Saturday, January 7, 2017

Of Course Russia Tried To Influence The US Election. Why Wouldn't It?


The accusation that Russia intervened in the 2016 US presidential election on behalf of Donald Trump has been repackaged several different ways now. Many in the Leftist media have focused on the lack of proof offered, on the fact that the government spy agencies making the accusations have a history of lying and the media has a history of treating their lies like the truth, sometimes using them to whip up war hysteria but always propagating them as a way of helping achieve the ambitions of the ruling elite.

Which is all true and important. We should be wary of what our government says and does and there's ample historic evidence for our skepticism, but focusing entirely on the legitimacy of the claims about Russian hacking the US election misses the larger point about why the ruling elite is whipping up anti Russia frenzy.

Russia, knowing what has happened to countries around the world, and most recently to Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Syria, when people like Clinton headed the US government, certainly tried to influence the US election. Vladmir Putin knows full well what can happen after the US pubic has been prepared for war by reports and accusation against other governments and their leaders.

Putin would have neglected his duty to Russia and its citizens if he didn't try to prevent Hillary Clinton from becoming president in any way he could. Clinton has literally led the US establishment's demonizing of him that began in earnest when she was secretary of state. She's been a central figure in the one sided "new Cold War" that's been unilaterally reignited by the US foreign affairs establishment assisted by segments of the military, intelligence community and much of the media, which has led to Russia being virtually surrounded by newly admitted NATO countries in which US missiles have been deployed and into which, as I write this, US troops and armaments are flooding.

Whereas Donal Trump, Clinton's opponent in the election and the beneficiary of Russia's meddling, says he wants to de-escalate this costly and entirely unnecessary US aggression and try to get along with Russia, Clinton promised to increase US aggression against Russia. She wanted to establish a "no fly zone" in Syria, which at least two high ranking US military chiefs said would in essence mean going to war against Russia.

Whether you like Putin or not doesn't affect the fact that the policies and goals Clinton champions, which are highly unpopular among the American public, are insane. You can make a case that they are why she lost the election. Instead of making her campaign about the economic well being of Americans and the future of their children, the central pillar of it, at least until Donald Trump became the Republican nominee, was demonizing Vladmir Putin.

No one in the media or who can get their opinion in the media and who are now preaching about Russian interference in what's misleadingly called "US democracy"  ever mentions that the US regularly does precisely what Putin is accused of doing. And more, much more.

The US is continually intervening in the internal affairs of other countries, including in their elections, and that should be of concern to every US citizen. A prime example of US interference in the democratic process of another country is its funding of and training of Venezuelan opposition groups who've opposed the Socialist governments of first Hugo Chavez and now Nicolas Maduro. The training, which specifically is for helping the opposition win elections, is funded by dark CIA money but also with funds congress openly budgets for the USAID division of the state department, which has been going on openly for years.

There's been the decades long effort by the US to overthrow the Cuban government, the meddling in Chile, Guatemala, El Salvador, Honduras, etc., etc., etc. Vietnam. The coup in Ukraine in 2014. It goes back decades and has caused the destruction of entire countries and countless lives. The CIA overthrow of Iran's elected president in 1953 is still remembered there and helps prop up the ayatollahs, and like everything I've listed here is never mentioned by the US media and political class as they wail against Russia and Vladmir Putin, who by comparison to the US imperial juggernaught has minded his own business. Russia doesn't nearly 1,000 military installations spread around the world and eight wars going outside its borders. The US does.

The US has also tried to influence elections, and many other internal matters, in Russia. The US has a long, inglorious history of interventionism, often a bloody one. Vladmir Putin knows all about it. He knew that if she was elected Hillary Clinton would aim the guns of the US global empire at him and at his country. Of course he wanted her to lose and of course he tried to make that happen.

For the sake of the world and the sake of the United States, for the sake of me and for the sake of you, so did I. Whatever you think of Putin, for the sake of the victims of US imperialism, you should have opposed Hillary Clinton's election and tried to prevent it, too.





2 comments:

  1. Thanks, Bubba.

    Interestingly, all of the GOP interventionists / neocons in Congress (people like Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham) appear to be fully on board with the Democrats' continuing efforts to demonize Vladimir Putin, even as their freshly-elected POTUS-to-be says, "It's time to move on." Their real masters are not The People whom they claim to represent, but the captains of the same military-industrial-financial complex that has been funding both of America's major political parties for decades.

    How long will it be before The People realize that both of these parties -- the Demopublicans -- work for the ruling elite, not for the vast majority of working Americans?

    Fortunately some of The People already do get it, including millions who voted for Sanders in the 2016 Democratic primaries (he still -- or once again -- isn't officially a Democrat) and millions who voted for Donald Trump (whom many establishment Republicans either tried really hard to deprive of the nomination or tried to derail by openly supporting Clinton). How do we grow this disaffection with major party corruption into a more powerful majority?

    Media people -- including some whom I still somewhat respect -- have been saying that we're now living in a "post truth era", citing the often self-contradictory tweets of Donald Trump and/or the "fake news" put forth by people who are not employed by their corporate masters. The truth is that we've already been in a "post truth era" for decades, certainly ever since CBS News was eliminated as an independent voice for truth and made a subsidiary of Columbia / Sony Entertainment's entertainment division. Chris Hedges argues in his book, "Death of the Liberal Class," that we've been in the "post truth era" since before America entered World War I, as the Left was systematically fractured by the power elite into the many who jumped on board the war wagon ("We MUST stop The Hun!") and a shrinking minority (people like Eugene Debs and Emma Goldman) who continued to argue for peace. Today feels a lot like 1917 with all of the big newspapers as well as CBS, NBC, ABC, and Fox News beating the drums of war.

    Maybe the only real difference is that we now have -- warts and all, and at least so far -- the Internet. And independent bloggers like you. And Wikileaks. Is it enough? Well, it did at least help end Hillary Clinton's political career.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm going to keep putting my efforts into consciousness raising but am thinking about looking into the Democratic Socialists of America. It's growing by leaps and bounds right now, I heard a member say, and someone put a picture on Twitter the other day of himself standing by a yuge (sp?) stack of organizational kits ready to be sent out to new groups. Not members, groups.

      If you go their web site, Cornel West is displayed prominently, then Barbara Ehrenreich and Dolores Huerta. I contacted them years ago and got literature featuring Cornel, Ed Asner and Gloria Steinem.

      But the person I heard talking about them is one of the hosts of Chapo Trap House, a podcast begun basically to pillory the Hillary campaign, so maybe. Cornell. You know.

      Delete