Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

2017 American Political Scene

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #91
    http://nationalinterest.org/feature/...-hacking-18980

    'The official Electoral College results came in today. Donald Trump won. Vice President Joseph Biden said, “It is over.”

    Except that it isn’t. In an attempt to undermine the legitimacy of Trump’s win, his detractors are going into overdrive to exploit Russian shenanigans and to create a climate of hysteria. It is obvious that Russia attempted to interfere in the election. We fully support investigating what occurred in recent months. Nevertheless, we take issue with the rush to judgment by the media, Congress and, not least, President Obama and his political appointees.

    It is difficult to avoid the sense that Trump’s detractors want to hobble not only his foreign policy, but his impending presidency. Already the fevered atmosphere is redolent, if anything, of the early 1970s, when Richard M. Nixon’s liberal establishment foes used his transgressions—some fabricated, others real—to drive him from office. Now it seems that Trump’s enemies want to accomplish this feat even before he has officially entered the White House. For all the talk of Trump as a danger to democracy, who is trying to question and even to overturn the outcome of America’s democratic process? The obviously aggrieved Trump is justified in referring to the matter as a “political witch hunt.”

    There can be no doubting that Trump himself has not always been careful in how he depicts Russian hacking or, for that matter, Julian Assange. It was injudicious of him to declare during the campaign, “Russia, if you’re listening, I hope you’re able to find the 30,000 emails that are missing” from Clinton’s email server. But let’s get real: given his assertive personality, it is no surprise that Trump would attack his critics, and there is indeed much to criticize. More important, after meeting senior Obama administration intelligence officials, Trump acknowledged that Russia and other nations have tried to hack into U.S. systems and said that he would require his subordinates to produce a report and a plan within ninety days of his inauguration. This is exactly the right way to proceed.

    The problems start with the hasty hearings that are being held by Congress, and the intelligence report issued by the administration. There is no cogent national-security reason to race to conclusions about Russian actions based on testimony by officials leaving office after a political defeat. The Senate Armed Services Committee hearing yesterday provided Sens. Lindsey Graham and John McCain another opportunity to ventilate their hostility to Moscow and raise doubts about Trump’s relationship with Russian president Vladimir Putin. Of course, it also provided a veneer of bipartisanship to what is otherwise a heavily partisan affair. Graham’s cavalier policy advice—“If we don’t throw rocks, we’re going to make a huge mistake”—adds very little to America’s public discussion.

    Meanwhile, neither McCain nor Graham has offered adequate explanation for their strange inattention to the fact that weak or absent counterterrorism cooperation with Russia can cost American lives, something quite apparent in the 2013 Boston Marathon bombing. When the Senate Intelligence Committee, led by Sen. Richard Burr, holds a hearing next Tuesday with FBI Director James Comey, CIA Director John Brennan and Director of National Intelligence James R. Clapper Jr., we hope that the committee’s members will adopt a more intellectually rigorous posture.

    Then there is the deplorable role of President Obama, which has received less attention than it deserves. Obama has steadily been trying to box Trump in on Russia policy, starting with the new sanctions that he announced last week. If Obama were really interested in an impartial review of what transpired or, more to the point, an effective U.S. policy response, he would wait to submit a comprehensive and objective report to the incoming administration. Instead, he and his aides are busy leaking information to embarrass Trump, such as the meaningless tidbit that some Russian officials celebrated his win. Since many despised Hillary Clinton, they probably did. Just as Israeli officials surely did. And just as Chinese officials would likely have cheered if Hillary Clinton had won. Does that make Secretary Clinton a Manchurian candidate? Attempting to use foreign reactions to U.S. elections as a measure of patriotism is misleading, dangerous and wrong.

    At the same time, the vitriol surrounding the hacking episode has also spilled over into the media, which is feasting on the story. For example, CNN anchor Chris Cuomo told Kellyanne Conway, the incoming counselor to Trump, that Trump’s skepticism about the hacking episode is tantamount to “sheltering Russia.” This inflammatory language, in which any doubts expressed by Trump or others are said to amount to pro-Putin apologies, opens up the attackers to a similarly ugly charge—are they in fact enablers of ISIS who are endangering American lives by refusing the prospect of working with Russia to stop Islamic terrorism? After all, the September 11 attacks came well after the Clinton administration refused Putin’s offer to cooperate against the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan. That decision might have cost three thousand American lives.

