In the 1988 presidential nomination race, one candidate for the Republican party pledged to talk to the USSR, while all the others insisted they had nothing to discuss. That candidate was the eventual winner, George HW Bush. I point this out to show that even the Republican primary electorate in the Reagan era was looking for a conciliator who would avoid war with the USSR. It is true that every incoming president has said he will work with Russia. Even though the results have always been less positive than initial hopes, the people of the USA want peace with the Russians and are willing to elect presidents who will try to achieve it.
The Democrats followed the advice of paint-by-numbers campaign geniuses to divide the Republican electorate with the Russian wedge issue. Hillary Clinton hoped to gain John McCain’s endorsement by going full hawk. In doing so she exposed her simple-minded view of the Republican electorate. The view was laid out naked and bald after the election by Rahm Emanuel:
“Whenever there’s a disagreement among Republicans, I’m for one of those disagreements. I’m all for it,” the mayor said. “The President wants Russia? I’m with John McCain and Lindsey Graham. I’m for NATO. Why? Wedge. Schisms have to be wedges. Wedges have to be divides and divisions. …We’ve got to lower the President? Why? Because they are strong enough to get him than us. We’re not strong enough.”
http://chicago.suntimes.com/politics/emanuel-prescribes-rx-for-fellow-democrats-take-a-chill-pill/
Anyone could have told you the evidence against the Russians for hacking John Podesta’s email was non-existent. Why would they insert a phishing email with smoking-gun telltales, and then release that smoking gun to Wikileaks? The conclusions from the intelligence services that saw a link were that we think Russia had the motive to hack, so they probably hacked.
In their desperation to win, win anything, and somehow reclaim their mission over America, to take the country on its inevitable course to European social democracy, the Democratic Party clung to the same explanation for their loss that Hillary Clinton tried to use during the campaign. Russia did it. It had the added bonus of an easy way to remove a president without elections and voters.
I understood at the time that Trump would win this fight and would come out stronger in the end. He will have chewed up a year of the opposition’s time and energy on a cause that the Democratic base, peacenik as it truly and lovably is, would never embrace. He will come out as having beaten the rap. All that was fun and games to watch, until Trump bombed Syria and somebody died over this stupid story.
And now for the true scandal. Trump’s administration was fully aware of the purpose of the Syrian airstrike on Khan Sheikhoun on April 4. They were made aware by the Syrians and Russians, they knew the target was a meeting of Al Qaeda leaders, and they had all the intelligence they needed to understand that the aftermath was not from chemical weapons:
Russian and Syrian Air Force officers gave details of the carefully planned flight path to and from Khan Shiekhoun on April 4 directly, in English, to the deconfliction monitors aboard the AWACS plane, which was on patrol near the Turkish border, 60 miles or more to the north…
The intercept, which had a particularly strong effect on some of Trump’s aides, did not mention nerve gas or sarin, but it did quote a Syrian general discussing a “special” weapon and the need for a highly skilled pilot to man the attack plane. The reference, as those in the American intelligence community understood, and many of the inexperienced aides and family members close to Trump may not have, was to a Russian-supplied bomb with its built-in guidance system. “If you’ve already decided it was a gas attack, you will then inevitably read the talk about a special weapon as involving a sarin bomb,” the adviser said. “Did the Syrians plan the attack on Khan Sheikhoun? Absolutely. Do we have intercepts to prove it? Absolutely. Did they plan to use sarin? No. But the president did not say: ‘We have a problem and let’s look into it.’ He wanted to bomb the shit out of Syria.”
Trump’s Red Line
by Seymour Hersh
https://www.welt.de/politik/ausland/article165905578/Trump-s-Red-Line.html
Unfortunately, given the climate at the time, Democratic officeholders like Elizabeth Warren and Seth Moulton were happy to endorse a bloody line be drawn in the sand across Trump’s detente efforts with Russia. And so missiles went off and some people died.
