Fake News About Iran, Russia, China Is U.S. Journalism's Daily Bread

Every few days U.S. 'intelligence' and 'officials' produce fake claims about this or that 'hostile' country. U.S. media continue to reproduce those claims even if they bare any logic and do not make any sense.

On June 27 the New York Times and the Washington Post published fake news about alleged Russian payments to the Taliban for killing U.S. troops.

The stories ran on the outlets' front pages.

Two week later the story was shown to have no basis:

[T]hat the story was obviously bullshit did not prevent Democrats in Congress, including 'Russiagate' swindler Adam Schiff, to bluster about it and to call for immediate briefings and new sanctions on Russia.

Just a day after it was published the main accusation, that Trump was briefed on the 'intelligence' died. The Director of National Intelligence, the National Security Advisor and the CIA publicly rejected the claim. Then the rest of the story started to crumble. On June 2, just one week after it was launched, the story was declared dead.
...
The NYT buried the above quoted dead corpse of the original story page A-19.

Despite that the Democrats continued to use the fake story for attacks on Donald Trump.

Yesterday the commander of the U.S. forces in the Middle East drove a stake though the heart of the dead corpse of the original story:

Two months after top Pentagon officials vowed to get to the bottom of whether the Russian government bribed the Taliban to kill American service members, the commander of troops in the region says a detailed review of all available intelligence has not been able to corroborate the existence of such a program.

"It just has not been proved to a level of certainty that satisfies me," Gen. Frank McKenzie, commander of the U.S. Central Command, told NBC News. McKenzie oversees U.S. troops in Afghanistan.

But as one fake news zombie finally dies others get resurrected. Politico's 'intelligence' stenographer Natasha Bertrand produced this nonsensical claim:

Cont. reading: Fake News About Iran, Russia, China Is U.S. Journalism's Daily Bread

The MoA Week In Review - Open Thread 2020-73

Last week's posts at Moon of Alabama:

• September 7 - U.S. War On Journalism - Assange Fights Extradition In British Court
  Related:
  Kevin Gosztola and Craig Murray provide daily reports about the case:
  The Julian Assange Case - Shadow Proof
  Your Man in the Public Gallery - CraigMurray.org
  My defence of Julian Assange - a man I abhor - Peter Hitchens - Daily Mail

• September 8 - Why A Biden Presidency Will Disappoint Progressive Democrats
  Related:
  Biden Says Stay in Mideast, Increase Military Spending - AntiWar
  Biden says US must maintain small force in Middle East, has no plans for major Defense cuts - Stars & Stripes
  Sanders Urging Biden to Do More to Excite Progressives - New York Times

• September 9 - Afghan Peace Talk Spoiler Bomb Fails To Kill Its Target
  Related:
  Key comments as historic Afghan-Taliban peace talks begin - Reuters

• September 11 - Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman Infects Readers With 9/11 Dementia
  Related:
  Paul Krugman ripped after claiming no 'mass outbreak of anti-Muslim sentiment' after 9/11: 'My mosque burned down' - The Hill

• September 13 - Declaring Elections Illegitimate - By Rejecting To Send Observers
  Related:
  Venezuela says 'U.S. spy' captured near oil refinery complex - Yahoo News

---
Other issues:

Cont. reading: The MoA Week In Review - Open Thread 2020-73

Declaring Elections Illegitimate - By Rejecting To Send Observers

International election observer missions are supposed to watch that the individual legal voting rules of a country are followed. They are expected to report any irregularities they detect. Unfortunately there are now attempts to pervert their purpose. The active withholding of observer missions is now used to delegitimize elections even when those are fair and follow all the relevant rules. Recent examples are the presidential election in Belarus and the upcoming congressional election in Venezuela.

Back in June we detected a planned color revolution in Belarus by connecting various media reports that hyped the weak opposition forces.

One additional indication that the election in Belarus would be used for nefarious purposes was the willful absence of OSCE election monitors.

