July 1, 2020
MY CORNER by Boyd Cathey
The RUSSIA HOAX is Alive….It
Won’t Go Away
Friends,
It just doesn’t go away. It’s like a wooden
nickel—or maybe the shingles. Even when you think it’s gone or cured, voilà, it
pops up again!
The Russia Hoax—Russiagate: How many times has
it been trotted out by Democrats and the leftist media (plus those Republicans
who’ve never cottoned to Donald Trump’s America First policies), and each time
been ignominiously rebuffed and proven a bald-faced lie?
There was the General Flynn caper—exploded as an
FBI operation that exposed the seamy side of the nation’s premier Intel organization
for the brazen arm of the Deep State that it is. Some fanatical Democrats and
leftists want to continue defending this domestic operation that violated the basic
constitutional rights of an American citizen, an operation worthy of the old
Soviets themselves.
Then, there was the Russian collusion narrative,
the Mueller investigation and his phony report, confected by zealous Democratic
lawyers, no evidence, but with a desire to do mortal damage, however they
could, to the president (and more especially to his unruly followers, the
“deplorables”). Try as he did, with millions of taxpayer dollars and the solemn
assertions of Representatives Eric Swalwell and Adam Schiff that they had
actually “seen the proof” that Trump was probably a Russian agent, or at least
that Vladimir Putin had engineered his 2016 presidential victory, Mueller came
up empty.
After that came the Ukrainian caper: obviously
Trump was covering for the Russians who were—the Democrats and media claimed—invading
and interfering with those helpless paisans
from Kiev.
Now it is the breathtakingly audacious charge
that Russian President Putin’s security service, the GRU, has been paying the
Afghani Taliban bounty payments for every American soldier in that mountainous
country they could find and kill. The New
York Times, using “unnamed sources” somewhere “over there” says it, so, say
the Democrats it must simply be true. Pelosi in particular thinks that Putin
has “got something on Trump,” maybe a cache of revealing photos of him and Miss
Teen Russia cavorting on a nude beach? Given Pelosi’s accustomed brilliance and
acumen, it’s got to be something like that!
Former Deputy National Security Advisor (under
Flynn) K. T. MacFarland has raised serious doubts
about this accusation. Seriously reflecting…something that both Republicans and
Democrats do very little of these days in Washington DC…the whole construct
falls apart, from logic, from common sense, from lack of a factual basis.
First, the Russians and Taliban have been at
each other’s throats for more than forty years. Recall the bloody and bitter Soviet-Afghan
War that occurred 1979-1989. It was one of the
immediate factors why the old Soviet regime collapsed in 1990-1991. Those
wounds have not healed. The Taliban remains a mortal enemy of Russia in central
Asia.
Second, there is the major issue and concern of
Islamic extremism in Russia, beginning with the brutal internecine conflict in Chechnya in the
Caucasus and dozens of acts of terrorism in the Russian heartland (including a
devastating and murderous attack in a
Moscow theater).
Third, the supposition is far too clever and too
much of a James Bond fantasy. The Democrats and globalist Republicans who salivate
at the possibility of military confrontation with Russia assert that the bounty
idea is probably true because those Russkies want to keep us tied down in a costly
and interminable war in Afghanistan. Donald Trump wants to remove more American
military. So, their logic goes, the Russians pay the Taliban to inflict more
casualties on our troops in that part of Asia, and we won’t have any
alternative but keep our troops there—maybe even increase the size of our
contingent. It’s all part of a grand strategy, they say, that Putin is waging.
Indeed, it’s the narrative you hear from Neoconservative globalists like
Republican congressmen Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, and from Neocon armchair
generals at Jonah Goldberg’s fiercely globalist online (and anti-Trump)
journal, The Dispatch.
But wait. I thought it was those Neocon elites
of establishment conservatism who actually opposed reducing the American
presence in Afghanistan. They actually want more
troops to go there to impose more American-style “democracy and equality” on
the hapless Afghan people. So why wouldn’t they actually be pleased, if only privately, that
Putin’s supposed action in paying Taliban fighters would mean more American
troops heading off to Kabul?
It simply doesn’t make sense.
