|
The “Russian Influence” Story Falls Apart – A New Fairy Tale Is Needed
The Obama White House and some Democratic officials pressed Facebook to find evidence for alleged "Russian interference" in the U.S. election. When Facebook found none, the pressure increased. Facebook went back, again found nothing and political pressure increase further. Congress threatened to investigate. Senator Warner flew to California and demanded the "right" results. Eventually Facebook gave in:
By early August, Facebook had identified more than 3,000 ads addressing social and political issues that ran in the United States between 2015 and 2017 and that appear to have come from accounts associated with the Internet Research Agency.
All hailed Facebook – finally there was something they could build their anti-Russian campaign on.
It is of course idiotic to believe that 3,000 ads for which some $100,000 was spent over two years would somehow effect a U.S. election. In a U.S. presidential election more than $2 billion is spend on advertising. Facebook's ad revenue per year is some $27 billion.
Moreover – as it now turns out these 3,000 advertisements which "appeared" to be "associated" with something "Russian" were not anti-Clinton or pro-Trump but were a mix of pro- and contra ads on various social issues:
The batch of more than 3,000 Russian-bought ads that Facebook is preparing to turn over to Congress shows a deep understanding of social divides in American society, with some ads promoting African American rights groups, including Black Lives Matter, and others suggesting that these same groups pose a rising political threat, say people familiar with the covert influence campaign.
The Russian campaign — taking advantage of Facebook’s ability to send contrary messages to different groups of users based on their political and demographic characteristics — also sought to sow discord among religious groups. Other ads highlighted support for Democrat Hillary Clinton among Muslim women.
(Note again – there is no evidence that any of the ads were "Russian bought" or part of a "Russian campaign". Those are mere assertions by the Washington Post authors.)
As we now learn that these ads were not, as earlier assumed, pro-Trump and anti-Clinton, the narrative has to change. Earlier it was claimed that the alleged Russian aim was to get Trump elected. That no longer holds:
“Their aim was to sow chaos,” said Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-Va.), vice chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee. “In many cases, it was more about voter suppression rather than increasing turnout.”
How pro- and anti-Black Lives Matter ads might have suppressed voter turnout will stay Senator Warner's secret.
Instead of "Russia helped Trump" we now get an even more implausible "Russia wanted to sow discord" narrative. As if Donald Trump's campaign style had not been enough to cause controversies.
The Washington Post has been the major outlet to push the "Russian influence" baloney. It has long left all journalistic standards behind. Today it goes even further. An editorial now claims that Russia interfered in the German elections by pushing the right-wing AfD vote through last minute tweets from some Twitter bots:
The party was buoyed by social-media campaigns of the kind Russia has used elsewhere — faceless bots that multiply messages over and over. Once again, the Kremlin’s quest to disrupt democracy, divide the West and erode the rules-based liberal international order may have found a toehold.
No evidence is presented that any online activity "buoyed" the AfD. No evidence is presented that anything Russian was involved. Here is the sole point the editorial builds on:
In the final hours of the campaign, online supporters of the AfD began warning their base of possible election fraud, and the online alarms were “driven by anonymous troll accounts and boosted by a Russian-language botnet,” according to the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab.
The Atlantic Council is financed by foreign (Middle East) interest, NATO and the oil- and weapon industry. It has been a major driver of the anti-Russian new Cold War narrative. Its "Digital Forensic Research Lab" indeed claims to have found a few Twitter accounts which have their names written in Cyrillic(!) letters. Only Russian influence accounts would ever do that! It even found one tweet warning about election fraud that was retweeted 500(!) times. That MUST have helped the AfD to receive more than 12% of the 47 million cast votes in Germany – (not!).
Election fraud in the German pen and paper balloting is nearly impossible. No one will take vague claims thereof as serious. It is simply not an issue in Germany and any such claim would not effect the vote. German officials have found no sign of "Russian" election hacking or of voting fraud.
What the Washington Post editors and the Atlantic Council have missed in their search for undue election influence in the German election is the large support of a islamophobic U.S. megadonor for the rightwing Germany AfD party:
[O]ne of the major publishers of online content friendly to the far-right [German] party is an American website financed in large part and lead by Jewish philanthropist Nina Rosenwald.