Belarus had, as usual, expected the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) to send election observers for the August 9 election. But the OSCE preemptively announced that it would not do so because an invitation was allegedly too late:

“The lack of a timely invitation more than two months after the announcement of the election has prevented ODIHR from observing key aspects of the electoral process,” ODIHR Director Ingibjörg Sólrún Gísladóttir said. “These include areas we have noted in recent observation reports as requiring improvement in Belarus, such as the formation of election commissions and registration of candidates. It is clear from the outcomes of these processes that the authorities have not taken any steps to improve their inclusiveness.”

The government of Belarus was surprised by the one-sided step:

“Indeed, to be honest, ODIHR’s decision was disappointing and unexpected. We really hope that this decision will be revised. After all, today, a day after the registration of presidential candidates, in line with earlier public statements, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has sent invitations to the OSCE Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights, the Commonwealth of Independent States and the Shanghai Cooperation Organization. These are our traditional partners in election observation. We remain strongly committed to our promises and obligations, including within the framework of the OSCE,” Anatoly Glaz said.

He emphasized that Belarus has never held elections without observation. “This time we were also determined to invite OSCE/ODIHR observers after the candidate registration. It was announced publicly on numerous occasions, we informed our western partners, senior officials of the Office and personally Ingibjorg Gisladottir about it. We are absolutely transparent in this context and this can be double-checked,” the spokesman said.

The willful absence of OSCE election observers later allowed 'western' media and politicians to claim that the election, which Belarus' President Lukashenko won, had been unfair.

In an August 18 interview Russia's Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov pointed out that the OSCE argument was wrong:

There are international legal frameworks that must serve as guidance when it comes to determining one’s attitude towards events in a specific country. [...] [T]he Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) has an Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR). One of its responsibilities is to monitor national elections in the OSCE member states. This responsibility is part of the obligations signed by all members of this highly respected organisation, without exception. We are being told that the violations during the election campaign were obvious and documented by voluntary observers, on social media, on camera, etc. The ODIHR itself, which was supposed to monitor the elections, claims that its representatives did not go to Belarus because the invitation was sent too late. This is not true, to put it mildly, because, like any other OSCE member state, Belarus’s only commitment is “to invite international observers to national elections.”

There is no timeline for inviting OSCE election observers. The OSCE should have prepared for the mission before the official invitation took place.

The scheme to not send election observers when an unwanted candidate is likely to win now sees a repeat with regards to Venezuela.

Cont. reading: Declaring Elections Illegitimate - By Rejecting To Send Observers

Nobel Laureate Paul Krugman Infects Readers With 9/11 Dementia

The prize for the worst tweet of the year goes to Paul Krugman.

bigger

In the real world the U.S. reacted to 9/11 by doing extremely bad and ridiculous things as well as this:

In the days, weeks, and months immediately following the 9/11 attacks, Arab-Americans, South Asian-Americans, Muslim-Americans, and Sikh-Americans were the targets of widespread hate violence. Many of the perpetrators of these acts of hate violence claimed they were acting patriotically by retaliating against those responsible for 9/11.
...
Just after September 11, numerous Arabs, Muslims, and individuals perceived to be Arab or Muslim were assaulted, and some killed, by individuals who believed they were responsible for or connected to the attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. The first backlash killing occurred four days after September 11.

Balbir Singh Sodhi was shot to death on September 15 as he was planting flowers outside his Chevron gas station. The man who shot Sodhi, Frank Roque, had told an employee of an Applebee’s restaurant that he was “going to go out and shoot some towel heads.” Roque mistakenly thought Sodhi was Arab because Sodhi, an immigrant from India, had a beard and wore a turban as part of his Sikh faith. After shooting Sodhi, Roque drove to a Mobil gas station a few miles away and shot at a Lebanese-American clerk. He then drove to a home he once owned and shot and almost hit an Afghani man who was coming out the front door. When he was arrested two hours later, Roque shouted, “I stand for America all the way.”

The next two killings were committed by a man named Mark Stroman. On September 15, 2001, Stroman shot and killed Waquar Hassan, an immigrant from Pakistan, at Hassan’s grocery store in Dallas, Texas. On October 4, 2001, Stroman shot and killed Vasudev Patel, an immigrant from India and a naturalized U.S. citizen, while Patel was working at his Shell station convenience store. A store video camera recorded the killing, helping police to identify Stroman as the killer. Stroman later told a Dallas television station that he shot Hassan and Patel because, “We’re at war. I did what I had to do. I did it to retaliate against those who retaliated against us.”

