https://twitter.com/chrislhayes/status/1668720685617762307
Even if we just blindly believe the CIA here, this doesn't mean anything. Maybe the CIA **did ** tell Ukraine not to do it as the story says, but then someone higher up at the CIA overruled that later. Or maybe the CIA didn't want Ukraine to do it because they wanted to do it themselves in a more professional way. Or to find a 3rd party that would do it instead. Or to just wait and do it latter. Just the statement "we told them not to do it at this specific point" only implies that Ukraine and the CIA had plans and motivation to do it, but the CIA didn't want to do it at that specific point or in that specific way.
There's no way that Seymore Hersh would be able to report on a story from a single source that contradicted popular narratives and then end up being correct.
My Lai? What is that? Some kind of tea?
I fail to see why it would be strategically beneficial for the CIA to manufacture claims that UKR blew up the pipeline. Blame Russia or like Poland or something. That's much closer to your strategic interests.
Fucking morons
I fail to see why it would be strategically beneficial for the CIA to manufacture claims that UKR blew up the pipeline. Blame Russia or like Poland or something. That’s much closer to your strategic interests.
Poland is also being blamed. https://www.politico.eu/article/nord-stream-saboteurs-may-have-used-poland-as-base-of-operations-wsj-reports/
Thanks for pointing this out!
Importantly: They already tried blaming Russia and it failed because that's a ridiculous idea
I fail to see why it would be strategically beneficial for the CIA to manufacture claims that UKR blew up the pipeline. Blame Russia or like Poland or something. That’s much closer to your strategic interests.
Lmao they tried desperately to blame russia and it didn't stick because it was stupid on its face and obvious nonsense. They are trying to blame Poland right now, they're roping them into the ukrainian yacht conspiracy
I love that Russia blowing up their own pipeline was so obviously false that over a year later they're trying to run with this.
Like it's not even that much more plausible, literally the only people that stand to gain from the pipeline's destruction are American oil execs.
I mean, the article here is saying that Ukraine had plans to blow up Nord Stream and the US told them to stand down and they did... at that time. But that makes Ukraine just more likely responsible for it, not less. And this is somehow proving Hersh wrong... I don't get the logic here at all.
They're just trying to get a story to stick to avoid looking like the US committed a direct act of war against Russia.
I think it's a half truth/limited hangout. Maybe they got a Ukrainian to make the bomb or just happened to find Ukrainian plans that lined up with what the USN was already doing - who knows, but we know that it's the US who benefits.
The US troops that did it might have slapped ukrop patches (and some death's heads and sonnenrads for funsies) and become volunteer ukrainian soldiers for the 48 hours of the op
It's when an intelligence agency declassifies/leaks part of a real operation without revealing the entire thing. Usually to make people stop investigating the part that they don't tell you, sometimes to set up a fall guy, etc.
Well it also keeps Germany committed because they don't have the option to get cheap gas anymore. So it's good for the military industrialists, too.
Poland and Ukraine have a lot to gain too because Nord Stream bypassed the old pipelines that went over their land and cut them out of the Natural Gas gravy train
Weird that Hersh's story came out first, and then a bunch of stories "correcting" it only showed up after.
God, remember the Iraq War 20th anniversary all those pieces like "journalism failed the American people after 9/11. Good thing we've all learned from it and it'll never happen again."
The thing they learned about that was to never again admit it when they get called out for disseminating state dept propaganda
Yep, first to rally the people towards violence, then to absolve them of the violence they wholeheartedly and vigorously supported.
Hersh's source attributed the operation to US Navy divers with a boat departing from, if I recall, Norway.
Western media sources are converging on a story about Ukrainian nationals using a boat rented and launched from somewhere in mainland Europe (I think Poland). Totally independent of US ruling class/CIA involvement of course (and why would their CIA sources lie about such a thing?).
Hersh's account also is very realistic in how this operation would proceed. The 'Ukr did it alone' story is highly implausible for many reasons. But don't let reason get in the way of some good ole propaganda campaign.
So basically, to prove Hersh "wrong", the US is trying to say "Yes, we and our allies still did it like Hersh is saying, but in a slightly different way"?
If you think about, the CIA is the real victim of this whole thing - unfairly blamed
The official story, unless they've changed it is that it was a rag-tag group of Ukrainians who are unaffiliated with the government or military of Ukraine.
Love to do the largest scale underwater digging, welding & bombing operation in history at extreme depth on a party boat with some dude and thousands of pounds of C4
I keep saying this, but this story literally gets funnier every time it gets brought up.
It's now apparent Seymour Hersh dealt such a major blow to the US narrative, it's essentially irreparable. They STILL can't get their story straight on this months later.
America is throwing the Ukrainian government under the bus for what Joe Biden promised America would do February 7th 2022 so that makes Seymour Hersh "wrong" in the sense that he blamed America and not Ukraine, now that it is apparent to all that Russia did not laughably bomb one of its own biggest sources of trade income (the original story).
I still think it's funny that I was banned from r/worldnews for saying Russia didn't bomb their own pipeline and that the US was probably involved.
You gotta wonder what Chris Hayes, an experienced and presumably knowledgeable political commentator, thinks this means. Is the idea that geopolitical factions are typically split along continent lines, so much so that Europe and North America agreeing on something makes it more plausible?
He's a dumbass in thrall to the deep and not so deep state. Simple as.
You gotta wonder what Chris Hayes, an experienced and presumably knowledgeable political commentator, thinks this means
:blob-no-thoughts: His brain has been sanded with 36,000 grit Micro Mesh and buffed with the finest of polishing compounds.
multiple new outlets that operate as sock puppets to the intelligence agencies and the state department vs the guy who's record has consistently produced slam dunks :thinking-about-it:
If you read this it becomes immediately clear that Sy Hersh is 99% correct and the Ukrainian yacht story is total BS smokescreen
https://www.moonofalabama.org/2023/02/some-small-corrections-to-seymour-hershs-new-nord-stream-revelations.html
When a true journalist appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him.
You're not even a fucking journalist Chris!!!! A fucking Buzzfeed asshole who writes listicles is more of a journalist than you. You read a teleprompter and make smug tweets. The idea that you have worth in society and are anything more than vermin is a greater threat to democracy or "truth" than Trump was
There's only one explanation: Seymour Hersh was also on that yacht, and he's trying to throw investigators off his trail.
Sy Hersh only got some minor details wrong (MoA goes over these here ) but he got the big picture 99% correct.
The "Ukrainians did it with a yacht" story is bullshit cover, and everybody knows it except Germany who keeps running around in circles confused and distraught
everybody knows it except Germany who keeps running around in circles confused and distraught
Libs and believing state department propaganda: name a more consistent pairing.
Wow it says here that the CIA made a statement saying you're wrong about the CIA being involved. Checkmate tankies!
Limited hang-out that's been increasing by degrees. They'll do anything but confirm Hersh was right within the next year or so because they want to bash him and discourage others. Then like 10 years from now it'll come out he got the basic facts of the story completely correct with maybe a minor nitpick or two and it'll come out in a predictably meaningless and swept under the carpet way in the form of some natsec ghoul in the Executive or military casually mentioning the truth about it at like a think tank forum or summit and all the big newspapers ignoring it or ignoring that it's an important revelation and vindicates Hersh.
