Remember the old shell game? The professional Trickster places three
shells on the table and puts a pea beneath one. "Watch the pea", he
says, as he begins manipulating the shells with both hands, moving
them back and forth faster and faster. Of course the pea is not
beneath any of the shells. He has palmed it even as he appeared to
place it under one shell.
The shell game is a favorite game of Politicians. Currently President
Obama and his cronies have shown us a pea called Russia. We see this
pea placed under a shell, and we are told to not let it out of our
sight. Around and around it goes. But when we finally look beneath
the shell we were certain the pea was located, it's not there. In the
case of Russia, it was never there. It was a ruse. The Russia Pea
was planted in front of us to distract our attention from the mischief
going on right here at home.
It's the modern version of McCarthyism. The late, great senator Joe
McCarthy waved Pinkos and Commies in front of an ever more frightened
America, in order to distract our attention from...well, from
McCarthy, as it turned out.
Ronald Reagan waved the "Welfare Mom" in front of us to distract our
attention from the huge pile of tax dollars being robbed from American
working class by the Greed driven Privateers of the day.
Did our "War on Drugs" result in an end to the use of drugs in our
streets? Has Three Strikes put an end to a growing prison population?
Is the mounting attack on the few remaining labor unions and public
services such as the Veterans Administration and the privatization of
medicare and social security going to make a better life for our
Working Class Americans?
It's all shell games. Around and around she goes, and where she lands
nobody knows".
Carl Jarvis
On 12/31/16, Miriam Vieni <miriamvieni@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Taibbi writes: "In an extraordinary development Thursday, the Obama
administration announced a series of sanctions against Russia. Thirty-five
Russian nationals will be expelled from the country."
President Obama with Vladimir Putin. (photo: Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP)
Something About This Russia Story Stinks
By Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone
31 December 16
Nearly a decade and a half after the Iraq-WMD faceplant, the American press
is again asked to co-sign a dubious intelligence assessment
In an extraordinary development Thursday, the Obama administration
announced a series of sanctions against Russia. Thirty-five Russian
nationals will be expelled from the country. President Obama issued a terse
statement seeming to blame Russia for the hack of the Democratic National
Committee emails.
"These data theft and disclosure activities could only have been directed
by
the highest levels of the Russian government," he wrote.
Russia at first pledged, darkly, to retaliate, then backed off. The Russian
press today is even reporting that Vladimir Putin is inviting "the children
of American diplomats" to "visit the Christmas tree in the Kremlin," as
characteristically loathsome/menacing/sarcastic a Putin response as you'll
find.
This dramatic story puts the news media in a jackpot. Absent independent
verification, reporters will have to rely upon the secret assessments of
intelligence agencies to cover the story at all.
Many reporters I know are quietly freaking out about having to go through
that again. We all remember the WMD fiasco.
"It's déjà vu all over again" is how one friend put it.
You can see awkwardness reflected in the headlines that flew around the
Internet Thursday. Some news agencies seemed split on whether to
unequivocally declare that Russian hacking took place, or whether to hedge
bets and put it all on the government to make that declaration, using
"Obama
says" formulations.
The New York Times was more aggressive, writing flatly, "Obama Strikes Back
at Russia for Election Hacking." It backed up its story with a link to a
joint FBI/Homeland Security report that details how Russian civilian and
military intelligence services (termed "RIS" in the report) twice breached
the defenses of "a U.S. political party," presumably the Democrats.
This report is long on jargon but short on specifics. More than half of it
is just a list of suggestions for preventive measures.
At one point we learn that the code name the U.S. intelligence community
has
given to Russian cyber shenanigans is GRIZZLY STEPPE, a sexy enough detail.
But we don't learn much at all about what led our government to determine
a)
that these hacks were directed by the Russian government, or b) they were
undertaken with the aim of influencing the election, and in particular to
help elect Donald Trump.
The problem with this story is that, like the Iraq-WMD mess, it takes place
in the middle of a highly politicized environment during which the motives
of all the relevant actors are suspect. Nothing quite adds up.
If the American security agencies had smoking-gun evidence that the
Russians
had an organized campaign to derail the U.S. presidential election and
deliver the White House to Trump, then expelling a few dozen diplomats
after
the election seems like an oddly weak and ill-timed response. Voices in
both
parties are saying this now.
Republican Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham noted the "small price"
Russia paid for its "brazen attack." The Democratic National Committee,
meanwhile, said Thursday that taken alone, the Obama response is
"insufficient" as a response to "attacks on the United States by a foreign
power."
