dagblog - Comments for "When Mother Jones was Investigated for Creating Kremlin Disinformation."

I'm sure it keeps her looking

PeraclesPlease — Tue, 13 Jun 2017 21:21:00 +0000

I'm sure it keeps her looking more that direction, but there have been several high profile international security conferences here recently, with upper level gov officials addressing Putin/Russia especially, so it's not just occupational obsession - there's some high concern

interesting that on her

artappraiser — Tue, 13 Jun 2017 21:18:14 +0000

In reply to To be clear, I'm not

interesting that on her twitter feed, she describes herself as, my bold: Writer. Information warfare expert. Foreign Policy and Strategy Consultant. I do wonder how much deconstructing and studying "information warfare" might affect one as a writer to go more to the side of adversarial or even spinmeister as opposed to attempting to be objective analyst. I.E., you see, you deconstruct, you admire the skill, it's hard not to use some of the same the next time you write.

I looked around at her background, saw that besides having worked for Saakashvili (which would tend to make tend to trust her to truly understand the whole situation--given that he has U.S. education while his Rose Revolution caught the U.S. off-guard, he is both reforrmist and centrist,) she's definitely got personal skin in the game with Moldova

from Buzzfeed Oct.. 2015

Consultant Molly McKew tells BuzzFeed News a pro-Russian politician released videos suggesting she was a murderer, published her passport information, and stalked her in public — until she had to flee the post-Soviet country.

WASHINGTON — An American consultant working for a pro-Western politician in Moldova has been harassed by a rival pro-Russian politician to the point of having to leave the country, she told BuzzFeed News.

Molly McKew, a consultant who owns the firm Fianna Strategies, told BuzzFeed News this week that she has left Moldova because Renato Usatii, a pro-Russian mayor, has made videos suggesting that she is a murderer, published her passport information on his website, and stalked her in public.

McKew has been doing consulting and communications work since May of last year for Vlad Filat, the former prime minister of Moldova, a small country sandwiched between Ukraine and Romania. McKew has also represented Mikheil Saakashvili, the former Georgian president who presided over a military conflict with Russia in 2008 [....]

To be clear, I'm not

PeraclesPlease — Tue, 13 Jun 2017 20:15:42 +0000

In reply to On that I saw this

To be clear, I'm not proclaiming McKew right - I'm curious about the evolution of cyber & psychological warfare as military/physical warfare falls into less and less use, as well as just new ways how nation-states and individuals will find to work the system for advantage. And I'm certainly not sitting in Donbas, where things are quite hot - there's ongoing cyberpressure as well as movement of immigrants and the spattering of terror attacks. In general, terror is about making things appear *more serious* than they deserve to to be, extending how far they can stretch their terrorist greenbacks. An attack like London or Manchester takes next to nothing, though overall damage is fortunately quite limited, and by doing 1 in Germany, a couple in Paris, they can count on spreading the worry across the continent without even havng to organize very well.

On that I saw this

artappraiser — Tue, 13 Jun 2017 20:14:49 +0000

In reply to Do you agree and wil you

On that I saw this

Putin Says 'Patriotic Hackers' May Have Targeted U.S. Election

But he denied the Russian state was involved.

and I think that in countries with a free and open press that acts as a Fourth Estate check against the government (LIKE WE HAVE RIGHT NOW AND RUSSIA DOESN'T)

that is usually labeled a NON DENIAL DENIAL

You and the blogger have a problem in recognizing a country that has been hoodwinked so long that they have become complicit in their own doom while pursuing incredibly arrogant empire-like ambitions towards the now forming world of the future. And that country is called Russia, not the U.S.A. loathe to give NATO much more of a hand (not to mention a UK that can't even handle being part of the E.U....)

Have you not noticed that Donald Trump finds all the dictatorial type world leaders most to his liking, including Putin?

Can't you see how the fault of the American left is not in investigating Russia so much now but in giving it a mulligan for far too long? Russia today (pun intended) is precisely where Trump would like to take America, can't you see that worrying about old problems and old paradigms you are totally not seeing reality?