    The more the Russian hacking episode is politicized for domestic purposes, the less likely it is that Americans will ever know what really happened. Why is it that the FBI has only now stated that its officials did not have direct access to the Democratic National Committee’s servers, the “scene of the crime”? The truth is that that there is an urgent need to study and assess Russian efforts, not to mention Chinese and North Korean cyber war efforts. The national security threat represented by cyber war, after all, is hardly confined to Russia. Nor is this all. To draw useful conclusions, any serious report would have to evaluate Russia’s perceptions, motives and objectives much more seriously. To what degree was the Kremlin animated by the desire to retaliate for previous American efforts to intervene in Russian domestic politics? To what degree was it focused on stopping or merely discrediting Hillary Clinton? Did Moscow officials really think they could sway an election whose outcome most observers—including America’s most sophisticated political analysts—considered a foregone conclusion?

    So far, no one has produced any evidence that Russia tipped the election in Trump’s favor. But the lurid allegations swirling around the election simply underscore the importance of avoiding a new round of Cold War McCarthyism, in which any sympathy for an opening to Moscow becomes synonymous with appeasement or even treason. The issue isn’t simply Trump. It’s America’s ability to conduct a rational foreign policy based on something other than demonization of opposing views. More than that, we must avoid destroying American democracy in order to save it.

    Last but not least, the hacking scandal-mongers should stop insulting Americans’ intelligence by expressing shock that Trump might question the judgment, if not the integrity, of Obama appointees like Lt. Gen. James Clapper. After all, Clapper fired Trump’s incoming National Security Advisor Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn in what Flynn described as retaliation for his unheeded warnings about the continuing danger of radical Islamist terrorism.
    '

    Comment


    • #92
      Originally posted by snapper View Post
      Just suppose - hypothetically speaking - that someone had intercepted conversations among senior Muscovite 'officials' where they were discussing their strategy about how and when to spill the beans they had collected. Would it be wise to say so bearing in mind these 'officials' may give more?
      Why suppose? It's happening. Might not be happening 24/7, but sure it is happening.

      Don't believe me? Let me repeat my question "How does th US intel community knows what Putin ordered his intel community?"

      Anyone holding a position thinking they are not watched are naive (not to use a stronger word).
      No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

      To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by snapper View Post
        A. Trump was born into money. B. We do not know what his 'empire' consists of; it may be paper and deeply in debt.
        He started his business(es) with a 1 million dollar loan from his dad. Granted he was in debt for up to 14 million to his dad at one time but he turned it into a multi-billion dollar empire.



        Just suppose - hypothetically speaking - that someone had intercepted conversations among senior Muscovite 'officials' where they were discussing their strategy about how and when to spill the beans they had collected. Would it be wise to say so bearing in mind these 'officials' may give more?
        No supposing about it.

        The only way they could have ascertained Russia's intent was through humint or intercepted conversations. Barry did a stupid thing by saying we know of their intent with "high confidence".

        The intelligence community omitting how we got this information....is still telling Russia way too much.

        1) If this is a WAG from the intelligence community, Putin is laughing his ass off.

        2) If this is true, we just revealed a lot of our capabilities.

        Once again, Barry played this horribly.
        Last edited by YellowFever; 07 Jan 17,, 21:08.

        Comment


        • #94
          YF,

          I guess releasing truthful emails is infinitely worse than using American taxpayer money to try to influence an ally's election.
          http://www.politifact.com/punditfact...election-effo/

          https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...eat-netanyahu/

          2) If this is true, we just revealed a lot of our capabilities.
          lol...no.

          the UNCLAS report reveal absolutely nothing. there are layers upon layers of disclosure officers whom would review this stuff and scrub this beforehand. those reports pretty much rely on the american populace's trust in the intel community to get things right. as a comparison, the publicly provided Mandiant report on Chinese cyber-hacking contained a LOT more than this.

          the secret report provided to select members of Congress will reveal more, somewhat.

          and the top secret report provided to the President...and the President-elect...-that- will contain the methods, sources, etc as needed.
          There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

