The New York Times editorial board is pleased that President Obama has taken some retaliatory actions against Vladimir Putin, but I found part of their reasoning very interesting.
While it is definitely too late, and may also be too little, there should be no doubt about the correctness of President Obama’s decision to retaliate against Russia for hacking American computers and trying to influence the 2016 presidential election.
It would have been irresponsible for him to leave office next month and allow President Vladimir Putin to think that he could with impunity try to undermine American democracy. That would have been a particularly dangerous legacy given President-elect Donald Trump’s alarming affinity for Mr. Putin and stubborn refusal to accept the conclusion of American intelligence agencies that Russia’s cyberattacks were aimed at helping him and hurting Hillary Clinton.
According to the editors, it would be “dangerous” not to take strong actions against Russia because of the incoming president’s “alarming affinity for Mr. Putin” and his refusal to accept the conclusions of the Intelligence Community that Putin is responsible for ordering the hacking of Democratic organizations and the selective leaking of pilfered information to aid him in his bid for the Oval Office.
To be clear, I don’t disagree with this conclusion, but I think it minimizes what we’re dealing with in this situation. If it would be “dangerous” not to retaliate, that’s really a minor threat compared to Trump becoming president, no?
You might argue that it’s important to dissuade Russia from repeating their reckless act, or that a message needs to be sent to other would-be meddlers from other countries or transnational organizations. But the editors chose to casually link the importance here to Trump’s affinity for Putin.
If the danger really resides somehow in Trump’s closeness to Putin, then a non-response by Obama would be small potatoes compared to Trump taking the oath of office.
That’s how Putin evidently reads the situation since he’s opted not to respond in kind. Why stir up a bunch of anger when his man is about to replace Obama?
I wish the editors would make explicit what they’ve left implicit here.
A lot depends on whether or not the kicked out agents were considered truly undercover. If not, then this is a nothing burger as Putin wants to portray.
However, if these agents were primarily thought by the Russians to be in deep cover, this is a shot to the jaw that hurts … a lot. Not so much because the the 35 themselves, but what it reveals about the state of the secrecy of the Russian agents. If we know about these, who else do we know about and how could you trust the information recieved from them ever again?
But would Obama ‘out’ agents that are deep cover? The intelligence community loves to use the ‘we can’t say because that reveals how we got that information’ card whoever it suits them. And this reveal would matter a great deal if these people are deep cover.
It’s an excellent question.
.
After the obvious collaboration of The NY Times with the Permanent Government during the runup to the Iraq War…Judith Miller was just the tip of that particular
phallus(Errr, ahhh…I mean iceberg, of course.)…the phrase “How could you trust the information recieved from them ever again?” suggests a whole new resonance.See my sig for more on that point.
AG
Yes, our media and many of our institutions are hopeless corrupt and irredeemable. At least.. that’s the message you consistently send. The problem is that you present yourself as some kind of neutral arbiter when you have a clear agenda here.
What is my “agenda,” ishmael? Barring telling the truth as I see it, of course.
I am genuinely curious to know what you think it might be.
AG
It’s in the post you’re replying to, Arthur. If you want more substance then feel free to look up our interactions over the past year or two as I’m sure we had this discussion before.
To sum up.. every time the discussion goes somewhere you don’t like you bring up the Iraq war and how the establishment press covered it as if this should end all further conversation.
You write:
Yes.
And?
You mean we should believe the lying, CIA-influenced media?
Unbelievable.
Go read up on Operation Mockingbird.
The only things that I read and believe in the media are things that I can myself somehow verify. I am even less likely to believe things that I not only cannot verify but that support elements of the government that have almost completely ruined this country over the past 50+ years.
What do I believe? Like…ohhh, like recipes that ring true (once I have cooked them) and some sports reporting.
That’s about it, ishmael.
The rest?
Foreign affairs?
Business?
Politics?
And anything else that directly influences the general public’s view of what the controllers are doing?
Not a bit of it.
Not a single bit of it.
Is that what you call an “agenda?”
Merriam Webster:
That’s the meaning of “agenda” that I assume you are using. I certainly haven’t kept my own “agenda” secret on this blog…the dissolution of a Permanent Government that has run this country into the ground since the JFK killing if not before.
My dissatisfaction w/the media is merely a symptom of my larger dissatisfaction w/the entire system as it is now being run.
You like what has been happening since…ohhhh, just to bring it closer to today, say since Clinton I was (
s)elected?I don’t.
Not one bit.
My “agenda” is to help to change that any way that I can. Or go down fighting.
Yours?
AG
Mind your ps and qs Arthur or Barack Obama might expel you as a last futile parting gesture…that is after he pardons Hillary Clinton for not having committed a crime. Why don’t both of them finally openly and convincingly explain and verify why they lost the election? Is that so hard for them? After all they have access to all emails and whatever, so it would’t be as if they were hacking or, god forbid, leaking. They don’t need to reveal national security information to make their case. After all they created the whole mess themselves, I thought, until the NYT kindly informed me that Valdimir Putin was involved. What an eyeopener.
Give it a rest AG. Blatant lessons are lost on some. Just as the lessons from Vietnam, which couldn’t have been bigger, were lost on the majority when they were needed in 1990-91 and 2002-03. Fealty to war and/or a political party or its leader may also interfere with the lesson that should be heeded.
