The American troll factory for one-track mind in anti-Russia propaganda has got a new advocate: Natasha Bertrand. An useful stooge coming from nowhere with few journalistic credentials.
Researcher who tracks the Russia-linked accounts for Hamilton 68 told me that "on a normal day," the site's top hashtag is typically used around 400 times in a 48-hr period by the accounts.
"As of right now, #releasethememo has been used over 3000 times."https://t.co/YNufBFfOCR
— Natasha Bertrand (@NatashaBertrand) January 19, 2018
More below the fold …
Does it matter at all that this website – started by Bill Kristol, CIA officials and Dem neocons – refuses to say which accounts they count as "Russia-linked" & refuse to say how they determine this? Why would any rational person take this group's pronouncement as Gospel? https://t.co/T7OKGNXoN8
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) January 19, 2018
The journalists who most love to rail about the dangers of "Fake News" don't seem to exercise very much caution in determining whether the claims they're spreading are actually verifiable, reliable or true. pic.twitter.com/Wvuo8pz3tu
— Glenn Greenwald (@ggreenwald) January 19, 2018
- In other words – the “Twitter accounts suspected of having links to Russia” were following the current news just as cable news networks do. When a new sensational event happened they immediately jumped onto it. But the NYT authors go to length to claim that there is some nefarious Russian scheme behind this that uses automated accounts to spread divisive issues.
Those claims are based on this propaganda project:
Last year, the Alliance for Securing Democracy, in conjunction with the German Marshall Fund, a public policy research group in Washington, created a website that tracks hundreds of Twitter accounts of human users and suspected bots that they have linked to a Russian influence campaign.
The “Alliance for Securing Democracy” is run by military lobbyists, CIA minions and neo-conservative propagandists. Its claimed task is:
… to publicly document and expose Vladimir Putin’s ongoing efforts to subvert democracy in the United States and Europe.
h/t one of the blogs listed on PropOrNot!
Natasha is a political correspondent at Business Insider. She writes mainly about national security and foreign policy.
Before joining Business Insider, Natasha worked at a political think tank in Madrid [Citation needed: ???], Spain, researching EU relations with the Middle East and North Africa. Later, she served as the CSR intern at the oil and gas industry association for environmental and social issues in London, focusing on human rights and sustainable development.
Vassar College 2010 — 2014
Bachelor’s degree, Political Science and Philosophy
The London School of Economics and Political Science (LSE) 2012 — 2013
Government and Philosophy
Business Insider November 2014 – Present
Business Insider September 2014 – November 2014
Vassar College August 2013 – May 2014
IPIECA June 2013 – August 2013
Fundación para las Relaciones Internacionales y el Diálogo Exterior (FRIDE – Wikipedia) July 2012 – October 2012
○ ‘A model for civilization’: Putin’s Russia has emerged as ‘a beacon for nationalists’ and the American alt-right | Business Insider | by Natasha Bertrand on Dec. 10th, 2016
A few articles written by Natasha Bertrand were reprinted @ Russia Insider …
○ Turkey Is Hosting Peace Talks Between Russia and Syrian Rebels — And the US Isn’t Invited – Dec. 8, 2016
○ A Bunch of Frustrated People’ in the Obama Administration Want to Set Syria on Fire Again – Apr. 15, 2016
JDW’s source – RESIST!
I never have been someone to blend into the grey masses or ease to join a majority opinion on false pretense in political dialogue. U.S. Congress is a true reflection of the will of the American People as was designed by the Founding Fathers in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution. Polling indicates US politicians aren’t trustworthy. Trump is on the top of the heap. It’s not of his making and in my analysis he was the one more surprised than anyone. I have lived through many generations of Americans and its way of life. So I am not surprised but will try to do some damage control. That’s why I am optimistic the American influence in Europe will take a hit once Brexit is implemented in full. America represents the Good, the Bad and the Ugly. I understand the US is shutting its borders for immigrants. AngloSaxons in optima forma, Therese May will be proud.
You’re the one that made a mountain out of a molehill. Then, as usual, you toss out your long-standing negative opinion of me to bolster your rejection of the points in my comment. (btw that is dishonest argumentation.)
