Not Even A Mushroom Cloud Will Make Them Doubt The Narrative

 

It is hard to admit that you were wrong. It is harder to admit you were wrong on a very serious subject. Even harder to admit you were wrong when the group you belong to was wrong, because it means you will have to go against the crowd. It is harder still to admit you were wrong when doing so makes it obvious that a group you felt superior to was right. That is the kind of blow to the ego very few of us are willing to endure.

For the reasons stated above, people who fell in line with the Russiagate narrative are never going to admit they were wrong, not even to themselves. They will never permit themselves to consider that all their emotional energies were diverted from opposing Trump on any issues of substance into being unwitting dupes to the unelected deep state that has a self-admitted goal of complete global hegemony. Russia was the next nation on their list, and so the propaganda campaign had to be kicked into high gear. Democrats, this time, proved to be the subjects most useful for this purpose.

Hillary Clinton embraced the by-now debunked lie that Russia hacked her e-mails in order to save face and have someone to blame for her failure. Blame and Hillary do not coexist very well, so she was an easy sell. The Democratic Party cottoned to the Russiagate narrative because it meant they didn’t have to do a post-loss post-mortem to see what they had done wrong. A party every bit as beholden to moneyed interests as the Republican Party has no interest in contemplating what it might need to do for voters other than virtue-signaling. The media, perhaps, found it easiest of all to go along with the story of Russia interfering in the U.S. elections. For one thing, it absolved them from doing any actual journalism on their own: they just had to repeat the assertions from anonymous sources they were being flooded with on a daily basis. For another thing, they never had to take accountability for what they reported: They could take an accusation — say Putin having video of prostitutes peeing on Trump — speculate on what Putin might be making Trump do to keep the video hidden, and then move on to the next “bombshell” when the previous one had proven to be a dud. Lastly, Russiagate was a HUGE moneymaker for the establishment media. As Executive Chairman for CBS News said about Donald Trump — and which was doubly true for all establishment news outlets regarding Russiagate: “It may not be good for America, but it’s damn good for CBS.” For a while, Rachel Maddow was flying high doing nothing more than quoting from the Steele Dossier the way Joel Osteen quotes The Bible.

And of course, all the neo-cons went along with Russiagate because it advanced the agenda that they first put into practice with the invasion of Iraq. All those ghoulish demons from the pits of the Republican Party slithered over to join with the Democrats to blame Russia for what the American people and both their corrupted parties did to themselves. And the Democrats welcomed them with open arms like some prodigal son. This unification with what they once considered all that was evil they now called “bipartisanship”. “How could we be wrong when even our worst enemies agree with us?” In this way, George W. Bush was no longer a villain but became one of the good guys, like something out of a poorly written professional wrestling script.

People in an emotional state are easily manipulated. That is why those who were crushed by Hillary’s loss fell for Russiagate like a hungry trout for a well-tied fly. That’s why anyone who wasn’t emotionally invested didn’t. Anyone who was able to go to bed the night before the election because they didn’t think the survival of Western culture relied upon Hillary’s victory saw the Russiagate narrative for what it was: a lie, an excuse, a call for increased tensions against yet another country, a joke, pathetic.

Biden has had time to give us a good idea of what a Hillary Presidency would have looked like. Both being obedient servants to corporate power and the military, there is little difference one’s influence could have made. Hillary might have been more full-throatedly supportive of the military industrial complex, but without the 4-year buildup that was Russiagate, it would not have been as effective. Indeed, tying Trump to Russia was a stroke of (evil) genius on the part of those who dictate our international politics.

But like I said, it is hard to admit you’re wrong when you have so much emotionally invested in a narrative. I know I am not going to convince anybody to change their mind, let alone admit their complicity in a lie that quite possibly could be more damaging than any other lie told in human history. The only people who will read and relate to this are those who already know the truth. But that does not mean I can’t make the lie sit a little less easily in some people’s minds. I can still remind them that people other than Trump supporters, paid Russian trolls, and useful idiots can hold a position contrary to their own. I can still make self-delusion hurt a little bit.

*Dearest reader: I admit I am guilty of using what Professor S.I. Hayakawa referred to as “snarl words” in this article. Snarl words are “highly connotative language that often serves as a substitute for serious thought and well-reasoned argument.” I further admit I have done so in order to provoke an emotional response rather than a substantive debate. If I felt substantive debate were possible on this issue I would have refrained from such behavior. I honestly believe there is no way of arguing this subject with believers without provoking an emotional response. Please note that I am at least upfront about this and that it is a form of arguing that I normally find offensive.