Matt Taibbi Something About This Russia Story Stinks
A valid observation, but on this, insight is a ways off for Taibbi.
I think its the furthest thing from a nothing-burger. These folks that are now PNG may be valuable intel assets or not but that’s not really the point.
Obama’s steps prior to leaving office are to present the facts as they are before Trump has a chance to cover everything up and muzzle the intelligence agencies. The FBI and other agencies are in agreement that Russia sought to influence the election. The review that Obama ordered will be part of the record as well.
Trump may well drop sanctions on Russia and recognize the Russian annexation of Crime but it will be painful for him. If he were to allow folks perceived to be Russian intel agents back into the US it would be a big deal.
I agree. If there ever was a case to look the other way on Crimea or the other troubles in Ukraine, it is gone now.
It feels like Obama is setting a mouse trap for Trump. Over the next couple weeks I expect Obama to use the usual outgoing President house cleaning to send messages. All worth while decisions, but some intended to reenforce differences between the two.
The National Monument also has this feel.
.
It seems all we have left is hope. And lately so many hopes have been dashed.
I sincerely hope this comes to fruition, but that hope will probably also be dashed. Obama will probably follow the usual ‘polite’ path of ex presidencies, not realizing we are will beyond that.
.
Make him head of the DNC.
The same organization he ignored during his presidency? No thanks!!
Not totally ignored:
So, Kaine and Wasserman-Schultz were his picks. However, a POTUS is also viewed as the leader of his/her respective political party. So, they get the credit or blame for federal election results during his/her time in office. He didn’t do well on that assignment.
I see he is getting involved with Obamacare to help prevent repeal.
Adolph Reed Jr. said of Barack Obama in the The Village Voice, January 16, 1996:
Pinned him.
Obama’s a mouse in service of the Permanent Government, nalbar. He always has been. He’s been best doing late night comedy show “interviews” and appearing as a headliner at the execrable White House Correspondents’ Dinner.
Glib and shallow.
But smoove!!!
However, mice don’t set mousetraps, they run into them.
If it is true that Putin did what the controllers are saying that he did, Obama and his controllers been mousetrapped.
Now all they’re trying to do is save face. And of course, possibly mousetrap Trumpie Mouse.
Remember the unprecedented alliance among all of the mainstream DemRats and RatPubs to deny Trump the presidency?
Remember?
Watch.
That alliance will continue throughout his term of office, and its very existence is proof of what I have been saying here for years about the whole Permanent Government thing. When the shit really hits the fan all of the false “divisions” among its core members magically disappear in a plain illustration of how power really works today in this country.
Bet on it.
All you need to do is remember the runup to the Iraq War to see the truth of what I am saying. Nominal Dems and nominal Rats all cooperated in it. Then after it turned into a cesspool-like mistake, they put back on their partisan coats and played the innocence game.
Trump won’t be able to get the votes to do anything even remotely as radical as were his campaign spouts.
He’ll be a lame duck from the moment he’s sworn in.
Of course, that sets up another, even higher-level combat situation between the controllers and this new force. Why is Trump avoiding the intelligence people? Why is he forming his own security brigade? Why has he brought every general he could get his hands on into the cabinet?
Duh.
He means to fight!!!
Watch.
Given his astounding successes so far…Putin-aided or not…I wouldn’t bet against him.
It’s going to be a long battle.
Watch.
AG
I swear at times I am living in a Yes Prime Minister Episode.
Go to 24 minutes here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_BG_GNHu_pg
Yes I know this is real.
Still
“Bernard seeks a word with Hacker, and confesses his blunder. The PM is exasperated and calls in Sir Humphrey and Bill Pritchard. The Cabinet Secretary attempts to defend Bernard by clarifying that some breaches of the Official Secrets Act could be construed as “unofficially official,” while an off-the-record press briefing might be described as the opposite. Hacker is unimpressed and Bill suggests that they distract the journalists by feeding them an alternative story. Sir Humphrey suggests the expulsion of 76 Soviet diplomats, which is standard civil service practice for killing press stories. In the meantime, Hacker wants his leak inquiry “rigorously” pursued: something for which there is almost no precedent.”
When the leak inquiry reports, the culprit is found to be the Energy Secretary’s press officer, who was present at Hacker’s meeting, and apparently acted under hints from the secretary, whom the ex-PM had mentioned as being the most competent Minister of the previous administration. Bernard and Sir Humphrey privately agree that they cannot allow the prosecuting of a fellow civil servant and when Hacker insists upon it Sir Humphrey informs him that if the case is to go ahead, then there will also be calls to investigate the earlier leak, which, in all probability, was of Hacker’s doing. He protests that it was “harmless,” but as Sir Humphrey points out, either both leaks are harmless or neither. Since sacking the Energy Secretary and/or his press officer would also cause more trouble than it’s worth, they both agree that the best course of action is to expel 76 Soviet diplomats.
I’m tired of the “well overdue” meme that both sides seem to be doing, when exactly was he supposed to take these actions previously that he didn’t? They announced in October that the Russians did the hacking and all the media did was report what were in those deadly emails and not where the emails came from