Fourth, consider the source. How many times now
has the Times manufactured “fake” news regarding Russia, based on anonymous
sources, half-baked Intel, spread about by disgruntled minions of the Deep
State. I would expect something totally
outlandish like this from Democrats, but Republicans—at least those with any
sense about them—have seen this movie, this mis-en-scene, before. Some of them
actually criticized previous “Russia Hoax” antics. But, now, they want to take
the reporting of The New York Times
as Gospel?
It goes to confirm, once again, that the
irrational hatred of Russia continues, not just on the Left but also on the
Neoconservative Right. The Left and the Democrats use it as one more strategic and
political weapon to get at Trump; the Neocons employ the template because they
fear Putin’s call to Russian populism and tradition, his failure to embrace
full democratic equality and all that means, including same sex marriage and
transgenderism—the late Senator John McCain attacked Putin precisely on Putin’s
traditionalism, his opposition to same sex marriage, and his staunch defense of
Orthodox Christianity. All of which compelled columnist Pat Buchanan to write (August
13, 2013): “On whose side is God now on?”
Good question, that.
In sum, this story sounds very much like the
same kind of “fake news” the Times has peddled to the American public for
nearly four years. But it is more than just another piece of tendentious and
ideological journalism: in their zeal and their hatred for the man at 1600
Pennsylvania Avenue they are once again casting caution to the wind and—with support
from their Neocon allies—willing to provoke a massive war with the world’s
other major nuclear power.
*****
Two excellent articles expand on these points.
First, a short essay by journalist Bryan MacDonald examining carefully the
accusation and its dubiousness. Second, University of Ottawa Professor of
Russian and International Studies, Paul Robinson, considers this poisonous meme
from the perspective of its political uses, which in such cases always must be
explored. Both articles demand attention.
Fake story on Russians paying Afghans ‘bounty’ to kill Americans
latest example of appalling US/UK media coverage of Russia
By Bryan MacDonald
29 Jun, 2020 16:04
The Anglo-American press is difficult to understand. Anonymous
sources are treated as gospel – when they suit the ideological and political
biases of news outlets – and spy agencies seem to be beyond reproach.
This, of course, is how America and Britain were drawn into the
Iraq War. Mainstream media was complicit in manufacturing consent by publishing
stories handed down by intelligence agencies – a great many of them later
proven untrue. Perhaps most notably, the New York Times went
big on the bogus “weapons of mass destruction” yarn.
After the damage was done, and hundreds of thousands of Iraqis had
died, the paper apologized. It admitted it was encouraged to report the claims by “United
States officials convinced of the need to intervene in Iraq.”
Almost two decades on, it has plainly learned nothing. This
weekend the Times had three of its most senior
journalists basically rewrite a CIA press release as part of its latest attempt
to undermine President Donald Trump by playing the “Russia
card.” Why it took so many of them is hard to understand –
unless none wanted to be the sole name on the piece, preferring safety in
numbers.
The story claimed that Russia is paying Afghan militants to kill
American soldiers and that Trump’s team has known for months but done nothing.
The US director of national intelligence quickly denied the allegations, as did
the president himself. It surely wasn't coincidental that the drop took place
in the same weekend that reports emerged of Trump planning to withdraw 4,000 troops from Afghanistan.
If you know anything about Russia, the
story is obviously false. The Americans are totally bogged down in
Kabul, which suits Moscow in myriad ways. In fact, the Kremlin would be only
delighted if the US stayed there forever. What’s more, the Taliban hardly needs
a financial incentive to attack a hated occupying force. So why would Moscow
need to be handing out bounties to encourage people who already have it in for
Americans?
Another interesting detail was the New
York Times’ assertion that its allegations are “based
at least in part on interrogations of captured Afghan militants and criminals.” Given
we know the US uses torture in Afghanistan that should be an immediate red-flag
to any self-respecting journalist. Not to mention the fact that even if Afghan
prisoners did say this, it's likely no more than prison gossip: “Daud
told Nadir that Hashem heard the Russians will pay you for killing an
American.”
The Times trio even threw in a bit of
casual xenophobia. “I think we had forgotten how organically ruthless
the Russians could be,” they quoted Peter Zwack, a retired
military intelligence officer, as saying. Imagine a report saying Asians,
Africans, Mexicans or Jews are “organically ruthless.” That's
right, you can't, because it wouldn't happen. But Russians, being predominantly
white and Christian, are considered to be fair game.
