MH17: Two most honest (as far as it goes) testimonies or disclosures on the part of "U.S. intelligence":
1. U.S. major newspapers, including the Washington Post, reported: "The U.S. intelligence officials ... said they do not know the identities or even the nationalities ... possibly defectors from Ukraine’s military — of those who launched the missile from an SA-11 surface-to-air battery."
After some intensive thinking, if not a strenuous soul-searching, U.S. intelligence reconsidered and made thisleak, as reported by Robert Perry:
That reference to a possible “defector” may have been an attempt to reconcile the U.S. government’s narrative with the still-unreleased satellite imagery of the missile battery controlled by soldiers appearing to wear Ukrainian uniforms. But I’m now told that U.S. intelligence analysts have largely dismissed the “defector” possibility and are concentrating on the scenario of a willful Ukrainian shoot-down of the plane, albeit possibly not knowing its actual identity.
2. "U.S. intelligence agencies do have detailed satellite images of the likely missile battery that launched the fateful missile, but the battery appears to have been under the control of Ukrainian government troops dressed in what look like Ukrainian uniforms. The source said CIA analysts were still not ruling out the possibility that the troops were actually eastern Ukrainian rebels in similar uniforms but the initial assessment was that the troops were Ukrainian soldiers. There also was the suggestion that the soldiers involved were undisciplined and possibly drunk, since the imagery showed what looked like beer bottles scattered around the site, the source said."
3. To the above, U.S. investigative reporter Robert Perry adds the following on the basis of U.S. intelligence report: "U.S. intelligence analysts were examining satellite imagery that showed the crew manning the suspected missile battery wearing what looked like Ukrainian army uniforms, but my source said the analysts were still struggling with whether that essentially destroyed the U.S. government’s case blaming the rebels."
The essential conclusion lies in the last sentence: "[The truth] essentially destroys the U.S. government’s case blaming the rebels."
So let's sum this up: the best what the U.S. intelligence has and knows is that the Buk battery, which tried to shoot down the Malaysian airliner (and most likely bungled it up or largely) missed was staffed by soldiers "in Ukrainian uniforms." The "initial assessment [before talking to big political bosses like Obama] was that the troops were Ukrainian soldiers."
Now to soften the shattering impact of these words, quick rhetorical countermeasures have been added. If on August 1, Obama admitted after so many years passed that the US did torture people, he also quickly added that the torturers were, however, "hard-working" people and "true patriots" who should not be judged--"sanctimoniously." One has to wonder this emphasis on the hard-work ethics and patriotism of people who torture make the rest of Americans who don't torture and who are not on government payroll to be. They are perhaps those who work less, are much less patriotic, don't have government health care or pensions and can be in-sanctimoniously judged.
In the case of Ukrainian troops in Ukrainian uniforms firing a Buk missile against the 298 civilians in the air on board of the Boeing, this is, according to U.S. intelligence and U.S. media what we have further learned: "Detailed satellite images" also allegedly revealed that, when firing the Buk missile, the Ukrainian troops were either just defecting or have defected or might have been on their way of defecting.
That's not all. The same detailed satellite images also allegedly showed that these Ukrainian troops were "undisciplined and possibly drunk, since the imagery showed what looked like beer bottles scattered around the site." So the Ukrainian troops were "probably" not only "defecting," they might have also been defecting, while drunk and undisciplined and, at the same time, they were also trying to shoot the MH17 plane out of the sky. If there were, indeed, bottles on the ground, then not only the Pentagon would be able to read the labels on these bottles (thus knowing whether it was water, beer or something else), but, very likely, the bottles are still there where the Ukrainian soldiers in Ukrainian uniforms left them.
All in all, the only thing which U.S. intelligence was thus brave enough to tell us was that the Buk missile battery that was tasked with the downing of MH17 and which might have, indeed, tried to do so was manned by Ukrainian soldiers in Ukrainian uniforms." The staff about "probable defection" and "drunkenness" sounds like the author's (White House's) creative license to sprinkle the precise satellite images with few added fables most likely used simply to test the intelligence of the public.
A bit later, U.S. intelligence had again yet another epiphany and, so perhaps to soften the coming landing of the truth of the false flag op, they have come up with a version of "coming out of closet" and "meeting [the truth] half-way" (and let's not fuss about what "half" of the truth is at this point). Robert Perry again: "By then, I was already being told that the U.S. intelligence community lacked any satellite imagery supporting Kerry’s allegations and that the only Buk missile system in that part of Ukraine appeared to be under the control of the Ukrainian military."
Still the goal is to present not only Obama, the liar in chief, as innocent as possible, but also to preserve the innocence of their main thugs in Kiev. If blackening Putin and Russia as evil incarnate has run into stubborn facts and people's resilient ability to think for themselves after so many lies coming from Washington over so many wars abroad, then some scapegoat might do--if not drunken Ukrainian soldiers who might have missed the Boeing because they were too "undisciplined." A fall back position in this case for the US leaders and U.S. intelligence seems to be some fanatical, but conveniently anonymous "Ukrainian oligarch," unless it is Kolomeysky himself. And since the Kiev regime is stacked well with oligarchs, finding one who could be thrown overboard, even if anonymously, might be possible. Robert Perry thus writes: "The source added that the U.S. intelligence analysis does not implicate top Ukrainian officials, such as President Petro Poroshenko or Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk, suggesting that the attack may have been the work of more extremist factions, possibly even one of the Ukrainian oligarchs who have taken an aggressive approach toward prosecuting the war against the ethnic Russian rebels in the east." Translation: to implicate oneself or even Poroshenko or even Yatsenyuk, the exterminate-the-Russian-subhumans prime minister would have been unintelligent--even politically very, very inconvenient.
The bottom line that deserves to be repeated is then this:"[The truth] essentially destroys the U.S. government’s case blaming the rebels." The truth and intelligence destroys the U.S. official lies and the lies of the fascist minions in Kiev. What both the White House and the fascists in Kiev needed was a casus belli justifying their aggressive plans against the Russians in Ukraine and Russia itself.