Vietnam is over, let it go. You surprised me by posting good strong analysis of the Iran/Saudi situation recently, too bad you've gone back to reading the lost in the past crowd still fighting against our involvement Vietnam in 2017. There's only so much time for news and analysis, I was going to give you a break and check your recommended stuff out again, but here I am sorry I did. Times a wastin, the world is changing again, and if I am going to read history for input, it's going to be a good historian and not people fighting in the zeitgeist of the 1960's, or even the 1950's. (On the latter: a reminder that Trump and Putin are the Roy Cohn/Joe McCarthy fans here, not the other way around.)

Edit to add: I do not take McKew's warnings as seriously as PP does, I am cynical that we have to worry so much. Simply because: Putin's doppelganger Trump is getting nowhere in this country, and just by virtue of our size and our economy and our culture (especially if we continue to be open to immigration, and it's looking like we will) we will always be a significant counterweight one way or another even if Russia gains a lot more power in this re-jiggering period. But then I'm sitting here in NYC and am not "in theater" like PP is.

Do you agree and wil you

A Guy Called LULU — Tue, 13 Jun 2017 19:40:28 +0000

In reply to According to Ames, it's not

Do you agree and wil you acknowledge that McKew lied when she asserted that Putin admitted hacking the election? If you do, should that affect anyone's judgment as to whether she is engaging in honest reporting or maybe conscious propaganda. Did you spot any deliberate misstatement of facts by Ames used to support his thesis?

Edited to add: I hope that anyone bothering to read this thread actually also reads both articles so as to come to there own conclusion.

According to Ames, it's not

PeraclesPlease — Tue, 13 Jun 2017 19:08:00 +0000

In reply to I introduced the topic by

According to Ames, it's not just America that's paranoid - Macedonia is paranoid, Georgia is paranoid, Montenegro is paranoid, Moldova is paranoid, Afghanistan is paranoid.... Why can't they all see there's no Russian threat whatsover, just their burgeoning paranoia?

Molly McKew is discussin a new kind of infowar, so of course the term "war" will come up. Funny, just a few months back every mention of Ukraine or Syria brought up concerns whether we'd be pushing WW III to the fore by pushing back on Putin or Assad, how it was really those jackbooted neo-Nazis in Kiev and AMeriKKKan sponsors doing everything from shooting down the Malaysian airliner and forcing Putin to annex Crimea and probably the US-backed rebels doing the chemical attacks, not Syria/Assad.... But now no one wants to talk war at all, too gauche, too paranoid... I suppose consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, but I'd sometimes prefer they were hobbled by reality a little bit more.

I introduced the topic by

A Guy Called LULU — Tue, 13 Jun 2017 16:38:23 +0000

In reply to Not war, but impeaching Trump

I introduced the topic by saying that the article by Ames is a good counterpoint to the previous article PP put In The News. PP responded that Ames was hysterical. I responded back that I thought Ames’ recitation of recent history was far less hysterical than Molly McKew’s description of current history, or the current geopolitical situation. None of that makes Ames my “blogging buddy”.

Edit to add: I don't see anyone ramping up fervor for war with Russia. That's bullshit, simplistic paranoid nonsense. Not the least of which, for the foreseeable future, we are still going to be working with Russia against militant Islam.

Notice that that is the first use of the word "war" in this thread. In the McKew article she brandishes the word ‘war’ probably twenty times. I would like to think we will work with Russia against militant Islam and other perverted ideologues but it becomes more politically dangerous for any politician to support doing so as the Russia bashing and fear mongering goes on at a fever pitch. McKew also says explicitly, but wrongly, that Putin admitted that “Russia” hacked the election. The relevant part of Putin's statement taken directly from McKew's own supporting link is this by Putin with my emphasis added:

Now regarding hackers: hackers can be anywhere, they can lurk in any country in the world. Of course, the general context of inter-state relations should be taken into account in this case because hackers are free people like artists. If artists get up in the morning feeling good, all they do all day is paint. The same goes for hackers. They got up today and read that something is going on internationally. If they are feeling patriotic they will start contributing, as they believe, to the justified fight against those speaking ill of Russia. Is that possible? In theory, yes. At the government level, we never engage in this. This is what is most important. This is the first point.

Second. I can image a scenario when somebody develops a chain of attacks in a manner that would show Russia as the source of these attacks. Modern technology allows that. It is very easy.