Beyond these killings, there were more than a thousand other anti-Muslim or anti-Arab acts of hate which took the form of physical assaults, verbal harassment and intimidation, arson, attacks on mosques, vandalism, and other property damage.

Instead of "calming prejudice" the GB Bush administration institutionalized hate crimes:

First, in the weeks immediately following the September 11 attacks, the government began secretly arresting and detaining Arab, Muslim, and South Asian men. Within the first two months after the attacks, the government had detained at least 1,200 men.
...
Second, in November 2001, the Department of Justice began efforts to “interview” approximately 5,000 men between the ages of 18 and 33 from Middle Eastern or Muslim nations who had arrived in the United States within the previous two years on a temporary student, tourist, or business visa and were lawful residents of the United States. Four months later, the government announced it would seek to interview an additional 3,000 men from countries with an Al Qaeda presence.
...
Third, in September 2002, the government implemented a “Special Registration” program also known as NSEERS (National Security Entry-Exit Registration System), requiring immigrant men from 26 mostly Muslim countries to register their name, address, telephone number, place of birth, date of arrival in the United States, height, weight, hair and eye color, financial information and the addresses, birth dates and phone numbers of parents and any foreign friends with the government.

Besides all that a rather useless security theater was installed at U.S. airports which has costs many billions in lost time and productivity ever since. The Patriot Act was introduced which allowed for unlimited spying on private citizens. Wars were launched that were claimed to be justified by 9/11. These were "mass outbreaks of anti-Muslim sentiment and violence. Many were killed and maimed in them. People were tortured and vanished. All of this happened largely to applause of a majority of the U.S. people which were glued to 24 and dreamed of  being "terrorist hunters".

Anyone with a functional memory knows that the U.S. reaction to 9/11 was anything but "pretty calm". It is ridiculous that Krugman is claiming that.

Open Thread 2020-72

News & views ...

Afghan Peace Talk Spoiler Bomb Fails To Kill Its Target

On September 9 2001 two suicide bombers killed Ahmad Shah Massoud, the leader of the anti-Taliban Northern Resistance in Afghanistan. Massoud's intelligence chief at that time was the CIA trained Amrullah Saleh.

After the NATO invasion of Afghanistan Saleh became the head of the Afghan National Directorate of Security which was and is seen as CIA controlled. After leading the NDS for several years Saleh went into politics and founded his own party. During the last election cycle, which ended inconclusively, Saleh supported the Afghan president Ashraf Ghani. When negotiation and strong U.S. pressure gave Ghani the presidency Saleh became his first vice president.

Today, on the anniversary of Ahmad Shah Massoud death, someone may have tried to kill him:

At least 10 people have been killed in a roadside bomb attack in the Afghan capital Kabul that targeted First Vice-President Amrullah Saleh.

Mr Saleh, a former head of the Afghan intelligence services, escaped with slight burns on his face and hand.

The bombing came as Afghan officials and the Taliban prepared to begin their first formal talks.

Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid said in a tweet that the militant group was not responsible for the blast.
...
Tareq Arain, a spokesman for Afghanistan's interior ministry, said the roadside bomb targeted Mr Saleh's convoy as the official travelled to work. Mr Arain said 10 civilians who worked in the area were killed and 15 people, including one of Mr Saleh's bodyguards, were wounded.

The roadside bomb that targeted Saleh was not strong enough to destroy thee armored car Saleh was traveling in.

While many will accuse the Taliban of having planted the bomb I have my doubts. The Taliban want the U.S. to leave Afghanistan. To attack the Vice President just as the peace talks between Taliban and the government are set to begin could prolong the stay of U.S. forces in Afghanistan.

The bomb attack may thus have been a false flag attack.

As the AFP correctly notes:

Known for his combativeness -- and paranoia -- Saleh has rarely wavered in his outspoken hatred of the Taliban and their alleged backers in Pakistan.

The paranoid and experienced former intelligence official takes the same road to work every day?

