Secret CIA source claims Russia rigged 2016 election

[Zylon]

Sure, it’s fun to snicker when the guy whole burglarized the who neighborhood

He’s a mean one, Mr. Grinch.

[Skipper]

VAT LUDICROUS CONCEPT, COMRADE

ҰФЦ PLДҰ ГЄГЯЇS?

[tomchick]

[quote=“KevinC, post:3512, topic:127454”]
Tom, if you haven’t, I would urge you to give a serious look to what the US was doing throughout the 20th century.[/quote]

Oh, thanks for the tip. Because I’ve only frivolously looked into what the US was doing throughout the 20th century. I’ll have to give this other thing you mentioned a shot. Can you recommend any good Wikipedia pages or colorful infographics? :/

Because I think the entire hemisphere would vehemently disagree with your characterization of US intentions (let alone results), both prior to and during the Cold War.

How do you figure? I didn’t think I said anything that would prove controversial to an entire hemisphere. Look, we can argue about the Cold War if you want – I mean, really, how far back do you want to take this? – and I can assure you that I have “given a serious look at what the US was doing”. But you’re dodging the point that what the US was doing with foreign policy and espionage had very different goals than what Russia was doing then or is doing today. In fact, handwaving it away as “national interest” makes me wonder whether you’ve taken a serious look at what the US was doing in the 20th century. The Soviet Union and the United States extended their spheres of influence for very different reasons, and to very different effect, and they invoked very different ideological (and I would say moral) principles. That our methodology was sometimes ruthless in no way means we deserve to have our democratic process undermined, any more than we deserve to have New York City bombed with a nuclear warhead because we dropped one on Hiroshima.

American foreign policy has pretty much been the same as any foreign policy since the first farms were planted: Do whatever you can get away with to further your goals.

Well don’t stop there, Adam. What, prey tell, were those goals? You might want to finish your thought, because it makes my point.

I mean, on balance are American goals probably less destructive and awful than imperial Europe, Russia, China, or Japan? Sure, maybe.

Maybe? Are you kidding me?

Let’s not pretend that what we’ve done to Latin America is all that much better, if at all, than what Russia has done in Chechnya and Afghanistan, or China in wherever it is that they like to violently oppress their ethnic minorities.

Wow, I guess you’re not kidding. I don’t even know where to start. If you feel that what we’ve done isn’t “that much better” than what Russia does in Chechnya or China does in Tibet, you have a lot to learn from history rather than whatever polemics you’ve been reading. Your thesis is flat-out absurd, outdated, Mother Jones silliness. I suggest you look into what life was like behind the Iron Curtain, or in North Korea, or during the Cultural Revolution in China. Because for every paramilitary death squad in, say, El Salvador, there was a massive top-down repression that permeated every aspect of an entire nation under the various Soviet or Marxist regimes during the Cold War. The death squads were certainly a blemish on our tactics, but they were never our goal. You can’t say the same about what the Soviet Union was doing.

I think Kevin’s comment was more along the lines of what we all feel: the pendulum is swinging back, and it hard to watch it.

I guess that would make more sense, but unless I’m grossly misunderstanding him, he seems to have said otherwise in his last post.

-Tom

[Telefrog]

Oh, this is too bad. It really gives ammunition to the “fake news” people.

https://finance.yahoo.com/news/cnn-retracts-story-supposed-russian-175206933.html

[quote]
CNN accepted the resignations Monday of three journalists involved in a retracted story about a supposed investigation into a pre-inaugural meeting between an associate of President Donald Trump and the head of a Russian investment fund.

The story was posted on the network’s website on Thursday and was removed, with all links disabled, Friday night. CNN immediately apologized to Anthony Scaramucci, the Trump transition team member who was reported to be involved in the meeting.[/quote]

[quote]
The retracted story had said the Senate intelligence committee was looking into a January 16 discussion between Scaramucci and Kirill Dmitriev, whose Russian Direct Investment Fund guides investments by U.S. entities in Russia. Scaramucci, in the story, said he exchanged pleasantries in a restaurant with Dmitriev.

The report also said that two Democratic senators wanted to know whether Scaramucci had indicated in the meeting whether sanctions against Russia would be lifted, a decision that could impact the investment fund.

Following the retraction, Scaramucci tweeted that CNN “did the right thing. Classy move. Apology accepted. Everyone makes mistakes. Moving on.”[/quote]

[Juan_Raigada]

Because for every paramilitary death squad in, say, El Salvador, there was a massive top-down repression that permeated every aspect of an entire nation under the various Soviet or Marxist regimes during the Cold War. The death squads were certainly a blemish on our tactics, but they were never our goal. You can’t say the same about what the Soviet Union was doing.

