by
Renee Parsons
If
it had not already been apparent, the net effect of the DNC email
hack has been to kick open the door to a deep American antagonism
towards Russian President Vladimir Putin.
In
what has become an old fashioned American pile-on, President Barack
Obama, Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, the Democratic Party
and what seems the entire political establishment as well as the MSM,
have united to undermine Putin as if to prime the American public for
war with Russia.
War
is, after all, more successful when the people have been thoroughly
programmed. For instance, for a war-weary American public ‘we are
bombing civilians out of a humanitarian necessity’ may work well.
If necessary, a little hysteria wouldn’t hurt but most of all, a
necessary requirement is to efficiently tutor the public
consciousness to despise the adversary. In this case, Clinton has
identified Putin as the adversary and that he is one evil
reincarnation of Adolf Hitler.
Among
media outlets, Politico, once considered a ‘liberal’ magazine ran
“Inside’s Putin’s Information War” whose author has found a
lucrative book deal on the subject and yes, this is the same Politico
that requested DNC permission to publish re the Sanders/Clinton
primary. The Times of London joined the effort to demonize Putin with
several anti Russian articles over the weekend including “Putin’s
Information War” which ran on July 30th followed by “Inside
Putin’s Info War on America’ in the Wall Street Journal on July
31st. Keep your eyes peeled as the “Putin Info War” concept is
sure to catch on.
As
part of the effort to synchronize public antipathy to an
appropriately belligerent level, the Associated Press recently
published an article for wide distribution entitled “Clinton v.
Putin: Russian television shows what Kremlin thinks of her.”
Perhaps the AP presumed to rouse the American public in defense of
Hillary Clinton.
The
first paragraph began with the admission that Clinton’s entire
acceptance speech had been broadcast live on nationwide television in
Russia. If anyone yearns for the day when a Putin speech will be
broadcast across American television, forgetaboutit. A good guess is
that the intellectually-lazy American public including many liberals
who have forgotten how to think, would not make the effort to inform
themselves of world events.
Thereafter,
the AP article followed with a series of assertions that dazzled the
reader with its irony such as:
“Viewers
were told that Clinton sees Russia as an enemy and cannot be trusted”
and “the Democratic convention was portrayed as proof that American
democracy is a sham.” The story added that Channel One introduced
Clinton “as a politician who puts herself above the law, who is
ready to win at any cost and who is ready to change her principles
depending on the political situation.”
If
the AP reporter wrote with the intention that the American public
would rise up en masse and demand satisfaction; how unfair of those
Russkies to write like that about our Gal Hill – that reporter was
dead wrong.
What
the reporter did not mention was that a significant number of
Americans, including some of those who plan to hold their collective
noses while voting for Clinton in sheer terror of Trump, agree with
those quotes. What the reporter did not mention was that the Sanders
and Trump campaigns have been largely based on those sentiments
giving Clinton an unexpected run for the money which explains why she
has had to pull out all the stops to beat Trump, a candidate who, by
any standard, should have been a piece of cake.
Giving
a wink and a nod to the MSM, Clinton formalized her accusations on
Sunday Fox News that ‘Russian intelligence” was responsible for
the DNC hacking and linked her opponent Donald Trump to Vladimir
Putin.
Using
the DNC hack issue as an opportunity to further hammer on Putin,
Clinton asserted during the Fox interview that ‘we KNOW that
Russian intelligence services hacked into the DNC and we KNOW that
they arranged for a lot of those emails to be released and we KNOW
that Donald Trump has shown a very troubling willingness to back up
Putin, to support Putin.”
A
good follow up by an engaged journalist might have been what does
Clinton know, how does she know it and when did she know it? If the
proof exists, why the reluctance to provide specifics to the American
public – but that might require initiative, transparency and some
candor? While challenging Trump on his commitment to the Constitution
(who clearly could use an Intro 101 class), wasn’t Clinton trained,
as an attorney, to understand that evidence comes before the
accusation?
This
is not the first time that Clinton has personally attacked Putin. In
March, 2014 before a University of California audience, she said he
was “thin-skinned,” was trying to “re-sovietize Europe while
threatening instability and the peace of Europe.” In citing
‘Russian aggression,” she is smart enough to know the difference
between protecting ethnic Russians who have centuries of deep
cultural roots in Ukraine and Crimea as compared to Hitler’s
invasions of eastern Europe.
An
impartial observer can only assume Clinton has knowingly skewed the
chronology of events in the Ukraine which began with the US-initiated
overthrow of a democratically elected President on February 22, 2014;
followed by an overwhelming vote on March 16th by Crimean citizens to
reunite with Russia which was then followed by the legal annexation
of the Crimean peninsula to Russia on March 18th. What is so
difficult to understand?
Thanks
to Clinton’s repetitive disinformation campaign, accusations of
‘Russian aggression’ are now widespread; repeated without regard
to the evidence throughout the mainstream media and by Members of
Congress, many of whom choose to remain uninformed.
Back
to the Fox interview, she could not resist adding, with mock
indignation, that “I think laying out the facts raises serious
issues about Russian interference in our elections, in our
democracy.” And as if the rest of us were asleep at the wheel and
could not distinguish fact from fiction, she further added that “For
Trump to both encourage that and to praise Putin despite what appears
to be a deliberate effort to try to affect the election I think
raises national security issues.”
Does
she not see that ‘interference in our elections, in our democracy’
is exactly what the DNC did to the Bernie Sanders campaign?
And
has no bright eyed, eager beaver staff person yet pointed out to
Clinton that if Russia and Putin had been intent on disrupting the
American presidential election, why wouldn’t they have gone after
Clinton’s ‘classified’ State Department emails on her personal
server that were subject to an FBI investigation and with the
potential of criminal charges? Then again, an educated assumption
might be that Russian intelligence does have those emails in their
possession. Now there’s a real national security issue.
In
her eagerness to further aggravate US – Russian relations,
apparently Clinton is not only unfamiliar with the State Department’s
Foreign Service Protocol for the Modern Diplomat guidelines for rules
and process of diplomatic protocol (or perhaps it does not apply to
her), but appears she did not receive the memo from the Director of
National Intelligence (DNI) James Clapper.
Responding
to the DNC-Russian furor in a more blasé and introspective manner
than might be expected, Clapper stepped in as a calm voice of reason
stating that he was ‘somewhat taken aback by the hyperventilation
on this” and that the US was in “reactionary mode” regarding
cyber-attacks. Clapper further indicated he was ‘not ready’ to
identify Russia as the hacker “I don’t think we are quite ready
yet to make a call on attribution.”
Interestingly,
Clapper commented that “cyber warfare is not ‘terribly different
than what went on during the Cold War” suggesting that it is ‘just
a different modality.” He further suggested that the American
people ‘need to accept’ and ‘become more resilient’ since
cyber threats are a major long term challenge. Americans should ‘not
be quite so excitable when we have yet another instance.”
Hmm…wonder to whom he was referring.
In
other words, we spy on them, they spy on us – all’s fair in love
and war and that there is a certain level of honor among (cyber)
thieves.
Source:
Related:
Comments
Post a Comment