Cont. reading: Afghan Peace Talk Spoiler Bomb Fails To Kill Its Target

Why A Biden Presidency Will Disappoint Progressive Democrats

A Biden presidency will be another disappointment for the progressives who support the Democrats campaign.

The Washington Post is lauding Joe Biden's 'flexibility' on policy issues:

When Joe Biden released economic recommendations two months ago, they included a few ideas that worried some powerful bankers: allowing banking at the post office, for example, and having the Federal Reserve guarantee all Americans a bank account.

But in private calls with Wall Street leaders, the Biden campaign made it clear those proposals would not be central to Biden’s agenda.

“They basically said, ‘Listen, this is just an exercise to keep the Warren people happy, and don’t read too much into it,’ ” said one investment banker, referring to liberal supporters of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.). The banker, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to describe private talks, said that message was conveyed on multiple calls.

By making promises to the more progressive parts of the Democrats while secretly pledging different policies to the rich Joe Biden is following the 'flexibility' of Barack Obama. During his first presidential campaign Obama promised several times that he would renegotiate NAFTA, the free trade agreement with Canada and Mexico. But behind the back of his supporters he secretly send envoys to Canada to let the government there know that he did not intend to implement that promise:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has ordered an investigation into how reporters obtained a memo detailing a discussion between Canadian diplomats and a member of Obama’s team. The memo said the Obama adviser indicated that the candidate’s criticism of NAFTA was primarily political.

Obama’s team denied he was being insincere, but rival Hillary Clinton said the memo showed her opponent could not be trusted. Both candidates blame the free trade agreement for U.S. job losses and vow to change or even abandon the deal, an act that could hurt Canada’s economy and damage ties between the world’s two largest trading partners.

Biden is showing such 'flexibility' on multiple issues:

Cont. reading: Why A Biden Presidency Will Disappoint Progressive Democrats

U.S. War On Journalism - Assange Fights Extradition In British Court

Today the London show trial over the extradition of Wikileaks editor Julian Assange to the U.S. has begun. U.S. prosecutors claim that Assange's publishing of evidence of U.S. war crimes has violated the U.S. Espionage Act.

Why an Australian publisher who worked from Europe and evidently published truthful evidence of war crimes should by guilty under a political U.S. law is beyond me.

The trial in front of the British court is nominally public. But access to it has been severely restricted:

The public gallery of 80 has been reduced to 9 “due to Covid”. 5 seats are reserved for Julian’s family and friends, and I have one of these today, but not guaranteed beyond that. There are just 4 seats for the general public.

Journalists and NGO’s will be following the hearing online – but only “approved” journalists and NGO’s, selected by the Orwelian Ministry of Justice. I had dinner last night with Assange supporters from a number of registered NGO’s, not one of which had been “approved”. I had applied myself as a representative of Hope Over Fear, and was turned down. It is the same story for those who applied for online access as journalists. Only the officially “approved” will be allowed to watch.

This is supposed to be a public hearing, to which in normal times anybody should be able to walk in off the street into the large public gallery, and anyone with a press card into the press gallery. What is the justification for the political selection of those permitted to watch? An extraordinary online system has been set up, with the state favoured observers given online “rooms” in which only the identified individual will be allowed. Even with approved organisations, it is not the case that an organisation will have a login anyone can use, not even one at a time. Only specifically nominated individuals have to login before proceedings start, and if their connection breaks at any point they will not be readmitted that day.

Some 40 NGOs, including Amnesty International, had been told that they would have remote access to the trial but today the judge revoked that access without giving any reason.