Can Russia Be More Evil?

CAN RUSSIA BE MORE EVIL?

I want you to imagine Russia, not as it is today—a horrible bastion of all that is evil and wrong with the world—but as it might yet be in the future, a Russia still worse than it is today. I want you to imagine a Russia, in other words, that may very well come to be should we choose to turn a blind eye to what is occurring at this instant under our very noses.

Imagine a Russia that is indifferent to international law and dismissive of the United Nations and the principles of international democracy. I’m talking now of a rogue nation that feels it is free from any obligation other than pursuing its own interests, not too unlike Germany in the 1930’s. Imagine a Russia that feels itself obliged to transform the world according to its own desires.

Imagine a world where Russian oligarchs use brute force combined with clandestine manipulation in order to advance an agenda that not only harms the world but the Russian people themselves. A world where cruelty and harshness are rationalized as a path towards progress.

Imagine if Russia began to throw its weight around, that it supposed itself the chosen nation uniquely qualified to lead all other nations. Suppose Russia came up with a grand design and called it Project For A New Russian Century. How would it make you feel, as an American, if the governments of every other nation were told that they must model their governments on the Russian model? It’s a scary thought, isn’t it?

Now just imagine that Russia had persuaded the world that it needed to invade Iraq because Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. And imagine what would be the world’s response if after they had invaded Iraq they were forced to admit the very reason for their war was a false one. Keep in mind I’m not saying Russia is this bad yet, but they very well might be if given the chance. (Please remember to note your feelings and reactions to what you are presented with).

Imagine one day turning on your television and seeing images of Russian soldiers smiling as they force Iraqi prisoners naked onto piles so that they can take pictures with them. I know it is hard to believe human beings—even Russians—can behave in such a manner, but I assure you it is possible. Nazi Germany is proof that anything is possible.

If given the chance, Russia might be capable of many horrible things. They might sponsor and arm religious extremists in a country neighboring the United States, let us call it Hondurastan, in order to overthrow a government that is friendly to the U.S. And after overthrowing the Hondurastani government, they would leave it in the hands of religious extremists. Such religious extremists and terrorists would be capable of almost anything, such as blowing up buildings in Russia. At which point Russia would use it as an excuse to invade that country that is in the vicinity of the U.S. And it would not only invade the country, ostensibly to defend itself, but also build a permanent military presence there. Just imagine a fifteen year Russian occupation of a nation halfway across the world! We must never let such a thing happen.

Russians would not be stationed in Hondurastan only but they would build military bases throughout Central America, which they would claim to need in order to deal with the Hondurastan situation. And even these would only be but more links in the chain of military outposts surrounding our country. It’s frightening to think of, isn’t it? It seems only fitting that we would do most anything to prevent such a situation from ever occurring.

I want to remind you that these are purely hypothetical scenarios and should not be provoking emotional responses. If they are, please note them for me.

Imagine if Russia was helping to incite riots in Canada in order to overthrow their Democratically elected government. Such a thing might be possible if Russia is permitted to believe it will not be held accountable. And imagine if Russia felt it was their right to choose who was to be the next Prime Minister of Canada after Justin Trudeau was forced to flee for his very life. Just suppose that the government that took the place of the democratically elected one was filled with fascists and Nazi sympathizers, and that the nation broke apart between French and English speaking Canadians. How would that make you feel?

What other mischief might Russia be up to if we don’t set limits for them? They could form a military alliance that would include virtually every nation in North America, and not let the United States join.

It wouldn’t stop there. Just imagine for a moment Vladimir Putin deciding it was his right to get rid of leaders in other nations. Can you not see the evil smile on his face as he turned to the camera and said something like “We came, we saw, he died.” Doesn’t it just send shivers down your spine?

Ooh, and imagine, just imagine if Putin held an election he was supposed to win but instead Russia voted for a buffoonish oligarch rather than choose such an awful man. I wouldn’t put it past him to try to cling to power by insisting that the United States had influenced the election, as if we would ever do such a thing. Of course, Putin would not offer a scrap of evidence to the American government, such contempt does he have for us. That is the way evil dictators rule, by distracting the masses with imagined threats from foreign enemies.

