimed "There is no evidence whatsoever that Atta and friends were even on those planes. The only video evidence from the airports showing what is alleged to be Atta has the wrong date-time stamp"

You don't have a clue what you are talking about. These people existed in the real world and given that, there are just too many interactions with others and being observed by others in a modern world especially people booked on airplanes and riding on those planes with others connected to our modern world for there to have been no evidence. And if you made an effort to think that through and look at the evidence MAYBE you will realize how off the wall your claim is:
"The process of identifying the 9/11 hijackers began very early, for instance. In fact, as the 9/11 Commission explains, before even the first crash had taken place: At 8:26, Ong reported that the plane was “flying erratically.” A minute later, Flight 11 turned south. American also began getting identifications of the hijackers, as Ong and then Sweeney passed on some of the seat numbers of those who had gained unauthorized access to the cockpit."

Posted by: Tom Murphy | Apr 27 2014 1:41 utc | 109

Tom please stop making an idiot of yourself

Please. Its getting embarrassing.

I mention the lack of video evidence, despite the plethora of cctv cameras in airports everywhere, and tom the eejit switches to talking about the plane flying erratically, and some wank about seat numbers

Maybe if you wrote less and thought more, tom, you'd notice that the complete lack of cctv evidence, which if it existed (which it doesnt) would show that these guys actually were where they were alleged to be, is what makes a farce of your whole stupid narrative.

If these alleged hijackers were in those airports on 911, then there would be video evidence, time and date stamped,.

But there isnt, and you know the isn't which is why you want to talk about anything else but that

You really are an idiot.

Posted by: tst | Apr 27 2014 2:13 utc | 110

I looked at your link tom

Not so much as one scrap of actual evidence, no links to cctv footage for example, correctly date stamped, showing alleged hijackers in airports on 911

Thanks for proving my point for me.

Posted by: tst | Apr 27 2014 2:17 utc | 111

Posted by: Tom Murphy | Apr 26, 2014 9:41:07 PM | 111

Please Tom give it up. He is not worth the trouble. He serves only as a major distraction. Maybe a troll but more likely just an idiot that cannot be dealt with on a rational level.

Posted by: ToivoS | Apr 27 2014 2:42 utc | 112

Yes tom, don't worry about questioning the complete lack of video evidence. After all thats what the smart guys like the one at 114 do, in between wanking off to fantasies of a torrid 4some with Glenn Greenwald Pierre Omidyar and Ed Snowden

Posted by: tst | Apr 27 2014 2:55 utc | 113

The last intelligence intercept of Osama bin Laden was on Dec 14 2001. Bush and Rumsfeld hinted in late Dec 2001 that they knew Osama bin Laden was dead. Musharraf announced in Jan 2002 that Osama bin Laden was probably dead of kidney disease. Karzai of Afghanistan was quoted in Oct 2002 as saying, “The more we don’t hear of him, and the more time passes, there is the likelihood that he probably is either dead or seriously wounded somewhere.” As early as Jul 2002, even the FBI’s counterterrorism chief was quoted as saying Osama bin Laden was “probably” dead. But who the hell cares. And why is this relevant.

Posted by: Rowan Berkeley | Apr 27 2014 6:40 utc | 114

STOP using the phrase "official narrative,

says petulant Tom

and then links to a page where big chunks of the Kean-Hamilton OFFICIAL 911 report are quoted. - ROFLMAO

Tom - sorry to break it to ya like this old chum, but the Kean-Hamilton 911 report IS The Official Narrative", Tom

Tom, really, is it any wonder that some people think you're an idiot?

Posted by: tst | Apr 27 2014 10:36 utc | 115

I see that I missed a whole series of hysterical outbursts from the zombie troll tst(formerly known as foff etc etc.) What a pity!

This troll specialises in affecting to be a critic of zionism (and accusing people like myself and Murphy of being tools of the same) and stringing out long tedious disputes by salting his banalities and misrepresentations with abuse of the English Saloon Bar kind.

My advice is, as always, to let the thing-for this is not a person but a software conceit-wallow in its own words.
If nobody replies it goes back to sleep, and the internet becomes a slightly better place.

Posted by: bevin | Apr 28 2014 0:14 utc | 116

Must be tough for ya, constantly having yer ass handed to ya by a bot, eh

Well if your going to go around spouting the anglo-zionist narrative you've no ground for complaint when someone points out that you're pimping the anglo-zionist narrative.

If you are so ashamed when your pimping of the A/Z narrative is exposed, you could just stop pimping the AZ narrative

Posted by: tst | Apr 28 2014 0:37 utc | 117


There s no "saloon bars" in the uk

Thats probably "high noon" or some other nonsense yer thinking of.

Thats what happens when all yer info about foreign lands is obtained while watching tv

Posted by: tst | Apr 28 2014 0:48 utc | 118

The time was when Public Houses in the UK had several bars, there were Public Bars, variations on "snugs" and private bars and then, for the local Tories, Ex India types and cashiered officers there were Saloon Bars.
It was in these last that fascist ideas and blimpery were mosr regularly discovered.
tst might want to work this sort of historical colour into the programme: knowing something of the way that human beings lived a generation or so ago might add to the authenticity of the shit vomiting bot.

Posted by: bevin | Apr 28 2014 3:16 utc | 119

so not "high noon" then,

bevin's tv-supplied stereotypes are it seems gleaned from watching too many ye olde Sherlock Holmes reruns of the basil rathbone era on the idiotbox

like i said, constantly havin yer ass handed to you by a bot must get frustrating at times, so much so that one might be inclined to retreat into the distant completely imaginary past, much like our dinosaur friend does above

"spare a copper for a warm cuppa, guv'nor?"

Posted by: tst | Apr 28 2014 3:34 utc | 120

Don't worry your little neo-commie heads. Vladimir just does anything he wants and no one will stop him. Barky gets bitch-slapped so often, he’s punch drunk. Putin has annexed Crimea and now Ukraine. He's nostalgic for the old Soviet Union. Obama's response? He threatens more wrist-slapping sanctions.
Ooooooh, that’ll scare ‘em.
Russia controls most of Europe’s fuel supply, China and Russia have ‘reset’ their comradeship with a deal for Siberian oil, and Kremlin officials shelter their money in Cyprus banks. Russia will be insulated from any sanctions.
Good luck with those sanctions, Barky.

Posted by: Veritas | Apr 28 2014 16:41 utc | 121

« previous page

The comments to this entry are closed.