          Comment


          • #95
            How about a much newer article from Wapo.

            https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...=.e20fcd58fa9c



            lol...no.

            the UNCLAS report reveal absolutely nothing. there are layers upon layers of disclosure officers whom would review this stuff and scrub this beforehand. those reports pretty much rely on the american populace's trust in the intel community to get things right. as a comparison, the publicly provided Mandiant report on Chinese cyber-hacking contained a LOT more than this.

            the secret report provided to select members of Congress will reveal more, somewhat.

            and the top secret report provided to the President...and the President-elect...-that- will contain the methods, sources, etc as needed.
            I'm surprised at you, man.

            You really think the Russians need us to spell out sources and methods for them? They owned one of the two best intelligence gathering apparatus at one time you know.

            Hell, they're still one of the best.

            You think the very fact that Obama says he knows of their intent didn't kick their intelligence community into high gear trying to ascertain how we know?

            It's logical to assume that what they are doing as we speak is review all methods of communication with regards to the "election hack" and who wrote what to whom and who had access to those notes..etc.

            In other words, Obama needlessly put humint (if any) and signal intercepting operations at risk.

            And all for what?

            So he can embarrass the incoming president and put some worthless sanctions on some individuals and kick some Russians out of the country?

            Well, Putin shrugged that off.

            So what harm did we did to him?

            Nobody says the Russians had a direct influence on the election. AND EVEN IF THEY DID, what can we do about it?

            Are you advocating an election do over?

            Because if we follow the advice of some Democrat retards and do a election do over, it will be one of the biggest constitutional crisis this country has ever seen.

            Honestly, at this point, this has nothing to do with Trump or the election for me.

            Hey, the Rooskies put one over us. Get over it and let's move on. Because every single day this continues, it's another day that Putin is laughing at our expense.

            I know the press is frothing at the mouth and they're mainly to blame for keeping this going because of their hatred of Trump.

            But Barry and the Democrats sure aren't helping matters with their actions.

            On a personal note, this election cycle has been so much fun for me....not because Trump won. Hell, I think there is a good chance the guy is going to do something stupid.

            No, I found it so enjoyable because, first, the Hildabeast didn't win, and second, the reaction from the Democrats and the left after the election has been so stupid as to cause me many nights of laughing my ass off.

            But as an American, enough is enough.

            We are about to get Trump as our leader whether we like it or not and I just find it stupid to keep this going for political points because ultimately, we are hurting America more than we will ever hurt Trump politically.

            Move on.
            Last edited by YellowFever; 08 Jan 17,, 07:18.

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by snapper View Post
              A. Putin didn't "ask", he bluffed Obama out of his 'red line' and B. This is precisely the problem that critics of Obama's foreign policy (or lack of it) complain about; he didn't 'get it' - nor by the way did Hilary and all the "reset" rubbish. To be fair though they did learn from their mistakes which I think is more than the next idiot will do. Frankly I want to know about his business 'empire'; who does he owe money to? If he owes money to Moscow is he not compromised?
              I didn't realize you were at that G20 meeting in Moscow, the one where Obama had decided he needed to put American troops on the ground in Syria, in a big way. The one where the Executive Orders were prepared, and the message informing Congress was drafted.

              You know, the meeting where Obama gave Putin a courtsey heads up, and Putin blanched at the prospect of losing his last Mid-East ally.

              I guess you had to be there.
              Trust me?
              I'm an economist!

              Comment


              • #97
                YF,

                How about a much newer article from Wapo.

                https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...=.e20fcd58fa9c
                that's an opinion piece by Jennifer Rubin, the conservative opinion writer/Ted Cruz supporter. and a 'NGO with connections to President Obama’s 2008 campaign' using parts of their whopping $350K grant...is not the same as an authoritarian leader directing hacking.

                You really think the Russians need us to spell out sources and methods for them? They owned one of the two best intelligence gathering apparatus at one time you know.

                Hell, they're still one of the best.

                You think the very fact that Obama says he knows of their intent didn't kick their intelligence community into high gear trying to ascertain how we know?
                that makes no sense. that means if ANY us official so much as says 'x country hacked us', that will mean they're putting intel operations at risk?

                and every time the FBI or CIA caught Russian operatives in the Cold War and announced it, by that same standard aren't they putting operations at risk too? seriously, dude...no.