Imagine if Russia were to accuse the U.S. of interfering in the French election and thereby influencing the French election. And imagine if shortly after the election French authorities were to report there was no evidence of U.S. interference in their election. Ooh, wouldn’t Vladimir Putin have egg on his face then. The U.S. media would have a field day with that, and rightly so.

I could go on, imagining a theoretical Russia that withdrew from international accords on global warming, a Russia where its law enforcement officers killed ethnic minorities with impunity, or a Russia that has more incarcerated citizens than any other nation in the world, but I think you get my point.

You know how our media and our politicians would make hay out of Russia being guilty of any of the above-mentioned scenarios. In short, if we had the goods on the Russians the way we have on our own government, you can sure as hell bet we wouldn’t be relying on anonymous sources from agencies that were involved in all of the crimes I have just asked you to imagine Russia committing. As it is, we have talking heads saying with certainty that Russia is guilty of so much, and yet on those rare occasions where they feel proof needs to be proffered, they can only refer to those agencies guilty of far worse than even they dare pin on Russia.

Did I mention that Russia’s media is nothing more than a subservient tool of their government yet?

Thank you for participating in my little experiment. I would appreciate feedback, as I’d really like to bridge the gap between those who see things differently than I do. I want to know if my observations and my ability to see things from a perspective other than the one dictated by our media (and our secretive governmental agencies that infiltrate our media) can be responded to in a rational manner. I believe myself nothing if not one who is able to be swayed by facts strung together by a compelling narrative. If you can provide such a fact-based narrative, I would be very appreciative. Otherwise, you can still be of service by telling me how reading this has made you feel.

Syria, Russia, And What I Can Say With Certainty (Part 3)

What I Can Say With Certainty

It came without warning like a force of nature, a tsunami crashing upon the land, sweeping all other concerns away. It was like a sudden lightning storm in the dark of night, making clear what was previously obscure. And yet there was a sense of coordination to it, perhaps more like a blitzkrieg than thunderstorm. One moment everything was in the shadows, the next everything so clear, so fully certain.

And fear. Although we were oh so very certain of so much, fear was nevertheless part of the equation. We were both absolutely certain of many facts while possessing a gaping hole in our knowledge where our worst fears could reside.

I refer to the revelation of Russian hacking, where in no time at all the story became the story of stories, driving everything else from our consciousness. The media only broke from the story to report on Syria, which only further highlighted the insidious nature of the Russians.

The source of all this certainty and fear, at least initially, was unnamed. Sometimes this source was an unnamed intelligence insider, sometimes the source was an anonymous senior congressional staffer. Here is an example of the typical news article reporting on Russian hacking, containing many different esteemed sources without names or faces: NBC News In this case, the source was listed in the title as “U.S.”

This is not journalism, this is not even reporting. This is simply putting into print press releases sent from government agencies. And yet they somehow needed three reporters names on the byline: what exactly did they do?

As far as I’m aware, not a single news agency did any actual investigation into the matter. They simply reported what was told to them by government officials, reported the narrative and in the process swallowed it whole. In the weeks and months that have now followed, never once did I witness in any mainstream American news outlet any sort of critical questioning of the official narrative. It was simply accepted as fact.

Never in the history of germs, conspiracy theories, or cute puppy videos have I ever seen anything spread so quickly, so authoritatively.

Well, that’s not quite true. I have seen this sort of behavior on the part of the media before, many times in fact, though the previous practice has obviously made for perfection. It was the very likeness of those other examples that made me question the Russian hacking story, even more than the story’s inherent flaws.

I have seen it played out before, in the build-up to wars. I have seen it played out when we wished to demonize a country or a government. I have seen it every time our government is about to do something very bad and knows it needs to invent justifications for why they are doing it.

Usually such media blitzes are accompanied by first-hand accounts of babies being killed. Usually words like “genocide” or “WMD” are used to pepper arguments that are strong on emotion and weak on facts and logic. But as such typical propaganda tools didn’t seem to apply, we relied on unflattering pictures of Vladimir Putin to become a focus for our rage. His very Russianness was enough for us old enough to remember Rocky IV or Rambo III (you remember, when Rambo went to help the heroic “freedom fighters” in Afghanistan, those same types who later killed little girls for trying to go to school, who blew up statues of the Buddha and harbored the likes of Osama Bin Laden. Those freedom fighters are still alive and well today, fighting our enemies in Syria as they once did in Afghanistan).