The "small price" is an eyebrow-raiser. Also, like the WMD story, there's
an
element of salesmanship the government is using to push the hacking
narrative that should make reporters nervous. Take this line in Obama's
statement about mistreatment of American diplomats in Moscow:
"Moreover, our diplomats have experienced an unacceptable level of
harassment in Moscow by Russian security services and police over the last
year."
This appears to refer to an incident this summer in which an American
diplomat was beaten outside the diplomatic compound in Moscow. That
followed
a 2013 case in which a U.S. diplomat named Ryan Fogle was arrested in
similar fashion.
Fogle was unequivocally described as a CIA agent in many Russian reports.
Photos of Fogle's shpionsky rekvisit, or spy kit – including wigs and a
city
map that were allegedly on his person – became the source of many jokes in
the Russian press and social media. Similar to this hacking story here in
the states, ordinary Russians seemed split on what to believe.
If the Russians messed with an election, that's enough on its own to
warrant
a massive response – miles worse than heavy-handed responses to ordinary
spying episodes. Obama mentioning these humdrum tradecraft skirmishes feels
like he's throwing something in to bolster an otherwise thin case.
Adding to the problem is that in the last months of the campaign, and also
in the time since the election, we've seen an epidemic of factually loose,
clearly politically motivated reporting about Russia. Democrat-leaning
pundits have been unnervingly quick to use phrases like "Russia hacked the
election."
This has led to widespread confusion among news audiences over whether the
Russians hacked the DNC emails (a story that has at least been backed by
some evidence, even if it hasn't always been great evidence), or whether
Russians hacked vote tallies in critical states (a far more outlandish tale
backed by no credible evidence).
As noted in The Intercept and other outlets, an Economist/YouGov poll
conducted this month shows that 50 percent of all Clinton voters believe
the
Russians hacked vote tallies.
This number is nearly as disturbing as the 62 percent of Trump voters who
believe the preposterous, un-sourced Trump/Alex Jones contention that
"millions" of undocumented immigrants voted in the election.
Then there was the episode in which the Washington Post ran that breathless
story about Russians aiding the spread of "fake news." That irresponsible
story turned out to have been largely based on one highly dubious source
called "PropOrNot" that identified 200 different American alternative media
organizations as "useful idiots" of the Russian state.
The Post eventually distanced itself from the story, saying it "does not
itself vouch for the validity of PropOrNot's findings." This was a very
strange thing to say in a statement that isn't an outright retraction. The
idea that it's OK to publish an allegation when you yourself are not
confident in what your source is saying is a major departure from what was
previously thought to be the norm in a paper like the Post.
There have been other excesses. An interview with Julian Assange by an
Italian newspaper has been bastardized in Western re-writes, with papers
like The Guardian crediting Assange with "praise" of Trump and seemingly
flattering comments about Russia that are not supported by the actual text.
(The Guardian has now "amended" a number of the passages in the report in
question).
And reports by some Democrat-friendly reporters – like Kurt Eichenwald, who
has birthed some real head-scratchers this year, including what he admitted
was a baseless claim that Trump spent time in an institution in 1990 – have
attempted to argue that Trump surrogates may have been liaising with the
Russians because they either visited Russia or appeared on the RT network.
Similar reporting about Russian scheming has been based entirely on unnamed
security sources.
Now we have this sanctions story, which presents a new conundrum. It
appears
that a large segment of the press is biting hard on the core allegations of
electoral interference emanating from the Obama administration.
Did the Russians do it? Very possibly, in which case it should be reported
to the max. But the press right now is flying blind. Plowing ahead with
credulous accounts is problematic because so many different feasible
scenarios are in play.
On one end of the spectrum, America could have just been the victim of a
virtual coup d'etat engineered by a combination of Donald Trump and
Vladimir
Putin, which would be among the most serious things to ever happen to our
democracy.
But this could also just be a cynical ass-covering campaign, by a
Democratic
Party that has seemed keen to deflect attention from its own electoral
failures.
The outgoing Democrats could just be using an over-interpreted intelligence
"assessment" to delegitimize the incoming Trump administration and force
Trump into an embarrassing political situation: Does he ease up on Russia
and look like a patsy, or escalate even further with a nuclear-armed power?
It could also be something in between. Perhaps the FSB didn't commission
the
hack, but merely enabled it somehow. Or maybe the Russians did hack the
DNC,
but the WikiLeaks material actually came from someone else? There is even a
published report to that effect, with a former British ambassador as a
source, not that it's any more believable than anything else here.