Rosenwald’s site, the Gatestone Institute, publishes a steady flow of inflammatory content about the German election, focused on stoking fears about immigrants and Muslims.
The fake news stories by the Zionist agitators were translated into German and disseminated to support the AfD.
Allegations of "Russian influence" in U.S., French and German elections is made up from hot air. No evidence is or ever was presented to support these claims. Massive election interference by other foreign interests, like large Saudi donations to the Clinton Foundation, or Zionist Jewish financier support for extremist positions in Germany and France is ignored.
The story about "Russian influence" was made up by the Democrats to explain Clinton's loss of the election and to avoid looking at her personal responsibility for it. It also helps to push the new cold war narrative and to sell weapons. As no evidence was ever found to support the "Russian influence" campaign, Facebook and others come under pressure to deliver the "evidence" the U.S. intelligence services could not produce. The now resulting story of "sowing chaos" is something out of la-la-land.
If there is something to learn from this sad story it is this: The lack of objectivity and journalistic integrity is a greater threat to western democracy than any "Russian influence" could ever be.
Stephen F Cohen says:
(from behind the paywall at the nation)
Do Liberal Democrats Want War With Russia?
By Stephen F. Cohen
“Russiagate” is abetting the possibility of direct military conflict with Moscow, and liberals, once opponents of such politics, are promoting it.
A lifelong “liberal Democrat” of varying sorts, Cohen frames the question as follows:
Each month brings the United States closer to actual war with Russia. Three peril points are well-known: Syria, where recently US-assisted forces apparently killed three senior Russian officers; Ukraine, where Congress and perhaps the Trump administration have decided to send more weapons, which Kiev vows to use against Russian-backed rebels in Donbass; and on Russia’s western borders, where the Washington establishment says Moscow is menacing “NATO’s borders”—without explaining how NATO got there from Germany.
But there is another perilous factor—the one in Washington called “Russiagate,” with its persistent (and still unproved) dual allegations that “Putin’s Kremlin” directed a massive attack on American democracy in various ways during the 2016 presidential campaign, from hacking the DNC and disseminating e-mails unfavorable to Hillary Clinton to using Russian media agencies and even Facebook to plant “Russian disinformation” and related pro-Trump “fake news” in the minds of American voters. And, still more, that Trump’s American “associates,” perhaps the president himself, “colluded” with the Kremlin in this nefarious operation.
Having grown into an inescapable political phenomenon, “Russiagate” abets the chances of war with Moscow in at least three ways. It depicts Russia as a “hostile nation.” It has crippled Trump’s promise to ease tensions by cooperating with Moscow. And it discourages anti–Cold War voices in American mainstream media and politics.
In the past, liberal Democrats did not always, initially, or unanimously oppose such practices, but eventually many of them did so, as during the Vietnam War and the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. But for more than a year the Democratic Party, including leading liberals, as well as influential media outlets associated with them, have been deeply complicit in promoting “Russiagate,” with few if any mainstream exceptions.
Indeed, “Russiagate” allegations did not begin after Trump’s election in November 2016, as widely said, but in the summer and fall of 2016, with liberal Democratic journalists and pro-Clinton media, including The New York Times, seeding the notion of a “Trump-Putin” conspiracy, with the now infamous anti-Trump “dossier,” then being secretly funded by the Clinton campaign, and Mrs. Clinton herself branding Trump a “Putin puppet” during one of their nationally televised debates. When President Obama announced sanctions against Russia in December 2016, including, he said, cyber-attacks embedded somewhere in that nuclear country’s infrastructures, he cited what has become known as “Russiagate” as a reason, still without presenting any proof.
Since then, Democrats, many of them self-professed liberals, have unrelentingly pumped up and perpetuated “Russiagate.” In Congress, for example, Representatives Adam Schiff, Jackie Speier, Eric Swalwell, and Maxine Waters, and Senators Mark Warner and Richard Blumenthal have been in the forefront. Abandoning journalistic standards of verifiable evidence, reliable sources, and balanced coverage, The New York Times and The Washington Post have increased their publication of sweeping allegations as virtual facts. (For their practices, see the many critical articles by the award-winning journalist Robert Parry at consortiumnews.com.) That print news is amplified almost nightly on MSNBC and CNN. Many other smaller liberal outlets play the same role.