Now we understand that Democratic voters are telling their leaders to cool it on Russia. The latest Russia-Truther rants on b.m.g. aren’t getting frontpaged any more. I expect this to be downvoted as usual from the crowd with their hands over their ears. I have no interest in the Democratic Party’s survival and I agree with Julian Assange that it could easily be swamped Macron-style in coming election cycles. However I have always had a soft spot for the antiviolence heart of the Democrats. This is for you and we can work together in what comes next.
Hershey isn’t always right, but his record is better than that of the spook community.
Nobody is saying we should not talk to Russia as a matter of routine diplomacy, but a disturbing number of Trump associates have personal ties and financial interests which do not necessarily line up with our national interests. Plus, last I checked 17 intel agencies stand by their assessment that Russia interfered in our elections and evidence continues to mount.
Do not feed the troll.
Yeah, I debated that one with myself. I was going to just downrate the diary, but didn’t want to prove his point. I did not comment until my second look.
The Hersh piece is worth a look.
I’m not sure what motivates the shot at HRC there, but “the president’s determination to ignore the evidence: certainly fits his pattern.
Hersh hasn’t been right about anything since My Lai. He and Oliver Stone are both defending a homophobic, Islamaphobic crypto facist dictator who took a nascent liberal democracy on the path of far right religious nationalism. At least Pat Buchanan and Marine LePen are being ideologically consistent when they praise Putin and ask the West to ally with him in a 21st century crusade to save Christianity from the Mohammedans.
Stone, Hersh, Snowden, Greenwald, Assange, Chomsky and the Nation’s Steve Cohen are the modern equivalent of the useful idiots on the left that used to be co-opted by the NKVD during the 30’s to defend Stalinism. Notice that Stone didn’t even bat an eye when Putin praised Stalin, openly said he wants a whiter Russia, and openly admitted to anti-gay and ethnic cleansing during his fawning interview. Give Stone credit, he has now been by feted by major authoritarian anti-American dictators from both sides of the spectrum which now demonstrates he is objectively anti-American. I might be too if I had been lied to during the Vietnam era like he and Hersh had been, but that doesn’t change who the liberal democracy is in this particular fight.
Hillary’s hawkishness on Iraq, Libya and Iran are to be lamented and condemned. Her clear eyed hawkishness on Russia was a welcome change of course from President Obama’s weak kneed appeasement and the very radical appeasement we are seeing under Trump. It was the single best reason to vote for her in the primary or the general. Her stability on Syria is to be trusted more than Trump’s, who ran as a dove but is now putting us in the very situation he criticized Hillary for where we could shoot Russian planes out of the sky. And he is doing this to prove himself tougher than she was on Russia and to show critics and investigators that they are wrong, which has the potential to be far more destabilizing than her no fly zones ever would’ve been. Just as Nixon’s obstruction of justice over Watergate was to compensate for his treason over the Chenault Letter, Trump may very well overcompensate against Russia as the investigation digs deeper.
I find this reply a bit puzzling. How is he defending Syria?
Honestly I don’t think you’re objective on this. I’m not sure what offended you, but you’ve thrown too much into the sink for me to reply to. To take one point — no, Obama was not “weak-kneed.” because he wanted to avoid conflict. As you said yourself, HRC’s hawkishness was lamentable.
The Hersh piece is about Trump, the current president. Move to 2017 please.
I will not move on from the deliberate hijacking of our democracy by our greatest geopolitical rival and the single bigg st opponent of our values on the planet today. They have interfered with European elections and fund far right parties in Europe. They have sophisticated cyber capabilities that I’ve witnessed and researched first hand. I will not move on-nor should Congress or the press or progressive activists.
You’re right that I’m close to this since I actually know what I’m talking about. I know what it’s like to handle classified information, I’ve worked with DIA, NSA and CIA intelligence officers and respect their integrity and the work that they do. They put their lives on the line to protect this country. They follow the facts-not a partisan agenda like the Republicans actively blocking an objective investigation. Not an oversimplified anti-military industrial complex narrative that Hersh and Stone traffic in. They got a lot wrong in the past-they will make mistakes in the future-they are human beings who should be subject to greater oversight. They are not wrong on this.
Does the government really give security clearances to people who continually brag about all the classified information they’ve seen? That doesn’t make me feel more secure.