We just don't know, which is the problem.
We ought to have learned from the Judith Miller episode. Not only do
governments lie, they won't hesitate to burn news agencies. In a desperate
moment, they'll use any sucker they can find to get a point across.
I have no problem believing that Vladimir Putin tried to influence the
American election. He's gangster-spook-scum of the lowest order and capable
of anything. And Donald Trump, too, was swine enough during the campaign to
publicly hope the Russians would disclose Hillary Clinton's emails. So a
lot
of this is very believable.
But we've been burned before in stories like this, to disastrous effect.
Which makes it surprising we're not trying harder to avoid getting fooled
again.
Error! Hyperlink reference not valid. Error! Hyperlink reference not
valid.
President Obama with Vladimir Putin. (photo: Pablo Martinez Monsivais/AP)
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/something-about-this-russia-st
ory-stinks-w458439http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/features/something-ab
out-this-russia-story-stinks-w458439
Something About This Russia Story Stinks
By Matt Taibbi, Rolling Stone
31 December 16
Nearly a decade and a half after the Iraq-WMD faceplant, the American press
is again asked to co-sign a dubious intelligence assessment
n an extraordinary development Thursday, the Obama administration
announced
a series of sanctions against Russia. Thirty-five Russian nationals will be
expelled from the country. President Obama issued a terse statement seeming
to blame Russia for the hack of the Democratic National Committee emails.
"These data theft and disclosure activities could only have been directed
by
the highest levels of the Russian government," he wrote.
Russia at first pledged, darkly, to retaliate, then backed off. The Russian
press today is even reporting that Vladimir Putin is inviting "the children
of American diplomats" to "visit the Christmas tree in the Kremlin," as
characteristically loathsome/menacing/sarcastic a Putin response as you'll
find.
This dramatic story puts the news media in a jackpot. Absent independent
verification, reporters will have to rely upon the secret assessments of
intelligence agencies to cover the story at all.
Many reporters I know are quietly freaking out about having to go through
that again. We all remember the WMD fiasco.
"It's déjà vu all over again" is how one friend put it.
You can see awkwardness reflected in the headlines that flew around the
Internet Thursday. Some news agencies seemed split on whether to
unequivocally declare that Russian hacking took place, or whether to hedge
bets and put it all on the government to make that declaration, using
"Obama
says" formulations.
The New York Times was more aggressive, writing flatly, "Obama Strikes Back
at Russia for Election Hacking." It backed up its story with a link to a
joint FBI/Homeland Security report that details how Russian civilian and
military intelligence services (termed "RIS" in the report) twice breached
the defenses of "a U.S. political party," presumably the Democrats.
This report is long on jargon but short on specifics. More than half of it
is just a list of suggestions for preventive measures.
At one point we learn that the code name the U.S. intelligence community
has
given to Russian cyber shenanigans is GRIZZLY STEPPE, a sexy enough detail.
But we don't learn much at all about what led our government to determine
a)
that these hacks were directed by the Russian government, or b) they were
undertaken with the aim of influencing the election, and in particular to
help elect Donald Trump.
The problem with this story is that, like the Iraq-WMD mess, it takes place
in the middle of a highly politicized environment during which the motives
of all the relevant actors are suspect. Nothing quite adds up.
If the American security agencies had smoking-gun evidence that the
Russians
had an organized campaign to derail the U.S. presidential election and
deliver the White House to Trump, then expelling a few dozen diplomats
after
the election seems like an oddly weak and ill-timed response. Voices in
both
parties are saying this now.
Republican Sens. John McCain and Lindsey Graham noted the "small price"
Russia paid for its "brazen attack." The Democratic National Committee,
meanwhile, said Thursday that taken alone, the Obama response is
"insufficient" as a response to "attacks on the United States by a foreign
power."
The "small price" is an eyebrow-raiser. Also, like the WMD story, there's
an
element of salesmanship the government is using to push the hacking
narrative that should make reporters nervous. Take this line in Obama's
statement about mistreatment of American diplomats in Moscow:
"Moreover, our diplomats have experienced an unacceptable level of
harassment in Moscow by Russian security services and police over the last
year."
This appears to refer to an incident this summer in which an American
diplomat was beaten outside the diplomatic compound in Moscow. That
followed
a 2013 case in which a U.S. diplomat named Ryan Fogle was arrested in
similar fashion.
Fogle was unequivocally described as a CIA agent in many Russian reports.