                Nobody says the Russians had a direct influence on the election. AND EVEN IF THEY DID, what can we do about it?

                Are you advocating an election do over?
                i'm advocating for stronger protection of the US electoral process. it was ridiculous how the FBI had ONE low-level person to inform the DNC IT dept (and not even in person) that there was suspicious activity. the time it took for the US to respond (and that is a legitimate ding on Obama).

                and the likelihood that our extremely pro-Russian President-Elect will likely put the kibosh on all of this should be disturbing to anyone.

                seriously, there's stuff we can do outside a strawman argument of an impossible 'election do-over'.
                There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that "My ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."- Isaac Asimov

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by YellowFever View Post
                  He started his business(es) with a 1 million dollar loan from his dad. Granted he was in debt for up to 14 million to his dad at one time but he turned it into a multi-billion dollar empire.
                  So HE says but then he won't even release his tax returns (or lack of them).


                  Originally posted by YellowFever View Post
                  Once again, Barry played this horribly.
                  Would you suggest that the President say nothing? No doubt you would castigate his silence if it became know; damned either way. I do not think the public reports reveal any serious leads for them; indeed those who claim it says "a load of nothing" are complaining for precisely that reason.

                  Originally posted by DOR View Post
                  I didn't realize you were at that G20 meeting in Moscow
                  No I wasn't there but when you have drawn a 'red line' if you back out because someone asks you to then do you must expect people to question your credibility.

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by astralis View Post
                    YF,



                    that's an opinion piece by Jennifer Rubin, the conservative opinion writer/Ted Cruz supporter. and a 'NGO with connections to President Obama’s 2008 campaign' using parts of their whopping $350K grant...is not the same as an authoritarian leader directing hacking.



                    that makes no sense. that means if ANY us official so much as says 'x country hacked us', that will mean they're putting intel operations at risk?

                    and every time the FBI or CIA caught Russian operatives in the Cold War and announced it, by that same standard aren't they putting operations at risk too? seriously, dude...no.



                    i'm advocating for stronger protection of the US electoral process. it was ridiculous how the FBI had ONE low-level person to inform the DNC IT dept (and not even in person) that there was suspicious activity. the time it took for the US to respond (and that is a legitimate ding on Obama).

                    and the likelihood that our extremely pro-Russian President-Elect will likely put the kibosh on all of this should be disturbing to anyone.

                    seriously, there's stuff we can do outside a strawman argument of an impossible 'election do-over'.
                    If the other candidate was electable and had no dirty pants, the other candidate would have been elected. Shame, no dirty laundry was pulled out for the winner. Oh, wait.
                    No such thing as a good tax - Churchill

                    To make mistakes is human. To blame someone else for your mistake, is strategic.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by astralis View Post
                      YF,

                      i'm advocating for stronger protection of the US electoral process. it was ridiculous how the FBI had ONE low-level person to inform the DNC IT dept (and not even in person) that there was suspicious activity. the time it took for the US to respond (and that is a legitimate ding on Obama).
                      If I remember the chain of events correctly, the FBI (as you say a low-level one) did contact the receptionist at the DNC office and he/she sat on it for awhile not believeing the agent. Valuable time was wasted, coupled with the comedy of errors of miscommunication once the IT dept. was aware of the problem.

                      It was just a collection of human errors that let the Russians in in this case.

                      And as I said before, the dact that Barry didn't say anything just goes to show you that the man doesn't take any actions without considering the politics first.


                      and the likelihood that our extremely pro-Russian President-Elect will likely put the kibosh on all of this should be disturbing to anyone.
                      He is now officially brief on the subject and already he has changed his tune. He is no longer saying he finds it "highly unlikely" that the Russians hacked us (or rather the DNC). He is saying nothing in the reports indicate the vote has changed.

                      So let's give the guy a chance and wait until we see what he does after he gets in office.

                      My whole thing is they atacked us covertly. So let's attack them covertly or really put major sanctons on them to hurt the entire country as opposed to a few thugs worth millions by taking away a few thousand dollars from them.