Yeah, because a fascist regime (really close to Nazism, ideologically, but with a Catholic slant) that kills tens of thousands of their people (Argentina, for example) is not a massive top-down repression that permeated every aspect of an entire nation. That was not death squads. That was government supported terror and repression executed by official security and military forces during a 9 year period.

All so that democratic socialist forces did not hold power (like in the case of Chile). How that is “allowing democratic institutions to flourish”, as you put it, is beyond me.

[tomchick]

Because for every paramilitary death squad in, say, El Salvador, there was a massive top-down repression that permeated every aspect of an entire nation under the various Soviet or Marxist regimes during the Cold War. The death squads were certainly a blemish on our tactics, but they were never our goal. You can’t say the same about what the Soviet Union was doing.

Yeah, because a fascist regime that kills tens of thousands of their people (Argentina, for example) is not a massive top-down repression that permeated every aspect of an entire nation. that was not death squads. That was government supported terror and repression executed by official security and military forces during a 9 year period.

All so that democratic socialist forces did not hold power (this was not a push against authoritarian Communism, but against legitimate socialist parties with negligible authoritarian leanings). who that is “allowing democratic institutions to flourish”,a s you put it, is beyond me.

The point, Juan, is that human rights abuses in Latin America were an unfortunate consequence, not a goal. That’s an important distinction. I can’t believe I’m having to argue the relative merits of the US and the USSR in the Cold War. It’s like being in college again…

-Tom

[Juan_Raigada]

Of course, but the goal was to maintain regional influence whatever the means, not a noble defense of democratic institutions as you originally characterized it. That the USSR was a worse actor does not justify those actions in any way. Most of US actions and support in South America were directly aimed against democratic institutions.

Unless the only democratic institutions that matter are the American ones. Then yes, you are right, they were defending those.

[inactive_user]

If you feel that what we’ve done isn’t “that much better” than what Russia does in Chechnya or China does in Tibet, you have a lot to learn from history rather than whatever polemics you’ve been reading.

Eh. By volume, sure, you’re right. There are a lot more Chechnyans or Tibetans to murder than Salvadoreans or Guatemalans. But I don’t honestly believe there’s much moral daylight to be found between the actions of the various imperial powers, no.

Was life in America better than life in the USSR? Totally! For the middle class, anyway. Is a tower in Manhattan better than a dacha in Crimea? Is a food shelf in DC better than a breadline in Kyiv? Who gives a shit.

Was life in Guatemala better than life in Tibet? I dunno, maybe. Debating flavors of oppression and murder and callous disregard for human life in the pursuit of imperial power games is utterly uninteresting to me, though. It’s all shades of evil.

[instant0]

“our” oppression is better than “their” oppression.
I guess it all matters which cause you’re dying for, even if it isn’t one you picked.

[Enidigm]

Tragically there is certain paranoid logic to CIA meddling. In the strategic calculus of the Cold War aligning your country with the Warsaw Pact meant a possible staging ground for ICBMs. To prevent the “virus” of communism from spreading post-Fidel Castro and the Cuban Revolution, the CIA et al were more or less willing to do anything, even if it meant sending that country into a death spiral of civil unrest. The unspoken reason for this was the US war planners had determined that in the 60s and 70s the USSR had enough nukes to wipe out Western Europe but not the US, before the US nukes wiped out them in turn - an acceptable situation from the American point of view. It wasn’t until the USSR started large scale ICBM production that this calculus changed - but by then the political nightmare of Communism spreading had developed into a neurosis. Part of the reason we still have this historic echo of policy embargoing Cuba - we still can’t get over the Communist Revolution there.

I don’t think most younger Americans and foreign observers really understand how terrifying the Cuban Revolution was (how “existential” the threat was perceived). Psychologically the US is the world’s largest island, immune to the ebbs and flows of foreign fortunes. The Cuban Missile Crisis really was a kind of 9/11 moment for that generation, where the spread of communism became such a strategic threat and psychological terror that almost anything was subsequently permissible.

[gruntled]

It really gives ammunition to the “fake news” people.

Yeah - they’re all (Twitterer-in-chief included) already all over this. While merrily ignoring both all the proven-wrong things that Fox put on their web site and cable news without ever going back to retract or fire anyone and the obvious conclusion that CNN is exhibiting exactly the behavior that a forthright, principled news media should when someone screws up.

[KevinC]

How do you figure? I didn’t think I said anything that would prove controversial to an entire hemisphere. Look, we can argue about the Cold War if you want – I mean, really, how far back do you want to take this? – and I can assure you that I have “given a serious look at what the US was doing”. But you’re dodging the point that what the US was doing with foreign policy and espionage had very different goals than what Russia was doing then or is doing today. In fact, handwaving it away as “national interest” makes me wonder whether you’ve taken a serious look at what the US was doing in the 20th century.