Photos of Fogle's shpionsky rekvisit, or spy kit – including wigs and a
city
map that were allegedly on his person – became the source of many jokes in
the Russian press and social media. Similar to this hacking story here in
the states, ordinary Russians seemed split on what to believe.
If the Russians messed with an election, that's enough on its own to
warrant
a massive response – miles worse than heavy-handed responses to ordinary
spying episodes. Obama mentioning these humdrum tradecraft skirmishes feels
like he's throwing something in to bolster an otherwise thin case.
Adding to the problem is that in the last months of the campaign, and also
in the time since the election, we've seen an epidemic of factually loose,
clearly politically motivated reporting about Russia. Democrat-leaning
pundits have been unnervingly quick to use phrases like "Russia hacked the
election."
This has led to widespread confusion among news audiences over whether the
Russians hacked the DNC emails (a story that has at least been backed by
some evidence, even if it hasn't always been great evidence), or whether
Russians hacked vote tallies in critical states (a far more outlandish tale
backed by no credible evidence).
As noted in The Intercept and other outlets, an Economist/YouGov poll
conducted this month shows that 50 percent of all Clinton voters believe
the
Russians hacked vote tallies.
This number is nearly as disturbing as the 62 percent of Trump voters who
believe the preposterous, un-sourced Trump/Alex Jones contention that
"millions" of undocumented immigrants voted in the election.
Then there was the episode in which the Washington Post ran that breathless
story about Russians aiding the spread of "fake news." That irresponsible
story turned out to have been largely based on one highly dubious source
called "PropOrNot" that identified 200 different American alternative media
organizations as "useful idiots" of the Russian state.
The Post eventually distanced itself from the story, saying it "does not
itself vouch for the validity of PropOrNot's findings." This was a very
strange thing to say in a statement that isn't an outright retraction. The
idea that it's OK to publish an allegation when you yourself are not
confident in what your source is saying is a major departure from what was
previously thought to be the norm in a paper like the Post.
There have been other excesses. An interview with Julian Assange by an
Italian newspaper has been bastardized in Western re-writes, with papers
like The Guardian crediting Assange with "praise" of Trump and seemingly
flattering comments about Russia that are not supported by the actual text.
(The Guardian has now "amended" a number of the passages in the report in
question).
And reports by some Democrat-friendly reporters – like Kurt Eichenwald, who
has birthed some real head-scratchers this year, including what he admitted
was a baseless claim that Trump spent time in an institution in 1990 – have
attempted to argue that Trump surrogates may have been liaising with the
Russians because they either visited Russia or appeared on the RT network.
Similar reporting about Russian scheming has been based entirely on unnamed
security sources.
Now we have this sanctions story, which presents a new conundrum. It
appears
that a large segment of the press is biting hard on the core allegations of
electoral interference emanating from the Obama administration.
Did the Russians do it? Very possibly, in which case it should be reported
to the max. But the press right now is flying blind. Plowing ahead with
credulous accounts is problematic because so many different feasible
scenarios are in play.
On one end of the spectrum, America could have just been the victim of a
virtual coup d'etat engineered by a combination of Donald Trump and
Vladimir
Putin, which would be among the most serious things to ever happen to our
democracy.
But this could also just be a cynical ass-covering campaign, by a
Democratic
Party that has seemed keen to deflect attention from its own electoral
failures.
The outgoing Democrats could just be using an over-interpreted intelligence
"assessment" to delegitimize the incoming Trump administration and force
Trump into an embarrassing political situation: Does he ease up on Russia
and look like a patsy, or escalate even further with a nuclear-armed power?
It could also be something in between. Perhaps the FSB didn't commission
the
hack, but merely enabled it somehow. Or maybe the Russians did hack the
DNC,
but the WikiLeaks material actually came from someone else? There is even a
published report to that effect, with a former British ambassador as a
source, not that it's any more believable than anything else here.
We just don't know, which is the problem.
We ought to have learned from the Judith Miller episode. Not only do
governments lie, they won't hesitate to burn news agencies. In a desperate
moment, they'll use any sucker they can find to get a point across.
I have no problem believing that Vladimir Putin tried to influence the
American election. He's gangster-spook-scum of the lowest order and capable
of anything. And Donald Trump, too, was swine enough during the campaign to
publicly hope the Russians would disclose Hillary Clinton's emails. So a
lot
of this is very believable.
But we've been burned before in stories like this, to disastrous effect.
Which makes it surprising we're not trying harder to avoid getting fooled
again.
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
http://e-max.it/posizionamento-siti-web/socialize