Still worse, liberal or pro-Democratic media have trumpeted “Russiagate’s” most reckless charge that in 2016 America “came under attack by the Russian government,” as Morgan Freeman intoned in a recent video produced by Hollywood liberals. “We are at war,” he declared. Can this mean anything other than that Washington must immediately launch an “attack” on the other nuclear superpower?
Nor is this implicit call for war merely coming from questionably informed celebrities. During the past week, a Times editorial told readers that in 2016 Russia “sought to undermine America’s own sovereignty,” much as it had done Ukraine’s in 2014. According to the eminent liberal Democratic policy intellectual Robert Reich, Russia committed an “unprecedented attack on our democracy,” the professor apparently having forgotten or discounted Pearl Harbor and 9/11. And in a major foreign policy speech on September 21, the “maverick” Bernie Sanders told the Democratic Party, “We now know that the Russian government was engaged in a massive effort to undermine one of our greatest strengths: The integrity of our elections, and our faith in our own democracy.”
No, Cohen emphasizes, we do not “know” that, which brings him to what liberal Democrats have not done, but what they once did:.
§ They have evinced no skepticism regarding official and mainstream media allegations about a purported Kremlin hack of the DNC or its surreptitious abuse of Facebook and other media, despite contrary evidence and testimony. Pro-Democratic mainstream newspapers and networks have produced no investigations or editorials in this contrarian regard, again with few exceptions.
§ They have not protested, as liberals once did, the growing criminalizing of customary “contacts” with Russia—financial, diplomatic (such as back channels), even conjugal, but while still promoting the truly “fake news” anti-Trump Dossier.
§ Though once the enemies of covert intelligence operations in American politics, liberals have not protested, or even shown interest in, the now evident role of Obama’s Intel chiefs in the origins and perpetuating of “Russiagate.” And they have shown even less interest in new evidence that Trump’s campaign was in fact surveilled by the FBI, as the president later suggested and for which he was widely derided. (See, for example, Evan Perez, et al., CNN.com, September 19.) Instead, Democrats, including liberals, have turned the intelligence agencies into an iconic source (of testimony and leaks). Indeed, Obama’s Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, whose ethnic slurs about Russians as inherently subverting did not perturb liberals either, is on the advisory board of Hollywood’s new “Committee to Investigate Russia,” which scripted Morgan Freeman.
§ Above all, perhaps, liberals once would have been shocked into protest by a recent Times article characterizing Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigative methods as “aggressive tactics,” “shock-and-awe tactics to intimidate witnesses and potential targets.” Methods, as one source put it, “to strike terror in the hearts of people in Washington.” But there is no liberal outrage, no ACLU actions, only articles applauding Mueller for his “scrupulousness” and egging him on, as by Ryan Lizza in The New Yorker. Not even when the Times suggests that Mueller, unable to find evidence of electoral “collusion,” might be “on a fishing expedition” reminiscent of past abuses. (Now we learn Mueller wants IRS records going back many years, long before Trump’s political rise. Will Democratic figures who participated in the plunder of Russia in the 1990s worry about where such investigations will stop?)
§ Finally, liberal Democrats seem indifferent to the slouching toward forms of media censorship. Some of it is soft: informed anti-“Russiagate” and anti–Cold War voices are regularly excluded from mainstream news reporting, opinion pages, and broadcast panels. But there is also an adumbration of harder censorship—official and unofficial campaigns, both well-funded, to purge “Russian disinformation and propaganda” from American media, even if expressed by Americans as their own analytic, dissenting opinion. (See Samantha Power’s demand that we “enhance our vigilance” and her longing for media “gatekeepers” and “umpires.”) And this too betrays a disregard for the First Amendment but also contempt for American voters, who presumably, zombie-like, have no critical minds of their own. About this, the normally loquacious PEN and other civil liberties guardians are also silent.
In short, Cohen thinks, liberal Democrats are betraying their own best traditions. Privately, some justify their new illiberalism by insisting it is necessary for the “Resistance” against Trump, that Trump is the greater evil. But history has long shown that such ends-justify-means reasoning does not end well for liberals—or anyone else.
And, of course, liberal Democrats were once in the forefront of politics to avoid nuclear war with Russia. No longer.
Posted by: mauisurfer | Sep 28 2017 0:35 utc | 93
|
