The Propaganda War With Putin
Published on
Friday, August 05, 2016
by
Common Dreams
The Propaganda War With Putin
by
Renee Parsons
Russian President Vladimir Putin, left, meets then-U.S. Secretary of State
Hillary Rodham Clinton at the APEC summit in Russia in 2012. (Photo: Mikhail
Metzel/Associated Press)
If it had not already been apparent, the net effect of the DNC email hack
has been to kick open the door to a deep American antagonism towards Russian
President Vladimir Putin.
In what has become an old fashioned American pile-on, President Barack
Obama, Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, the Democratic Party and what
seems the entire political establishment as well as the MSM, have united to
undermine Putin as if to prime the American public for war with Russia.
War is, after all, more successful when the people have been thoroughly
programmed. For instance, for a war-weary American public we are bombing
civilians out of a humanitarian necessity may work well. If necessary, a
little hysteria wouldnt hurt but most of all, a necessary requirement is to
efficiently tutor the public consciousness to despise the adversary. In
this case, Clinton has identified Putin as the adversary and that he is one
evil reincarnation of Adolf Hitler.
Among media outlets, Politico, once considered a liberal magazine ran
Insides Putins Information War whose author has found a lucrative book
deal on the subject and yes, this is the same Politico that requested DNC
permission to publish re the Sanders/Clinton primary. The Times of London
joined the effort to demonize Putin with several anti Russian articles over
the weekend including Putins Information War which ran on July 30th
followed by Inside Putins Info War on America in the Wall Street Journal
on July 31st. Keep your eyes peeled as the Putin Info War concept is
sure to catch on.
As part of the effort to synchronize public antipathy to an appropriately
belligerent level, the Associated Press recently published an article for
wide distribution entitled Clinton v. Putin: Russian television shows what
Kremlin thinks of her. Perhaps the AP presumed to rouse the American public
in defense of Hillary Clinton.
The first paragraph began with the admission that Clintons entire
acceptance speech had been broadcast live on nationwide television in
Russia. If anyone yearns for the day when a Putin speech will be broadcast
across American television, forgetaboutit. A good guess is that the
intellectually-lazy American public including many liberals who have
forgotten how to think, would not make the effort to inform themselves of
world events.
Thereafter, the AP article followed with a series of assertions that dazzled
the reader with its irony such as:
Viewers were told that Clinton sees Russia as an enemy and cannot be
trusted and the Democratic convention was portrayed as proof that American
democracy is a sham. The story added that Channel One introduced Clinton
as a politician who puts herself above the law, who is ready to win at any
cost and who is ready to change her principles depending on the political
situation.
If the AP reporter wrote with the intention that the American public would
rise up en masse and demand satisfaction; how unfair of those Russkies to
write like that about our Gal Hill - that reporter was dead wrong.
What the reporter did not mention was that a significant number of
Americans, including some of those who plan to hold their collective noses
while voting for Clinton in sheer terror of Trump, agree with those quotes.
What the reporter did not mention was that the Sanders and Trump campaigns
have been largely based on those sentiments giving Clinton an unexpected run
for the money which explains why she has had to pull out all the stops to
beat Trump, a candidate who, by any standard, should have been a piece of
cake.
Giving a wink and a nod to the MSM, Clinton formalized her accusations on
Sunday Fox News that Russian intelligence was responsible for the DNC
hacking and linked her opponent Donald Trump to Vladimir Putin.
Using the DNC hack issue as an opportunity to further hammer on Putin,
Clinton asserted during the Fox interview that we KNOW that Russian
intelligence services hacked into the DNC and we KNOW that they arranged for
a lot of those emails to be released and we KNOW that Donald Trump has shown
a very troubling willingness to back up Putin, to support Putin.
A good follow up by an engaged journalist might have been what does Clinton
know, how does she know it and when did she know it? If the proof exists,
why the reluctance to provide specifics to the American public but that
might require initiative, transparency and some candor? While challenging
Trump on his commitment to the Constitution (who clearly could use an Intro
101 class), wasnt Clinton trained, as an attorney, to understand that
evidence comes before the accusation?