It turns out it’s not the strength of the argument that counts but the conviction in the voice of those who deliver it and the frequency of times it is delivered. Cults indoctrinate members by surrounding them with people repeating the same message while cutting recruits off from those who might say something different. The Russian Hacking story is a similar case where the story was everywhere at all times while any voices to the contrary were made to seem like Russian propagandists or ignorant, racist Trump supporters.

I suppose that’s why the story caught hold in the more liberal sections of the population, among those who despised Donald Trump and could not fathom how Hillary could be likewise despised by anyone with morals and a brain. Surely Russian hacking is the only possible explanation.

Besides, what if it is true? What if the Russians did hack our election and managed to get their chosen candidate elected? If this is the case, then is not all of the fear warranted? Isn’t it only common sense that the media spend so much time getting to the truth on an issue of such importance?

Perhaps, but that is not what the media is doing. It is not attempting to unearth facts and string them logically into different possible narratives. The media is merely repeating what certain government agencies are leaking to them. Many, often the ostensibly most “progressive”, are amplifying it. Funny, but I can no longer recall what Rachel Maddow used to talk about before the Russian hacking story came along.

In short, the only thing the media has done was to foster panic and hatred. It has used the Russian hacking story as a focus for all the hatred Hillary voters are feeling while ignoring all the horrible things Trump is doing. The Democrats have now become the party of war and imperialism and they just don’t seem to see anything wrong with that.

Thank God for the deep state. They are the heroes in this narrative. The cry is that something must be done and the only people who can possibly get us out of the crisis we’re in are those anonymous, unaccountable government agents who want what is best for us. We must surrender thoughts of being in charge of our own government in moments like these, must relinquish control to the experts who have selflessly prepared their whole lives for a situation like this. Once the crisis has passed, they will gladly cede the power they have temporarily taken on as a burden. The only thing you need concern yourself with now is maintaining a proper amount of fear and helplessness.

That is the argument being given by the deep state. The media does not merely not question it, it wholeheartedly endorses it. I have a different take. I believe there is never a good time to panic, there is never a good time to refrain from critical thinking. One needs to keep one’s head, especially in a crisis. When a group foregoes reason and abandons themselves to the herd mentality, that is when things go horribly wrong. That is when people stampede each other in an attempt to escape a burning building, it is when economies collapse because of runs on the market. It is the start of wars.

Human beings should never forsake their higher faculties in troubling times, nor should the media ask them to. And while we’re at it, there is never a good time for the media to abandon their central tenets, their standard operating procedures and their principles. Which brings me to the point of this post.

In the first two parts of this three-part blog, I spoke of what I was not sure of, whether Russia hacked or Syria gassed. Now it is time for me to speak of what I know with certainty: when the government has an agenda to push—a goal it is intent on achieving—it is then that the illusion of an independent media dissolves. When called upon, the media abandons its alleged commitment to objective journalism in favor of channeling the official line. Of that there can be no doubt. Never have I seen it work otherwise. It seems to be a universal law that power wins out over principle.

NPR, The New York Times, CNN, etc., they all capitulated to the official story that had at its source anonymous officials from private and unaccountable government agencies. They did not do what news organizations are supposed to do, dig for the truth and corroborate testimony.

There is not a single reason for the failure of the U.S. media, not a heavy-handed power that is easy to point to. Don Henley made it all too clear in his song Dirty Laundry just how vapid TV news was in 1982 and it has rapidly gone downhill since then. Where once news sources made some pretense of putting truth over profit, now just as in every other field, profit is the only justification for anything. It would be foolish to believe that the same media that obsesses about Caytlain Jenner can switch gears when an important story arises. Talking heads are cheaper than hiring a staff of investigative journalists, and a whole lot less troublesome.

There are few independent media outlets anymore, institutions that aren’t funded directly or indirectly by powerful interests. There are some real investigative journalists still out there but they have been pushed to the edges. And now those edges are being labelled “fake news” by those who wouldn’t know news if it bit them. Journalists who practice the long-established craft are either forced to beg for contributions like Greg Palast, or have gone to work for RT like Chris Hedges. Do your country a favor and throw a few bucks in the tin cup of one of the last of the old-time journalists: Donate

Journalism is dead. What they now call news is whatever they feel will draw and keep the interest of viewers for their advertisers. Investigation is expensive, while talking heads from the pentagon are willing to come in and recite the official position for free. War is profitable, not only for the weapons manufacturers but for ratings as well.