Soon after, the Washington Post said it had
‘confirmed’ the Times’ story. All this means is they
were fed the same bulls**t by the same anonymous spooks. Even more hilariously,
the paper managed to get a named Taliban spokesman to go on the record with his
denial, while it allowed the Americans who pushed the yarn to remain in the
shadows. Nevertheless, which narrative do you think was given more credence?
This carry-on is deeply unethical. Especially given it comes just
a couple of months after US/UK media went big on another fake story alleging Russia
was trying to poison Czech politicians with ricin. Prague eventually admitted
the tale was entirely made up. This confession, of course, received about one
percent of the coverage granted to the original fabrication.
Predictably, broadcast media followed up on the Times and Post’s
reports. Rachel Maddow was front and center, naturally. You'll remember she spent a few
years airing false and hysterical smears about Trump’s alleged ties to Moscow
and suffered no professional consequences when the Mueller Report proved her
allegations to be untrue.
But it wasn’t just Maddow. On Saturday, CNN ran “breaking
news” saying it had found “a European intelligence
official” to corroborate the tale. It then cut to its own
correspondent, one Nick Paton Walsh. He provided no named source and his
comments basically amounted to “some fella told me down the pub” stuff.
Honestly, in any sane media culture, Paton Walsh would be laughed at, not
encouraged.
For example, at one point he said “it's not clear when this
happened” and then added, “it's clear it has caused
casualties.” But instead of asking “how
is it possible to know that if you can't say when it happened?” the
anchor just sat there nodding along with that vacuous look in her eyes which
seems to be mandatory for CNN presenters.
Later, Britain’s Sky News ran the same yarn, but said “British security officials
have confirmed… that the reports about the plot are true.” Presumably, Sky was
spoon-fed by the same spooks who exploited Paton Walsh as a ‘useful idiot’.
Later, the Guardian’s Stephanie Kirchgaessner
tweeted “this confirmation by closest Intel allies is critical and damning:
Russia paid Taliban fighters to attack British troops in Afghanistan.”
Again, the reporter expressed no
doubts, because apparently the word of spooks is golden, and they would never
lie.
It’s established that mainstream US/UK
media operates in a self-contained pit of rumor, fear, braggadocio, bulls--t,
and propaganda when it comes to Russia. But what’s most bizarre is the
sheer obviousness with which outlets circulate the same false stories
and then use each other as corroborating sources even though they are all
getting the information from the same people.
Folks who obviously have their own
agendas, and are playing gormless hacks like a fiddle. The other incredible
thing is a clear lack of understanding about what ‘confirmation’ even means. It
obviously requires tangible evidence, on the record.
The New York Times’ coverage of Russia
basically only has two tricks. They either rip-off articles from smaller
Russian leftist outlets (who often can't complain too loudly as they rely on Western
funding) or they regurgitate anonymous sources in the US military-intelligence
establishment looking to run scare stories about the country. None of this
involves any reporting, and it cannot be considered journalism under any
accepted definition of what the trade involves.
Given the New York Times is arguably the
biggest, and most visible, fish in the US/UK media world, you can only imagine
the even lower standards that permeate further down the food chain.
================================================
New York Times' Afghanistan 'bounty' story
is not about Russia, it's aimed at influencing US domestic political struggles
By
Dr. Paul Robinson 29
Jun, 2020 15:39
Professor Paul Robinson is an authority on Russian history and
contemporary politics. He is a professor at the University of Ottawa. He writes
about Russian and Soviet history, military history, and military ethics.
I’ve said before, and no doubt will say again, that depictions of
Russia often have little to do with Russia itself and are more about those
doing the depiction.
For many in the Western world, Russia is, and long has been, a significant
‘other’, comparison with which serves a useful purpose in the creation of
self-identity. Beyond that, negative (and on occasion even positive) portrayals
of Russia feed into domestic political struggles and help legitimize one side
or another in whatever argument people are having.
Whether these portrayals of Russia are accurate is neither here
nor there. What matters is their impact on domestic politics.