Do you believe Roger Stone’s claim, prior to his first (and now documented) DM message to Wikileaks in Oct ’16 that he was in contact with Wikileaks? Nothing in these tweets suggest that it was true. Or his later claim that he wasn’t in direct contact with Wikileaks? Or that his contact with Wikileaks was through an intermediary? How do you decide when Stone is lying and when he’s telling the truth?
While you and I have had numerous spats on this site, if you told anyone that you were in “direct contact” with me, I’d say not true. Same with unsolicited email contact that doesn’t go beyond a terse response from me.
Have you never been falsely accused of doing something that you didn’t? Having a short response comment blown up into something it wasn’t? (Yes, Clinton’s “depends on the meaning of is” may have been entirely appropriate and responsive and understood in that situation. (In depos and on a witness stand I’ve had opposing attorneys attempt to trap me into admitting something that wasn’t true. They didn’t succeed but that doesn’t mean that the task was easy for me.) Did Clinton lie about having an extramarital sexual relationship? Yes — numerous times. Did I care about his lies or consensual relationships? No because it wasn’t any sort of capital offense or dereliction of his public duties and I found Starr’s pursuit of that in his Whitewater investigation offensive.)
My opinion of Wikileaks, and in general all media and reporters, is primarily based on what they publish. Is it authentic and of importance for the general public to know? If the work passes muster, I don’t expect full transparency or disclosures on sources and methods used to obtain the information in response to inquiries by other media sources seeking to discredit the messenger. Good investigative journalism can be dangerous to a messenger and his/her sources. So, it’s important to cut them some slack in holding back or even misleaing on how and from whom they obtained the information. However, that’s not a license to present/publish crap, lies, etc. and those that do so, have only themselves to blame for not being a credible and reliable reporter.
Did WoodStein’s Watergate work hold up? Yes. Did they mislead about one (possibly more) source, yes. There was no shortage of critics, Republicans and other media folk, that harangued WoodStein and WAPO for their deceptions, but the final arbitration was “the work” and that stood up as credible and reliable. Then there was the thirty year mystery (a Beltway parlor game) as to the identity of “Deep Throat.” Once known, it’s still rather curious and Felt himself couldn’t satisfactorily explain why he’d acted. So, now we have a brand new mystery — or two if one doesn’t see the same hand behind the extraction and submission to Wikileaks of the DNC and Podesta emails. (I only use that as example and am aware that Felt’s importance as a source to crack the CRP/Nixon conspiracy was grossly inflated, but it made the story sound better.)
The CIA knew by 1985 (because human assets were disappearing) that a KGB asset was at the CIA. Yet it wasn’t until early 1993 that they began seriously focusing on Aldrich Ames. (Before then they were like the guy searching for his keys under the lamppost when he’d dropped them far from there.) Similar story at the FBI in finding its KGB mole, Robert Hanssen only the FBI active investigation of him didn’t begin until 2001 (sixteen years after he began passing information to the GRU). Meanwhile and for decades earlier and after, the FBI and CIA kept seeing non-existent Soviet/Russian fingerprints on all sorts of matters in all sorts of places. Given the odds, it’s a sucker’s bet to believe most of what is publicly released from US intell agencies.
While it’s nice to have a liking for those that produce work I can respect, for me the former isn’t necessary for the latter. As I see contemporary libertarianism as anti-social (testosterone driven for the CPAC flunkies), I don’t much care for those with that particular orientation or bias. It’s different from the anti-socialism of Republicanism, neo-cons, and neo-liberalism, but I don’t like those folks either, but they’re also not producing any work — reporting and business and government policies — that I respect and they lie a lot. Truth-tellers are rare.
It’s devolved further from “who to believe” to “who and when” to believe. Newsweek 2/18/18
Secretary of Defense James Mattis made it very clear recently that “aid groups and others” had provided the U.S. with evidence that was insufficient to conclude that President Bashar Assad had recently used the chemical weapon Sarin against Syrian civilians. In other words, the Pentagon does not believe what has been presented to it as evidence, chiefly because of the dubious provenance of the providers.
Who/When to believe: US intell then (before bombing) or now (after bombing). At the moment, looks as if I won the “then” wager.
by Marie3 on Wed Feb 28th, 2018 at 10:49:29 PM MEST
An excellent comment by Marie3 – appreciated by none who read and promoted JDW’s paragraph. Diary? NOT!
[Update-2] Due to brutal and ignorant comments to Marie3’s post I wrote a diary …