Even if the so far unproven allegations that Putin specifically ordered a misinformation action to affect the election turns out to be true, McKew cannot not know that saying Putin admitted that “Russia”, which obviously means in her statement the Russian government, hacked the election, is a gross misrepresentation of his statement. That makes it a lie, a calculated deliberate lie intended, I believe, to lead to or reinforce hysterical conclusions about “Russia” by the reader. Just like the meme now proven by sworn testimony that the conclusion of 17 intelligence agencies agreed that Russia did the dirty deed is false but is still bandied daily and has even been done by Hillary after that sworn testimony. That demonstrates the essence of my position regarding the two pieces, that Ames fairly accurately recounts a hysterical time in U.S. versus Russia commentary and how it is being mirrored today by so many while McKew, who is a paid adviser/lobbyist for anti-Russian regimes, demonstrates the a current version of Hysterical Russia bashing.

Just before I read the McKew article I read one from VOX link posted by you in which the author, a onetime Brietbart writer, made the case that political propaganda spread by U.S. politicians and pundits had a great affect on the election by instilling and reinforcing fear and loathing of Hillary. Thanks, he made his point convincingly that propaganda works and its use is alive and well, in a sick way, in the U.S. We agree, I think, that it led to a bad outcome that was so unexpected that to the extent that it helped Trump, propaganda demonstrated its power.

You assert that the Red Scare is so yesterday and that the U.S. has grown up, as you have, and is much wiser now. The conclusion you assert is that McCarthyism was a particular time in U.S.and was marked by ideas and tactics that politicians, ideologues, pundits, and national opinion leaders will not return to or at least have not returned to yet, that we have matured and moved on. I disagree and I think the evidence is obvious. Something else I read that same day is Dr Cleveland’s installment which made a convincing case, and did so quite elegantly, that the more things change the more they stay the same.

Not war, but impeaching Trump

artappraiser — Tue, 13 Jun 2017 06:18:38 +0000

In reply to The Russia bashing has been

Not war, but impeaching Trump, etc.

If you only visit liberal sites and left of center news sites like those of the major newspapers, you get the impression from being in that bubble that everyone is hysterical about Russia tampering with elections here and in the west and possible Trump collusion. But polls show that is not the case yet (if it ever will be.) With the nation at large, all we are seeing is increasing dissatisfaction with Trump, not fear of Russia. I am just not seeing it.

Like PP, I think the blog writer is stuck in the past, has blinders on in order to grind old axes You aren't going to convince me that he's making a rational argument, so don't waste your time. You've posted it for others, they can decide for themselves. I've been there, done that, was him long ago. But I learned that things change. He's the one that's being irrational, to try to prove all supposed U.S. "propaganda" is the same and never changes. Basically just another conspiracy theorist. I was waiting for him to break into a rant similar to the one in the 1975 movie Network where the same corporations are still running the world, and presidents are appointed by them.

Edit to add: I don't see anyone ramping up fervor for war with Russia. That's bullshit, simplistic paranoid nonsense. Not the least of which, for the foreseeable future, we are still going to be working with Russia against militant Islam. Did WWIII start when Trump bombed the Syrian airport? No! That was all kabuki about chemical weapons, Russia was warned by us, etc. If there is anything you and your blogger friend should be concerned about along these lines, it's about North Korea, not Russia.

The Russia bashing has been

A Guy Called LULU — Tue, 13 Jun 2017 04:57:19 +0000

In reply to Lulu, where that blog takes

The Russia bashing has been getting hysterical for some time now. It didn't start with Trump's campaign and didn't start with his unexpected win. I don't understand your last sentence. You say people at sights like Dag and RS or at The Exile and RS are upset that people are not angry enough? And people not angry enough about what? They should be angry enough to go to war? Where is Nader when we really need him?

Lulu, where that blog takes

artappraiser — Mon, 12 Jun 2017 18:13:23 +0000

In reply to "Hysterical" is the case that

Lulu, where that blog takes you is supporting Trump's accusations that it's all a McCarthy type witch hunt against him. Reagan was attacking Russia, this time the accusation is that the president is supporting Russia.

So if he's right that it's all the same kind of propaganda, getting people all het up with untruths, the answer is you might as well just read Trump's tweets and just believe all of them, after all, they are from the source, none of this messy journalism thing to get in the way.

Further, I don't see the American public at large getting all ready to go "to war" on this. Rather, people on sites like this and Rolling Stone are upset that the public at large are not angry enough.