Here's the start:
The “cyber-security” firm that everyone is depending on to make the case for Russia’s alleged “hacking” of the 2016 presidential election, CrowdStrike, has just retracted a key component of its analysis – but the “mainstream” media continues to chug along, ignoring any facts that contradict their preferred narrative.
As Voice of America – hardly an instrument of Russian propaganda! – reports:
“U.S. cybersecurity firm CrowdStrike has revised and retracted statements it used to buttress claims of Russian hacking during last year’s American presidential election campaign. The shift followed a VOA report that the company misrepresented data published by an influential British think tank.”
This retraction pulls the rug out from under CrowdStrike’s identification of the hacking group that supposedly broke into the Democratic National Committee’s server. Last year, the company announced that “Fancy Bear” – the name they gave to the hackers – had used identical tools and methods to hack into software used by the Ukrainian military, an act they claimed led to the destruction of 80% of the Ukrainians’ howitzers in their war with rebel forces. Up until that point, CrowdStrike had merely “suspected” that the Russians were behind the DNC hack. However, given the Ukrainian “evidence,” combined with the assumption that the rebels are “Russian-backed,” CrowdStrike head honcho Dmitri Alpervovitch told the Washington Post: “Now we have high confidence it was a unit of the GRU,” i.e. Russian military intelligence.
Their retraction means that “high confidence” has been considerably lowered down to the level of a mere “suspicion.” Forced to backtrack in light of VOA’s definitive takedown, CrowdStrike’s whole case collapses. Despite dubbing the alleged hackers with the nom de guerre of “Fancy Bear” – as in the Russian bear – the evidence that supposedly identifies whoever broke into the DNC servers as GRU agents is virtually nonexistent. And the remaining “evidence” is hardly impressive. As cyber-security expert James Bamford pointed out:
“Last summer, cyber investigators plowing through the thousands of leaked emails from the Democratic National Committee uncovered a clue.
“A user named ‘Феликс Эдмундович’ modified one of the documents using settings in the Russian language. Translated, his name was Felix Edmundovich, a pseudonym referring to Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky, the chief of the Soviet Union’s first secret-police organization, the Cheka.”
So why would the nefarious albeit highly skilled Russians leave this glaring clue – in Cyrillic, no less! — for all to see? Or was this “clue” deliberate misdirection on the part of the real hackers? The latter seems highly likely – not that the geniuses over at CrowdStrike would want to understand this. After all, they were paid by the Democratic National Committee, which used the incident to drum up a narrative that the evil Russians were trying to damage Hillary Clinton and elect Donald Trump. Follow the money, folks – and Alperovitch’s position with the Atlantic Council, an organization that is assiduously trying to launch another cold war with Moscow.
Hillary Clinton lost because Hillary Clinton is a loser.
It is as though she learned nothing from the 2008 run.
It was as though she thought we were all going to just hand her the nomination.
Why?
I have no idea why she felt so entitled.
But her loss is on her.
And her refusal to call out this hysteria about Russia goes a long way towards underscoring that she should not have been elected.
This is C.I.'s "Iraq snapshot" for today:
Friday, March 31, 2017. Chaos and violence continues as Michael Gordon
and THE NEW YORK TIMES sling their ass to work it for death merchants.
Judith Miller lost her job at THE NEW YORK TIMES over her Iraq War stenography. Her frequent co-writer Michael Gordon kept his.
A reminder of the damage control the government stenographer can still perform appears on A6 of today's NEW YORK TIMES.
What is the big news?
The massacre of civilians in Mosul, apparently killed in a US air strike.
So the government rolls down the window at Gordo's street corner and guess who walks over?
The money shot?
"New ISIS Tactic: Gather Mosul's Civilians, Then Lure an Airstrike."
In other words?
Those hundreds of civilians killed?
They had it coming.
Shouldn't have gone out that late at night, shouldn't have worn those tight clothes, they were begging for it.
No where in the ravings of the aging prostitute do issues like international law appear.
Not once does he note that, even if his assertion is true, it doesn't not excuse dropping bombs on civilians.
Silly US government, they sent a disease ridden whore to do a clean up thinking the American people would believe Michael Gordon.
Gordo, of course, offers no dissenting view.
And, for the record, he has no eye witnesses.
Iraqis would be the one to talk to -- residents of Mosul.
But when has THE NEW YORK TIMES ever been interested in the Iraqi civilains?
When they sold the war?
When the re-sold it to keep it going?
Judith Miller lost her job at THE NEW YORK TIMES over her Iraq War stenography. Her frequent co-writer Michael Gordon kept his.
A reminder of the damage control the government stenographer can still perform appears on A6 of today's NEW YORK TIMES.
