. . .In English, the tweets soon grouped into certain patterns of similar (and sometimes identical) content. The first were panicky expressions of concern about nuclear weapons allegedly stored at Incirlik:

#Incirlik There r 25 underground vaults, each holds up to 4 bombs. The estimated total is 50 B61 thermonuclear bombs—1/4 of B61 stockpile.

Turkey is soon going to acquire some nice nuclear weapons unless Obama pulls his finger out & does something

#Incirlik does anybody else find it ODD that there’s a lot of dump trucks. Big enough to carry 90 nuclear warheads

What exactly is going on with the nuclear weapons in Turkey? And why the hell are they there, of all places?

The second group compared the situation to Benghazi.

A third group wondered aloud and repeatedly about why the media wasn’t covering the alleged activity.

Why is USA MSM failing to report on events in Turkey surrounding Incirlik AFB and Erdogan’s accusation that USA orchestrated the coup?
Hey MSM, you’ve got 10000 Muslims, steps away from a stockpile of thermonuclear weapons.

Nothing on #msm, no #potus, no #dem or #gop speaking out! Nuclear warheads, up to 90 at stake!

The main reason the media didn’t show up was that the story was substantially untrue. As a later statement by the Pentagon clarified, a peaceful protest had taken place involving about 1,000 people—not the 7,000 Turkish police reported by Russian news outlets or the 10,000 cited by Twitter users. Officials at the air base had been warned of the protest in advance. The base was not “surrounded,” Turkish security focused on securing the visit of U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Joe Dunford to Incirlik the next day.

The Incirlik disinformation campaign failed but demonstrates the unique way in which Russia can influence foreign audiences. Incirlik stories on RT and Sputnik news were rapidly promulgated by a curious group of English speakers on Twitter.

Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is resisting the pleas of State Department officials to spend nearly $80 million allocated by Congress for fighting terrorist propaganda and Russian disinformation.

It is highly unusual for a Cabinet secretary to turn down money for his department. But more than five months into his tenure, Tillerson has not issued a simple request for the money earmarked for the State Department’s Global Engagement Center, $60 million of which is now parked at the Pentagon. Another $19.8 million sits untouched at the State Department as Tillerson’s aides reject calls from career diplomats and members of Congress to put the money to work against America’s adversaries.

The $60 million will expire on Sept. 30 if not transferred to State by then, current and former State Department officials told POLITICO.

The struggle over the money is a case study in Tillerson’s approach to managing the State Department and the frustration it is engendering among American diplomats. Current and former U.S. officials call it the latest example of a severe slowdown in department decision-making; of Tillerson’s reliance on a coterie of political aides who distrust State’s career staffers; and a casualty of President Donald Trump’s intention to slash State's budget, which has Tillerson looking for ways to reshape the department and spend less money, not more.

Sources cited another sensitive factor at play: Russia. One Tillerson aide, R.C. Hammond, suggested the money is unwelcome because any extra funding for programs to counter Russian media influence would anger Moscow, according to a former senior State Department official.

"This is an extraordinary example of the dysfunction that is ripping through the State Department," said Brett Bruen, a former U.S. diplomat in contact with State employees involved in the funding fight. "What we're seeing is a small group of people with very thin knowledge making all the decisions in a very centralized and isolated process. It causes unnecessary delays and confusion."