This is not the first time that Clinton has personally attacked Putin. In
March, 2014 before a University of California audience, she said he was
thin-skinned, was trying to re-sovietize Europe while threatening
instability and the peace of Europe. In citing Russian aggression, she is
smart enough to know the difference between protecting ethnic Russians who
have centuries of deep cultural roots in Ukraine and Crimea as compared to
Hitlers invasions of eastern Europe.
An impartial observer can only assume Clinton has knowingly skewed the
chronology of events in the Ukraine which began with the US-initiated
overthrow of a democratically elected President on February 22, 2014;
followed by an overwhelming vote on March 16th by Crimean citizens to
reunite with Russia which was then followed by the legal annexation of the
Crimean peninsula to Russia on March 18th. What is so difficult to
understand?
Thanks to Clintons repetitive disinformation campaign, accusations of
Russian aggression are now widespread; repeated without regard to the
evidence throughout the mainstream media and by Members of Congress, many of
whom choose to remain uninformed.
Back to the Fox interview, she could not resist adding, with mock
indignation, that I think laying out the facts raises serious issues about
Russian interference in our elections, in our democracy. And as if the rest
of us were asleep at the wheel and could not distinguish fact from fiction,
she further added that For Trump to both encourage that and to praise Putin
despite what appears to be a deliberate effort to try to affect the election
I think raises national security issues.
Does she not see that interference in our elections, in our democracy is
exactly what the DNC did to the Bernie Sanders campaign?
And has no bright eyed, eager beaver staff person yet pointed out to Clinton
that if Russia and Putin had been intent on disrupting the American
presidential election, why wouldnt they have gone after Clintons
classified State Department emails on her personal server that were
subject to an FBI investigation and with the potential of criminal charges?
Then again, an educated assumption might be that Russian intelligence does
have those emails in their possession. Now theres a real national security
issue.
In her eagerness to further aggravate US Russian relations, apparently
Clinton is not only unfamiliar with the State Departments Foreign Service
Protocol for the Modern Diplomat guidelines for rules and process of
diplomatic protocol (or perhaps it does not apply to her), but appears she
did not receive the memo from the Director of National Intelligence (DNI)
James Clapper.
Responding to the DNC-Russian furor in a more blasé and introspective manner
than might be expected, Clapper stepped in as a calm voice of reason stating
that he was somewhat taken aback by the hyperventilation on this and that
the US was in reactionary mode regarding cyber-attacks. Clapper further
indicated he was not ready to identify Russia as the hacker I dont think
we are quite ready yet to make a call on attribution.
Interestingly, Clapper commented that cyber warfare is not terribly
different than what went on during the Cold War suggesting that it is just
a different modality. He further suggested that the American people need
to accept and become more resilient since cyber threats are a major long
term challenge. Americans should not be quite so excitable when we have yet
another instance. Hmm
wonder to whom he was referring.
In other words, we spy on them, they spy on us alls fair in love and war
and that there is a certain level of honor among (cyber) thieves.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0
License
Renee Parsons
Renee Parsons was a lobbyist for Friends of the Earth in Washington, D.C.
focusing on nuclear energy issues. While at FOE, she was responsible for a
TRO that stopped the Dept of Energy from conducting an experimental drilling
program at 12 locations along the perimeter of Canyonlands National Park as
a possible high-level nuclear waste repository. Her efforts included
opposing the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and organizing the coalition that
successfully defunded the Clinch River Breeder Reactor. She also served as
staff in the U.S. House of Representatives. In 2005, she was elected to the
Durango City Council (Colorado) and served four years as Councilor and
Mayor. Renee is a member of the Treasure Coast Board of the ACLU.
Share This Article
Skip to main content
//
DONATE
SIGN UP FOR NEWSLETTER
Friday, August 5, 2016
Home
World
U.S.