So, we have a fundamentally different view of the actions of the United States during the 20th century (especially Latin America, but certainly not limited to it). Could you recommend some good sources/books where I can come to a better understanding of your viewpoint?

[Pyperkub]

How do you figure? I didn’t think I said anything that would prove controversial to an entire hemisphere. Look, we can argue about the Cold War if you want – I mean, really, how far back do you want to take this? – and I can assure you that I have “given a serious look at what the US was doing”. But you’re dodging the point that what the US was doing with foreign policy and espionage had very different goals than what Russia was doing then or is doing today. In fact, handwaving it away as “national interest” makes me wonder whether you’ve taken a serious look at what the US was doing in the 20th century.

So, we have a fundamentally different view of the actions of the United States during the 20th century (especially Latin America, but certainly not limited to it). Could you recommend some good sources/books where I can come to a better understanding of your viewpoint?

IMHO, Tom is mistaking making the world a better place for American Capital(ist) interests for making it a better place for democracy. Sometimes those 2 goals have had the same means, but a lot more of our horrendous acts in propping up dictators and overthrowing democratically elected governments throughout the world were in response to a perceived existential threat from the red menace.

Even in this decade, we have supported dictators and military rule in Egypt as well as other Arab spring countries over democratically elected religious governments who would not have been as amenable to American interests in the region.

[vyshka]

Our objective during the Cold War was to secure stability so that democratic institutions – “our interests”, as you put it – could flourish.

I imagine Iranians have a different view of it.

[Misguided]

I like to think we have fostered “stable instability”. Don’t like a regime? Give weapons to some rebels. Then, a few years later, we can take issue with the rebels now leading the country and start the process again. Keeps us involved in enough wars we can justify new defense contracts and funding the military.

[tomchick]

Could you recommend some good sources/books where I can come to a better understanding of your viewpoint?

Well, sure, pretty much any history of the Cold War, and particularly anything written by people who had to live on the other side of the Iron Curtain, or in North Korea, or in China. The breadth of human misery caused by communism is literally unprecedented.

It’s an absurd argument that we deserve to have our government hacked because there’s some moral equivalence between what the USSR did during the Cold War and what the US did during the Cold War. If you really need some reading to “understand that viewpoint”, I guess I can dig up some stuff for you, but I don’t think you honestly believe what you’re saying. This is pretty simple History 101 stuff. I guess start with anything written by Solzhenitzyn.

IMHO, Tom is mistaking making the world a better place for American Capital(ist) interests for making it a better place for democracy.

I’m not mistaking anything. As you say, they don’t have to be separate things, even if they sometimes were. The greater point that you guys seem to be missing – particularly if you’re thinking of Russian espionage as something we “deserve” or some sort of justified “karmic payback” – is that even though both sides did horrible things during the Cold War (as is the case with any war), only one side did it on behalf of an ideology that called for a free press, religious liberty, self-determination, the value of the individual, free enterprise, and the rule of law.

The other side openly promulgated the opposite of all those things.

I imagine Iranians have a different view of it.

I’m not sure you want to invoke Iran’s opinion when it comes to geopolitics. But, sure, I’ll see your Iran and raise you a [insert the name of any Eastern European country here].

-Tom

[inactive_user]

U-S-A! U-S-A! U-S-A!

[KevinC]

It’s an absurd argument that we deserve to have our government hacked because there’s some moral equivalence between what the USSR did during the Cold War and what the US did during the Cold War. If you really need some reading to “understand that viewpoint”, I guess I can dig up some stuff for you, but I don’t think you honestly believe what you’re saying. This is pretty simple History 101 stuff. I guess start with anything written by Solzhenitzyn.

Okay, but I never made any moral equivalence between the USSR’s and USA’s Cold War actions. I never even mentioned the USSR.

What I said was, given the long fucking history of the US performing election fuckery (not to mention the toppling of governments, some of them elected) over the past century, perhaps having our elections fucked with is a karmic poke in the eye.

I mean really. We were out for the noble pursuit of instilling stability and democracy across the Third World? That is patently absurd. It reminds me of good ol’ George.

Yes, we’re hated for our freedom of speech! That must be it. Not, you know, the horrific shit we’ve inflicted on their countries. But hey, it was less horrific than the USSR did elsewhere, so no foul!

[Timex]

Yes, we’re hated for our freedom of speech! That must be it. Not, you know, the horrific shit we’ve inflicted on their countries.

Pretty sure they don’t have any legitimate reason for using the US, and are in fact just full of shit.

That’s why they do horrific things to other totally innocent guys who are local to their own region.

[Quaro]

Blast from that blast, if you never read this Paul Ryan transcript, listen to what they say about how Russia deals with Ukraine:

Read the transcript of the conversation among GOP leaders obtained by The Post

Interesting since just today Manaforte disclosed a new meeting with Rohrabacher.