                      And I still don't know what you mean by "protection of the US electoral process"

                      Can you explain that to me?

                      How was it damaged?
                      Last edited by YellowFever; 08 Jan 17,, 17:18.

                      Comment


                      • Asty, YF

                        1: it's the DNC's responsibility to safeguard DNC's emails. All sorts of legally and morally dubious activities can occur during campaigns. Having the government safeguard the IT of either party would place the government in serious conflicts of interest.

                        2: the NSA and the government can and should advice IT teams of qualified presidential candidates on major known cyber threats but the teams need to have classified cleared individuals who can handle the pertinent government briefings and implement solutions. This will have to be a part of the qualification process.

                        3: both major parties, national security pertinent US business entities, and major internet and IT companies need to work collaboratively in a government sponsored and advised framework to implement robust and transparent cyber security. This should be one of the major non-covert responses to the hacking. (Notably absent from mention by the Obama administration).

                        4: what neither party nor the government should do is to grossly exaggerate the effects of Russian efforts. This, in and of itself seriously amplifies the effects of Russian efforts. Yet, this is exactly what the Obama administration, the Democrats, some Republicans, and parts of the intelligence community have done, playing right into Russian hands and self-inflicting the great majority of the actual damage.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by YellowFever View Post
                          He is now officially brief on the subject and already he has changed his tune. He is no longer saying he finds it "highly unlikely" that the Russians hacked us (or rather the DNC). He is saying nothing in the reports indicate the vote has changed.
                          Really? According to Trump only "'stupid' people, or fools" would not want good relations with Moscow... So all the Chechens, Georgians, Ukrainians and Syrians - not to mention Muscovites - who have lost family members or homes to this criminal regime through no choice of their own should forget it and 'move on'? Of course much the same was argued by Chamberlain in the last century. Even the fact that there was an attempt to interfere in US democracy must be dismissed... What sort of signal does that send?

                          Originally posted by DOR View Post
                          Question: what would you have done differently?
                          When you are a major power you have major responsibilities. I have already said elsewhere that I do not regard it wise to draw 'red lines' - particularly in public; "all options remain on the table" is by and large the better response no matter what you may be planning to do or not do. However once a major power does draw a 'red line' you have to be damn ready to back it up in full, no matter where it might lead. If it has meant an air campaign or a 'no fly zone' fine; if it had involved IAEA or some other form of international monitoring being imposed fine. If it had involved the removal of Assad and required 'boots on the ground' it would have to be done and then passed over to a UN or Arab League temporary peacekeeping force until a new Government was able to manage by itself.

                          In retrospect (which is easy of course) I would say clearly the West should have gone in; not doing created a vacuum and allowed our enemies to exploit our seeming weakness.

                          Comment


                          • Ok, folks, let's get back on topic. Nothing wrong with mentioning Syria within the context of the thread topic, but it's gone past that point now. If anyone wants to continue, please take it to the Syria thread.
                            To be Truly ignorant, Man requires an Education - Plato

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by JAD_333 View Post
                              Ok, folks, let's get back on topic. Nothing wrong with mentioning Syria within the context of the thread topic, but it's gone past that point now. If anyone wants to continue, please take it to the Syria thread.
                              Sorry Jad, you posted while I was typing, I'll move the last few posts over there.
                              Last edited by Parihaka; 09 Jan 17,, 00:05.
                              In the realm of spirit, seek clarity; in the material world, seek utility.

                              Leibniz

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by snapper View Post
                                Really? According to Trump only "'stupid' people, or fools" would not want good relations with Moscow... So all the Chechens, Georgians, Ukrainians and Syrians - not to mention Muscovites - who have lost family members or homes to this criminal regime through no choice of their own should forget it and 'move on'? Of course much the same was argued by Chamberlain in the last century. Even the fact that there was an attempt to interfere in US democracy must be dismissed... What sort of signal does that send?
                                Uh....umm...yeah.

                                Click image for larger version

Name:	e31.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	35.2 KB
ID:	1470180

                                Get back to me if you want to discuss the election hack and how it affects American politics.

                                In the meantime, there are many new posts for you to salivate at in the Syria thread so I suggest you rant there.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X