Canada
Climate
War & Peace
Economy
Rights
Solutions
Rev. William J. Barber
Bernie Sanders
Jill Stein
Hillary Clinton
Donald Trump
The Propaganda War With Putin
Published on
Friday, August 05, 2016
by
Common Dreams
The Propaganda War With Putin
by
Renee Parsons
6 Comments
Russian President Vladimir Putin, left, meets then-U.S. Secretary of
State Hillary Rodham Clinton at the APEC summit in Russia in 2012. (Photo:
Mikhail Metzel/Associated Press)
If it had not already been apparent, the net effect of the DNC email
hack has been to kick open the door to a deep American antagonism towards
Russian President Vladimir Putin.
In what has become an old fashioned American pile-on, President
Barack Obama, Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, the Democratic Party
and what seems the entire political establishment as well as the MSM, have
united to undermine Putin as if to prime the American public for war with
Russia.
War is, after all, more successful when the people have been
thoroughly programmed. For instance, for a war-weary American public we are
bombing civilians out of a humanitarian necessity may work well. If
necessary, a little hysteria wouldnt hurt but most of all, a necessary
requirement is to efficiently tutor the public consciousness to despise the
adversary. In this case, Clinton has identified Putin as the adversary and
that he is one evil reincarnation of Adolf Hitler.
Among media outlets, Politico, once considered a liberal magazine
ran Insides Putins Information War whose author has found a lucrative
book deal on the subject and yes, this is the same Politico that requested
DNC permission to publish re the Sanders/Clinton primary. The Times of
London joined the effort to demonize Putin with several anti Russian
articles over the weekend including Putins Information War which ran on
July 30th followed by Inside Putins Info War on America in the Wall
Street Journal on July 31st. Keep your eyes peeled as the Putin Info War
concept is sure to catch on.
As part of the effort to synchronize public antipathy to an appropriately
belligerent level, the Associated Press recently published an article for
wide distribution entitled Clinton v. Putin: Russian television shows what
Kremlin thinks of her. Perhaps the AP presumed to rouse the American public
in defense of Hillary Clinton.
The first paragraph began with the admission that Clintons entire
acceptance speech had been broadcast live on nationwide television in
Russia. If anyone yearns for the day when a Putin speech will be broadcast
across American television, forgetaboutit. A good guess is that the
intellectually-lazy American public including many liberals who have
forgotten how to think, would not make the effort to inform themselves of
world events.
Thereafter, the AP article followed with a series of assertions that dazzled
the reader with its irony such as:
Viewers were told that Clinton sees Russia as an enemy and cannot be
trusted and the Democratic convention was portrayed as proof that American
democracy is a sham. The story added that Channel One introduced Clinton
as a politician who puts herself above the law, who is ready to win at any
cost and who is ready to change her principles depending on the political
situation.
If the AP reporter wrote with the intention that the American public would
rise up en masse and demand satisfaction; how unfair of those Russkies to
write like that about our Gal Hill - that reporter was dead wrong.
What the reporter did not mention was that a significant number of
Americans, including some of those who plan to hold their collective noses
while voting for Clinton in sheer terror of Trump, agree with those quotes.
What the reporter did not mention was that the Sanders and Trump campaigns
have been largely based on those sentiments giving Clinton an unexpected run
for the money which explains why she has had to pull out all the stops to
beat Trump, a candidate who, by any standard, should have been a piece of
cake.
Giving a wink and a nod to the MSM, Clinton formalized her accusations on
Sunday Fox News that Russian intelligence was responsible for the DNC
hacking and linked her opponent Donald Trump to Vladimir Putin.
Using the DNC hack issue as an opportunity to further hammer on Putin,
Clinton asserted during the Fox interview that we KNOW that Russian
intelligence services hacked into the DNC and we KNOW that they arranged for
a lot of those emails to be released and we KNOW that Donald Trump has shown
a very troubling willingness to back up Putin, to support Putin.