I can’t tell you if Russia was in any way involved in the hacking of the 2016 presidential election, nor can I tell you if President Assad used Sarin gas on his own people. The information is not available to me. The mainstream media has no interest in or ability to deliver the information citizens require to make the best decisions for ourselves and our country. Of that I am quite certain.

Syria, Russia, And What I Can Say With Certainty (Part 2)

In my last blog I stated that I couldn’t be certain that President Assad did not use chemical weapons on his own people. Today I would like to state that I do not know for certain that Russia did not do the thing. After all, I am not privy to the information available to the people who make the secret documents that said Russia did the thing. Of course, the very fact that the people who said Russia did the thing are not forthcoming with the evidence is one of the reasons why I am unable to state anything with certainty. In fact, the very people who say Russia did the thing are hiding in the shadows. The people who have the secret knowledge that leads us to war couldn’t find someone to step forward to put his face and reputation on the product they are selling. Perhaps everyone learned from Colin Powell’s example.

Now I’m sure a lot of people reading this are angry about my characterizing what occurred as “Russia doing the thing”. In their minds it is quite clear that Russia hacked the DNC’s files in order to release them and cause embarrassment for their chosen candidate, Hillary Clinton, causing her to lose. We will discuss the likelihood and possible impact of that later. My point is, once that idea got into the minds of those who wanted Hillary as president and were in denial about the election of Trump, it opened whole new vistas in their minds. Vague notions floated in the minds of Hillary supporters. Unlimited depths of subterfuge must have been involved in order for them to be so out of touch with reality. An explanation was required (one not blaming Hillary Clinton or the DNC), and Russian hacking was something to hold on to.

I’m not saying Russia didn’t hack the DNC, I’m just saying the story has taken control of the minds of the Democrats and is being used as an excuse to avoid confronting the President on the issues that mattered to Bernie Sanders supporters: climate change, peace, single payer health care, etc. Instead, the Russian hacking story can now be used to support the wars the Democrats never seemed to have a problem with in the first place, though they are ostensibly the peace party by default. The line between Democrats and Republicans needed to be clear, and Russian hacking was just the issue. It was the perfect distraction for the fact that the neocons in the middle were agreeing far more than appearances dictated.

The idea was seized upon by Democrats whose comfortable and convenient conception of reality just got flushed down the toilet. It was a convenient escape hatch for those who didn’t want to face reality. And Putin was the perfect strawman, the Darth Vader or Valdemort in their adolescent escapist fantasies. The all-seeing eye that sat enthroned in the lands to the east sees all, pierces clouds, shadow, earth, and flesh. Let the theories and the imagination run wild.

If Putin was capable of swinging the election, just how far did his involvement go? Is Trump a dupe unwittingly controlled by Russian operatives? Is he a willing traitor to his country? Is he a Manchurian Candidate who was mind-controlled through the use of brainwashing and drugs?

Did the Russians help him overcome his Republican candidates as well, knowing that he could then defeat Hillary? Did the Russians have secret videos of Russian prostitutes peeing on Donald Trump which they were using to blackmail him? Did Russian hackers cause Brexit? Did Russians hack a Vermont utility grid? How much more are the Russians responsible for that we’ve been unaware of until this moment?

All of these theories accepted as fact rest upon the statements of anonymous agents with dubious motives. Cults are formed on revelations that don’t stand the light of criticism, reason, or facts. Cult leaders do everything in their power to assure you that the world is out to get you and that they alone possess the facts you seek.

That’s the problem with speculation without verification. Once you start down that road there’s nothing holding you back from traveling a road free of facts. There’s nothing keeping you tied to reality. That is the road to madness.

When reality becomes too unpleasant, it’s time to create a fantasy world to live in. You may disagree with my assessment that this is what you’ve done, but anyone viewing it from the outside can see it quite clearly.