What is the big news?
The massacre of civilians in Mosul, apparently killed in a US air strike.
So the government rolls down the window at Gordo's street corner and guess who walks over?
The money shot?
"New ISIS Tactic: Gather Mosul's Civilians, Then Lure an Airstrike."
In other words?
Those hundreds of civilians killed?
They had it coming.
Shouldn't have gone out that late at night, shouldn't have worn those tight clothes, they were begging for it.
No where in the ravings of the aging prostitute do issues like international law appear.
Not once does he note that, even if his assertion is true, it doesn't not excuse dropping bombs on civilians.
Silly US government, they sent a disease ridden whore to do a clean up thinking the American people would believe Michael Gordon.
Gordo, of course, offers no dissenting view.
And, for the record, he has no eye witnesses.
Iraqis would be the one to talk to -- residents of Mosul.
But when has THE NEW YORK TIMES ever been interested in the Iraqi civilains?
When they sold the war?
When the re-sold it to keep it going?
yeah, so maybe you guys close up shop. I'm sure the people of Iraq wouldn't mind you scumbags
The Iraqi people are not numbers.
They live, they breathe, they dream just like anyone else.
Yet the paper of (mis)record has repeatedly rendered them invisible.
Gordo continues that long and disgraceful tradition today.
Not everyone is unable to speak to the victims.
Heartbreaking: @ArwaCNN speaks with survivors of the #Mosul attacks that left dozens dead and others injured #Iraq edition.cnn.com/videos/world/2…
Meanwhile, THE ARMY TIMES reports, "About 600 soldiers from the 1st Armored Division will deploy later this year to Iraq and Afghanistan, the Army announced Wednesday. Of those, about 400 soldiers belong to the 1st Armored Division headquarters at Fort Bliss, Texas. They are scheduled to deploy this summer to Iraq in support of Operation Inherent Resolve." Corey Dickstein (STARS & STRIPES) adds, "Both deployments are rotations of regular troops replacing units currently deployed, according to the Army. Therefore, they do not represent an increase in American forces in either country, an Army spokesman said." On the topic of troops, W.J. Hennigan (LOS ANGELES TIMES) reports:
Even as the U.S. military takes on a greater role in the warfare in Iraq and Syria, the Trump administration has stopped disclosing significant information about the size and nature of the U.S. commitment, including the number of U.S. troops deployed in either country.
Earlier this month, the Pentagon quietly dispatched 400 Marines to northern Syria to operate artillery in support of Syrian militias that are cooperating in the fight against Islamic State, according to U.S. officials. That was the first use of U.S. Marines in that country since its long civil war began.
In Iraq, nearly 300 Army paratroopers were deployed recently to help the Iraqi military in their six-month assault on the city of Mosul, according to U.S. officials.
It's day 165 of The Mosul Slog.
How's that working out?
That's a visual showing the Islamic State still controls a great deal of land.
Still controls it 165 days after the operation to 'liberate' Mosul started.
And how's that 'liberation' going?
#MOSUL_CALLING: IOM #Iraq urgently requires $76.3 million, of which $28.83 million is desperately needed 2 care 4 #Mosul IDPs in next 12wks.
UN chief @antonioguterres urges greater solidarity with #Mosul displaced: unhcr.org/news/latest/20… … #WithRefugees via @refugees @UNHCRIraq
In N Iraq, @AntonioGuterres calls for greater support for all those displaced by the fighting in Mosul. bit.ly/2oi0zd3
IRAQ: Displace Iraqi Families from Western Mosul.
Doesn't look like liberation, does it?
Doesn't sound like it either as described by Molly Hennessy-Fiske (LOS ANGELES TIMES):
They camp on muddy corners, beside an abandoned mosque and in the rain-soaked ruins of a soccer stadium — families displaced by ongoing fighting in Mosul are filling emergency camps in this smaller city about 20 miles south.
Disabled boys arrived in wheelchairs one day last week, and elderly men limped in on metal braces and canes.
The following community sites -- plus Cindy Sheehan, THE GUARDIAN, Jody Watley and DISSIDENT VOICE -- updated:
BATGIRL
9 hours ago
2 videos to catch
9 hours ago
barack?
12 hours ago
Mosul
12 hours ago
Give me a break
12 hours ago
What do we want?
12 hours ago
Glen Ford interviewed by RT
13 hours ago
Trump, the Enigma
13 hours ago
Healthcare
16 hours ago
ADDED at Ann's request:
We are the country's largest grassroots political party. The longer we wait for change, the harder it gets. Join us!
gp.org/take_action
gp.org/take_action
iraq