A good follow up by an engaged journalist might have been what does Clinton
know, how does she know it and when did she know it? If the proof exists,
why the reluctance to provide specifics to the American public but that
might require initiative, transparency and some candor? While challenging
Trump on his commitment to the Constitution (who clearly could use an Intro
101 class), wasnt Clinton trained, as an attorney, to understand that
evidence comes before the accusation?
This is not the first time that Clinton has personally attacked Putin. In
March, 2014 before a University of California audience, she said he was
thin-skinned, was trying to re-sovietize Europe while threatening
instability and the peace of Europe. In citing Russian aggression, she is
smart enough to know the difference between protecting ethnic Russians who
have centuries of deep cultural roots in Ukraine and Crimea as compared to
Hitlers invasions of eastern Europe.
An impartial observer can only assume Clinton has knowingly skewed the
chronology of events in the Ukraine which began with the US-initiated
overthrow of a democratically elected President on February 22, 2014;
followed by an overwhelming vote on March 16th by Crimean citizens to
reunite with Russia which was then followed by the legal annexation of the
Crimean peninsula to Russia on March 18th. What is so difficult to
understand?
Thanks to Clintons repetitive disinformation campaign, accusations of
Russian aggression are now widespread; repeated without regard to the
evidence throughout the mainstream media and by Members of Congress, many of
whom choose to remain uninformed.
Back to the Fox interview, she could not resist adding, with mock
indignation, that I think laying out the facts raises serious issues about
Russian interference in our elections, in our democracy. And as if the rest
of us were asleep at the wheel and could not distinguish fact from fiction,
she further added that For Trump to both encourage that and to praise Putin
despite what appears to be a deliberate effort to try to affect the election
I think raises national security issues.
Does she not see that interference in our elections, in our democracy is
exactly what the DNC did to the Bernie Sanders campaign?
And has no bright eyed, eager beaver staff person yet pointed out to Clinton
that if Russia and Putin had been intent on disrupting the American
presidential election, why wouldnt they have gone after Clintons
classified State Department emails on her personal server that were
subject to an FBI investigation and with the potential of criminal charges?
Then again, an educated assumption might be that Russian intelligence does
have those emails in their possession. Now theres a real national security
issue.
In her eagerness to further aggravate US Russian relations, apparently
Clinton is not only unfamiliar with the State Departments Foreign Service
Protocol for the Modern Diplomat guidelines for rules and process of
diplomatic protocol (or perhaps it does not apply to her), but appears she
did not receive the memo from the Director of National Intelligence (DNI)
James Clapper.
Responding to the DNC-Russian furor in a more blasé and introspective manner
than might be expected, Clapper stepped in as a calm voice of reason stating
that he was somewhat taken aback by the hyperventilation on this and that
the US was in reactionary mode regarding cyber-attacks. Clapper further
indicated he was not ready to identify Russia as the hacker I dont think
we are quite ready yet to make a call on attribution.
Interestingly, Clapper commented that cyber warfare is not terribly
different than what went on during the Cold War suggesting that it is just
a different modality. He further suggested that the American people need
to accept and become more resilient since cyber threats are a major long
term challenge. Americans should not be quite so excitable when we have yet
another instance. Hmm
wonder to whom he was referring.
In other words, we spy on them, they spy on us alls fair in love and war
and that there is a certain level of honor among (cyber) thieves.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0
License
/author/renee-parsons
/author/renee-parsons/author/renee-parsons
Renee Parsons was a lobbyist for Friends of the Earth in Washington, D.C.
focusing on nuclear energy issues. While at FOE, she was responsible for a
TRO that stopped the Dept of Energy from conducting an experimental drilling
program at 12 locations along the perimeter of Canyonlands National Park as
a possible high-level nuclear waste repository. Her efforts included
opposing the Nuclear Waste Policy Act and organizing the coalition that
successfully defunded the Clinch River Breeder Reactor. She also served as
staff in the U.S. House of Representatives. In 2005, she was elected to the
Durango City Council (Colorado) and served four years as Councilor and
Mayor. Renee is a member of the Treasure Coast Board of the ACLU.