Of course, this isn’t a hard and fast rule, but historians who
have looked at how Westerners have viewed Russia over the course of time have
amassed enough evidence to show that it’s often the case. If you doubt it, then
you have merely to look at what has happened in the United States in the past
four years, during which time Russia has been elevated into enemy number one,
an allegedly existential threat which is on the cusp of destroying American
democracy and plunging the country into civil strife.
The point of the Russiagate hysteria has never been Russia itself.
Rather it has been to delegitimize the election of Donald Trump as American
president by portraying him as, in effect, a traitor, who has sold out his
country to a foreign enemy. This narrative, of course, presupposes a foreign
enemy, for which purpose one has had to be created, and Russia has proven a
convenient candidate for the role.
It is this, I think, which explains the latest Russia scandal to
strike the United States – the claim this week in the New York Times that
Russian military intelligence has been paying the Taliban in Afghanistan to
kill Americans. I am, of course, not in a position to testify as to the
accuracy of the complaint, but like others am deeply skeptical of anything that
is based solely on the testimony of anonymous intelligence officials and that
lacks any supporting evidence.
Unsurprisingly, the New York Times’s
story has led to much derision, being interpreted as a sign once again of the
deeply Russophobic nature of the American press. I think, though, that that
interpretation may miss the point, which is that the story, like so many
others, is not really about Russia but rather yet another effort to discredit
Donald Trump as a puppet in the control of Russian President Vladimir Putin.
This is because a key aspect of the story was an allegation that Trump had been briefed about Russia’s nefarious activity but had done nothing in response. As might be expected, Trump’s enemies in the media were quick to exploit the story to attack the president. For instance, MSNBC’s prime Russiagate cheerleader Rachel Maddow had this to say:
“Not only does the president know… there was that unexpected and
friendly conversation he had with Putin… President Trump got off that call with
Putin and immediately began calling for Russia to be allowed back into the G7…
That’s how Trump is standing up for Americans being killed for rubles paid by
Putin’s government.”
Maddow’s colleague, MSNBC morning news
host Joe Scarborough, followed suit. “Donald Trump has known about
Putin killing Americans for months and has refused even to condemn Russia
diplomatically. What Republican senator will speak out against this shocking
dereliction of duty?” he tweeted. Other journalists were equally
outright in their condemnation. “While Trump was cozying up to Putin,
Russia was paying the Taliban to kill American troops in Afghanistan,” said
GQ’s Laura Bassett on Twitter; and so on.
Whether any of this was true was something that none of these
journalists bothered to ask. They simply assumed that it was, for the obvious
reason that always assuming the worst about Russia suits their political
agenda. Most notably, Trump’s electoral rival, Joe Biden, said this about the
president:
"Not only has he failed to sanction or impose any kind of
consequences on Russia for this egregious violation of international law, but
Donald Trump has also continued his embarrassing campaign of deference and
debasing himself before Vladimir Putin… His entire presidency has been a gift
to Putin, but this is beyond the pale. It’s a betrayal of the most sacred duty
we bear as a nation, to protect and equip our troops when we send them into
harm’s way.”
The problem with all this is that, as
with so much of Russiagate, it appears to be entirely false. The White House
immediately denied any knowledge of the Afghanistan story, and the Director of
National Intelligence backed up Trump by confirming that, indeed, the president
had never been informed about the alleged Russian activity. As so often, The
New York Times appears to have been peddling “fake news”. None of
this, however, has stopped Trump’s opponents from seizing on the story as
further evidence of the president’s treachery.
The question in my mind is what will happen should Trump lose the
presidential election in November, an outcome that now seems likely. It strikes
me that there are two possibilities. The first is that the Democratic Party and
its supporters will lose interest in stories of alleged Russian malevolence, as
they will no longer be needed. A Biden victory in November could, therefore,
lead to a lessening in the current rhetorical tension.
The second possibility is that nothing will change. Democrats, I
fear, have come to believe the nonsense that they have been peddling, to the
extent that it’s become part and parcel of who they are. They are therefore
incapable of altering course and will govern on the basis of the prejudices
they have generated in themselves over the past few years. I would like to
think that the first possibility will come to pass, but I have to say that I’m
not too optimistic.
As for what will happen in the event that Trump is re-elected… at
that point, America might well be engulfed in flames, and Russia will be the
least of anybody’s problems.