It might all seem as clear as day to you, but to someone willing to pepper their thoughts with a degree of skepticism, it seems much different. One could compare it to Orwell’s 1984, but I prefer comparing it to Franz Kafka’s The Trial. In it a man is accused of some unstated crime by anonymous sources. Throughout the entire novel he is never given the relevant information as to his situation but must instead rely on the government’s assertions. With the entire Russian hacking story, we are not given the information thoughtful people require to make intelligent decisions but are instead given the choice between accepting the narrative supplied by anonymous authorities or else be labeled ignorant and traitorous by the official media outlets.

Which puts a lot of Left-leaning people in a very difficult position. To say that Clinton lost because of the positions she chose to defend, and perhaps worse, to suggest she lost because she refused to defend the principles most important to the left, has become tantamount to treason. To want more liberal and progressive policies from the left is no longer acceptable. A line has been drawn in the sand as to what can and cannot be discussed. There is such a thing as being too liberal, and those who ask too much from the left are not actually leftists but persons willing to betray their country and leave it in the hands of the enemy, namely Donald Trump, AKA Putin’s puppet.

Of course, the underlying rationale here is that the reason the establishment candidate lost is because the stupid traitorous Bernie Bros didn’t accept the only rational choice and vote for Clinton. Because of this we now have Soviet troops goose stepping down main street (don’t worry about inaccuracies or mixed metaphors, only Russian stooges would do such a thing. In fact, it is best you keep your mouth shut and your critical thinking skills in neutral). And whatever you do, don’t stop to think that the Republicans won by voting for the outsider candidate and perhaps that is a tactic the Left might employ. This is not the way Democrats do things—better to vote for the compromise candidate and lose than risk what lay beyond the accepted limits proscribed by the party. Whatever the Democrats say, it is they and not the Republicans keeping socialized medicine from becoming a talking point.

Here are some of the problems I have with the official story as delivered by James Comey and the anonymous minions who are quoted by reporters who do not investigate:

• ·         The portrait drawn of Putin is of some grandmaster chessman both complicit in everything that is wrong in the U.S. and as evil as Boris Badinov. His motivations are that of an imp looking to create chaos in any manner possible for us. Such a template is the same one used over and over whenever the U.S. wants to take military action.
• ·         Implicit in our demonization of Vladimir Putin is that something should be done about him. We miss the old days when a Western backed drunk like Boris Yeltsin permitted his country to run according to our blueprint. In other words, our worst fears are that Russia might be doing to us what we have already done to them.
• ·         If Russians hacked the DNC then Clinton’s use of emails was every bit as damaging as the Republicans said it was.
• ·         If the Russians were responsible for Wikileaks’ revelations, then the assertion is that they were the reason Hillary Clinton lost the election, not James Comey’s late hour announcement that they were reviewing her emails. Not being a fan of Hillary Clinton myself, I perused the evidence Wikileaks released and found them a bit of a yawn. Believe me, if there was something there I thought was particularly damning against Hillary, I would have shared it. But I did not do so even once.
• ·         The revelations in Wikileaks were too elaborate to be effective propaganda. They required thought and an attention span. If Russia had wanted to influence the elections in favor of Donald Trump, there were far more effective means of doing so. Do what all politicians everywhere do: lie. Make allegations that ISIS had video of prostitutes peeing on Hillary, cast doubts upon the nation of Hillary’s birth. Just make something up. How naïve must the Russians be if they think truth has any part in swaying the U.S. elections?
• ·         Intelligence agencies reveal information for a specific reason, not because they believe the American public has a right to know. Any information they release is in order to advance an agenda. Hence the reason we were never told about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq until we wanted to overthrow the man we sold such weapons to in the first place. Ironically, by that time he no longer had them. The point is, there is a reason the intelligence agencies released information—or, rather, assertions—that the election was hacked. They want the population to react in a certain manner, or else they would have dealt with any possible hacking covertly as they do with most things.
• ·         If we truly had any interest in protecting our nation against the influence of other nations, we would have done something about Israel and Saudi Arabia long ago. No candidate can hope to gain the presidency without first kowtowing to AIPAC, the lobbying group whose job it is to promote strong support for Israel. As for Saudi Arabia, you might want to check how much they’ve contributed to The Clinton Foundation, all for humanitarian concerns, no doubt. It’s hard to find people more concerned about the welfare of others than the House Of Saud.
• 
  
• Lastly, the primary doubt I have about the Russian hacking story is the media that has presented it. But that I will save for my next blog, the third and final of “Syria, Russia, And What I Can Say With Certainty”.