Q: What should we do about the Russian interference?

From iGeek
Jump to: navigation, search
ObamaHackers.jpg
Remember, the evidence that Russian's "hacked" Podesta's email and the DNC is pretty strong. The evidence that they were the source behind Wikileaks is much weaker. And rather than let the Hillary-Rage-Machine define foreign policy we should remember context. The Obama administration and government hasn’t bothered to define what an "official cyber attack" even is (let alone whether this actually qualifies), but they were sure the Russians had done it. And thus we could commit acts of pre-war like throwing out diplomats, and the media wasn't calling him on it?

Here's a few hacks and events that got no response from Obama:

  • April 2009 - Hacked the U.S. electrical grid
  • April 2009 - Hacked Pentagon's Joint Strike Fighter project
  • March 2012 - NASA was hacked (as they were in 2011) - had control of NASA computers
  • February 2013 - DOE (Dept of Energy) was hacked - 14,000 employee records stolen
  • December 2013 - China Hacked Federal Election Commission
  • March 2014: Russian invaded and annexed Crimea
  • March 2014: Russian destabilized and invaded other parts of Ukraine (Russia violated multiple treaties, Obama breaks our promise to defend Ukraine)
  • September 2014 - Hacked U.S. Postal Service - 800,000 employee records
  • September 2014 - China Hacked National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
  • September 2014: Draws Red line in Syria over WMD’s (chemical weapons), then walks away when it’s violated
  • October 2014 - White House Website was hacked
  • November 2014: State Department was hacked
  • April 2015: Dept. of Defense was hacked
  • May 2015: IRS was hacked - getting 300,000 tax returns
  • June 2015: Office of Personnel Management

After 8 years of doing nothing about serious hacks or real threats to national security (by Chinese, Russians, North Korean and Iranians -- in order of frequency and importance), suddenly Obama does his most aggressive foreign policy move (throwing out 30 Russian diplomats), just weeks before he left office, because of the possibility that they might have hacked the DNC and leaked the truth to the public. None of those others were worthy of official response from the Obama administration. But scant evidence that the Russians may have helped get the truth out about criminal and immoral acts done by the Hillary campaign: and that put the Obama admin on a war footing. If that doesn't sound suspicious or political to you, then you may be a Democrat?

Hillary using a private email security in violation of the law (and that was likely hacked according to the FBI), wasn’t a problem for the media/Obama (despite secret, top secret and super-duper top-secret stuff being on there). That wasn't worthy of indictment or a reprimand or even admission of a problem. But her underlings, Podesta gets hacked by no following basic infosec protocols, and the only thing exposed was the truth about Democrats and the Media colluding to subvert our election (not anything vaguely related to national security), and that's the biggest threat to our national security and sovereignty? That means the strongest foreign policy signal the Obama administration ever sent to the world was: never, ever, tell the truth about Democrat corruption and abuse of power. Do they get the irony/hypocrisy in the position?

A more cynical view, is that Obama was trying to sabotage relations for the incoming administration, and make it harder for him to do his job. I can't tell you what was in the mind of our ex-president, I can just note that if you were trying to sabotage him, doing things like this, and lowering the standards for who gets secret information (to increase leaks), and the other last minute actions, would be consistent with that type of partisan asshattery (putting party above nation). And no one has offered a better explanation for why Obama did them.

If it was a hack, then the following applies:

  1. the proper responses is not to attack the Russians by throwing out diplomats, but by fixing our security: http://reason.com/blog/2016/12/12/lets-say-russia-did-hack-the-dems-what-w
  2. Often the normal response is to respond in kind, which means hack them back. Oh wait, there's evidence that we've been hacking them for years, before they hacked us. Does anyone truly believe that American intelligence didn't fuck with Russian systems first? Not to mention global cyber warfare like Stuxnet. It seems like if we want the moral high ground, we should figure out what our own government has done first, and what the policies are around that -- before we start a World War over Russian retaliation for our more offensive behaviors first.
  3. if this was worthy of a response this aggressive, then it shows how utterly clueless Obama was in 2012 for criticizing Romney for having concerns about Russia: before they annexed Crimea, Ukraine, and committed these hacks. And Obama and the Democrats openly mocked Romney for "trying to restart the cold war." What does that say about all those Democrats?
  4. Real Journalists would look into (the moral consistency of the Obama administrations wrt Russia): http://www.hoover.org/research/obamas-legacy-deceit
  5. Ian Bremmer comments on how ineffective Obama has been in all this: https://charlierose.com/videos/29658

References


Russiagate : DNC-Russian CollusionIG DOJ FBI ReportQ: Did Russia "influence" our elections?Q: Did Russia hack our election?Q: Did the Russians want Donald Trump to win?Q: Is Collusion a crime?Q: Is Trump compromised by Russians?Q: Shouldn't we trust the Intelligence Agencies?Q: What about Helsinki?Q: What about Russian trolls, and Social Media?Q: What about the Podesta email hacks?Q: What is this Russia thing about?Q: Who was the leadership during the Russiagate stuff?Q: Why did Russia interfere?Russia, Trump and WiretappingRussiagateRussians ads swung the 2016 electionTrump-Russia CollusionTrump: Russian Collusion
Russiagate People : James ClapperJames Comey