With only a few selected and system conforming reporters allowed to watch the proceedings the public will get a very biased picture of the case and the trial:

Cont. reading: U.S. War On Journalism - Assange Fights Extradition In British Court

The MoA Week In Review - Open Thread 2020-71

Last week's posts at Moon of Alabama:

• August 31 - Montenegro - Tiny Nation Vote Upsets Anti-Russian Front
  Related:
  Montenegro Opposition’s reversible triumph - Eric Voegelin / The Saker

• September 1 - Election 2020 - The Color Revolutions Are Coming Home
  Related:
  Sheepdog Bernie Sanders promoting the color revolution narrative:
  Sanders: America must be prepared for when Trump refuses to leave office - Politico

• September 2 - Navalny Gets Skripaled
  Related:
  German imperialism and the strange case of Alexei Navalny - WSWS
  Novichok and Nonsense: From a post-factual to a post-logic world - Gilbert Doctorow
  Germany, Not Russia, Should Answer Questions Over Navalny Case - Strategic Culture
  In Navalny poisoning, rush to judgement threatens new Russia-NATO crisis (vid) - Aaron Maté

• September 4 - DHS: Russia Will Interfere With U.S. Elections By Promoting Alleged Russian Interference With U.S. Elections
  Related:
  Washington firm ran fake Facebook accounts in Venezuela, Bolivia and Mexico, report finds - Washington Post

> Facebook has conducted takedowns against communications firms in Israel, Canada, India, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates — and now, the United States — for engaging in coordinated inauthentic behavior. <

• September 5 - How Attacks On Trump Help Him To Make His Case
  Related:
  Journalism’s New Propaganda Tool: Using “Confirmed” to Mean its Opposite - Glenn Greenwald / Intercept
  Pollak: The Stunning Synergy of The Atlantic’s Anonymous Attack on Trump - Breitbart
  Never Trump. Never Biden. the Progressive Case for Voting Third Party or Boycotting the Election - Ted Rall / WSWS

---
Other issues:

Cont. reading: The MoA Week In Review - Open Thread 2020-71

How Attacks On Trump Help Him To Make His Case

In 2016 the Democrats lost the election despite their constant attacks on Donald Trump's personality. Over the last four years they continued those attacks with Russiagate and impeachment nonsense. Trump turned each of the attacks into a win for himself. Unfortunately that pattern continues.

Over the last two days the Joe Biden campaign made a rather hapless attempt to smear President Donald Trump over allegedly negative comments about previous wars and dead soldiers. The attack was launched with a Jeffrey Goldberg piece in the Atlantic headlined: Trump: Americans Who Died in War Are ‘Losers’ and ‘Suckers’

When President Donald Trump canceled a visit to the Aisne-Marne American Cemetery near Paris in 2018, he blamed rain for the last-minute decision, saying that “the helicopter couldn’t fly” and that the Secret Service wouldn’t drive him there. Neither claim was true.

Trump rejected the idea of the visit because he feared his hair would become disheveled in the rain, and because he did not believe it important to honor American war dead, according to four people with firsthand knowledge of the discussion that day. In a conversation with senior staff members on the morning of the scheduled visit, Trump said, “Why should I go to that cemetery? It’s filled with losers.”

None of what those four anonymous sources claimed is true according to on the record quotes from people who were there:

Several White House officials at the time said the decision not to take Marine One to the Belleau Wood cemetery was made by Zachary Fuentes, a close aide to Mr. Kelly, without consulting the president’s military aide. Others argued that a trip by road would have taken too long, at roughly two hours.

Administration officials said then that Mr. Fuentes had assured Mr. Trump it was fine to miss the visit.
...
More than a half-dozen current and former aides to Mr. Trump backed him up with Twitter messages and statements disputing that part of the Atlantic article. “I was actually there and one of the people part of the discussion — this never happened,” wrote Sarah Huckabee Sanders, who was then the White House press secretary. “This is not even close to being factually accurate,” added Jordan Karem, the president’s personal aide at the time.

John Bolton, who at that time was National Security Advisor but has now fallen out with Trump, describes the cancellation in his tell-all book as solely weather related.

Yesterday he reconfirmed that:

Mr. Bolton said he was in the room at the ambassador’s residence when Mr. Trump arrived and Mr. Kelly told him that the helicopter trip had to be canceled. A two-hour motorcade would have put him too far away from Air Force One and the most capable communications array a president needs in case of an emergency, per usual protocol, Mr. Bolton said. “It was a straight weather call,” he said.

The next day Trump visited a different military cemetery in France.

The quotes in the Goldberg piece may be correct but are most likely not what Goldberg claims them to be:

Cont. reading: How Attacks On Trump Help Him To Make His Case