IN THE WAKE of last week’s indictments alleging that 13 Russian nationals and entities created fake social media accounts and sponsored political events to sow political discord in the U.S., something of a consensus has arisen in the political and media class (with some notable exceptions) that these actions not only constitute an “act of war” against the U.S., but one so grave that it is tantamount to Pearl Harbor and 9/11. Indeed, that Russia’s alleged “meddling” is comparable to the two most devastating attacks in U.S. history has, overnight, become a virtual cliché.
The claim that Russian meddling in the election is “an act of war” comparable to these events isn’t brand new. Senators from both parties, such as Republican John McCain and Democrat Jeanne Shaheen, have long described Russian meddling in 2016 as an “act of war.” Hillary Clinton, while promoting her book last October, described Russia’s alleged hacking of the DNC and John Podesta’s email inbox as a “cyber 9/11.” And last February, the always war-hungry Tom Friedman of the New York Times said on “Morning Joe” that Russian hacking “was a 9/11-scale event. They attacked the core of our democracy. That was a Pearl Harbor-scale event.”
But the last few days have ushered in an explosion of this rhetoric from politicians and journalists alike. On Friday night’s Chris Hayes show on MSNBC, two separate guests — Democratic Rep. Jerry Nadler and longtime Clinton aide Philippe Reines — posited Pearl Harbor as the “equivalent” of Russian meddling.
Should We Bomb Russia?
None of these hypocrite fools making war claims have said what they would do about it.
The Intercept cites “Meet the Press” host Chuck Todd, for doing his best 2002 impression of Bill Kristol, decreeing in a predictably viral tweet that all patriotic Americans are duty-bound to focus on the question of what we should do to “punish Russia”:
If this really is another "Pearl Harbor" or another 911, shouldn't we be bombing Moscow?
At least have the decency to say. On second thought, please shut up. We have had enough of these asinine comparisons.
What About US Acts of War?
Please watch that clip of former CIA director James Woolsey.
Apparently, it's an act of war when Russian trolls go on a Tweetstorm, but not an act of war when we supply weapons and incite riots to take out foreign governments.
Where is the Evidence?
Buchanan points out some obvious hypocrisies in his article, but missed one of the biggest of all: Us meddling in an Iranian coup to install a US puppet for the oil industry.
Buchanan then gets down to brass knuckles with this line of thought on Hillary.
What do these indictments of Russians tell us? After 18 months, the James Comey-Robert Mueller FBI investigation into the hacking of the DNC and John Podesta emails has yet to produce evidence of collusion.
Yet we do have evidence that a senior British spy and Trump hater, Christopher Steele, paid by the Hillary Clinton campaign and DNC to dig up dirt on Trump, colluded with Kremlin agents to produce a dossier of scurrilous and unsubstantiated charges, to destroy the candidacy of Donald Trump. And the FBI used this disinformation to get FISA Court warrants to surveil and wiretap the Trump campaign.
Why is this conspiracy and collusion with Russians less worthy of Mueller’s attention than a troll farm in St. Petersburg?
Michael Moore Trapped
Michael Moore, the polemical filmmaker who has long accused President Trump of colluding with Russians, posted videos and pictures of himself participating in a protest in Manhattan that was allegedly organized by Russians in November 2016.
Prosecutors said Friday that the Russians indicted for meddling in the presidential campaign were also behind anti-Trump rallies that occured after the election.
The government alleged in an indictment signed by Special Counsel Robert Mueller that the defendants organized a Nov. 12 “Trump is NOT my President” rally in New York. Their “strategic goal” was to “sow discord in the U.S. political system,” the indictment said.
Russia's Clever Strategy
Damn them Russians. They swung the election to Trump, then rallied against Trump as part of a clever “strategic goal” to “sow discord in the U.S. political system.
Trump spent about $238.9 million through mid-October, compared with $450.6 million by Clinton's. That equals about $859,538 spent per Trump electoral vote, versus about $1.97 million spent per Clinton electoral vote.
Wow. It's quite amazing how troll-bots can steal an election from someone with a $450.6 million campaign war chest.
Mike "Mish" Shedlock