Bad day?
Also — you keep changing the subject. I know that intelligence is murky and leads in many directions, so maybe I just can’t follow your line of thinking. But the Hersh article is about Syria, and Trump’s actions there.
It’s not worth debating. Someone who takes an 80 year old jack hack journalist with an axe to grind with no sources in government or intelligence over the conclusions of 17 intelligence agencies is not worth debating this topic with.
I do not disagree with the broader conclusions that this Syria policy is flawed and being dictated by Saudi Arabia. This is why Hillary was always less hawkish on this question than someone naive and inexperienced like Trump. It’s too bad Russia actively worked on a sophisticated campaign to discredit her and we never had a real debate about foreign policy in 2016. Maybe we should look into that and take it seriously instead of dismissing it as a conspiracy theory while elevating conspiracy theories as serious journalism.
Tom Ricks is a good source, so is Eric Garland. Mensch and Hersh are not.
Hersh is just repeating Russian and Syrian propaganda and you’re treating it like a hidden insight since it makes the US military look bad. I do not doubt Trump does not know what he is doing, which is why we should care about the international actors manipulating him into war. Say what you will about Hillary, she knew what she was doing in Syria and her policy would’ve been a lot harsher toward Putin and Assad.
As for weak kneed Obama he allowed Russia to manipulate him in Syria over and over again. He refused to actually arm Eastern Europe with the kind of firepower they need to deter Russian aggression. He also did not inform the American people about the investigations into Donald Trump from the intelligence community which has allowed left and right wing critics of Hillary Clinton to dismiss any investigation as just another sore loser move. Had he done so before the election we may not have the bad actor making bad decisions on her behalf today.
If you had just joined today, I’d swear you were trolling. The article defends our military and the intelligence services. It criticizes Trump.
I don’t know why you dislike Hersh so much. As a reminder, he broke the Abu Grahib story. It’s not fair to lump him with the likes of Louise Mensch.
I don’t see any revelations in the Hersh piece anyone with half an iota of foreign policy knowledge couldn’t determine on their own. Syria is complicated, Trump is a neophyte easily manipulated by Pentagon brass, Russian officials, and the Saudis. What a scoop!
And you fail to see how the original poster, a consistent troll who contributes little to this site, is making an implicitly anti-Hillary argument with this post. He is taking Hersh out of context to attack Trump from the alt-right as being insufficinetly dovish on Assad and Putin. He is discrediting Democrats going after Trump on Russia by arguing they should actually be critiquing Trump from the alt-right like he is and pushing for a dovish policy toward Russian aggression. That’s the broader point I am arguing against, not the specific question you want to talk about. .
Syria is merely a proxy battle for the broader Sunni/Shia split where I take the dovish view that we should freeze out the Saudis and actually craft a policy based around American interests in the region for once. It’s also a proxy battle for the new Cold War with Russia which they are fighting assymetrically via a global disinformation campaign. Hersh, Stone, Cohen and other critics of US foreign policy are unwitting allies in that campaign. I think that’s important to note and to take their claims with a grain of salt.
So he’s right about half the time, which is a worse record than the intelligence community who’s finding’s on the Trump-Russia connection you have yet to affirm.
My response to this post is, what?
I wanted to stop reading at this line: “Anyone could have told you the evidence against the Russians for hacking John Podesta’s email was non-existent.” I did. Then everyone started commenting, and I got interested.
Seymour Hersh is unreliable. He’s done some decent things since My Lai, but his writing is extremely erratic.
With that said, I still can’t figure out what the hell the story is about. RT says, “US President Donald Trump ignored reports from US intelligence that said they had no evidence Syria had used sarin to attack a rebel-held town, Pulitzer-winning investigative journalist Seymour Hersh says.” Hardly news. Trump shouldn’t be involved in making or executing foreign policy? Hardly news.
Is it surprising that Trump ignored the IC? He ignored them and bombed an airplane hanger full of broken planes.
What am I missing about this story?
Although the things you listed are not necessarily surprising, they are certainly news. I may be skeptical about our IC, but if I’m president and they’re telling me something, I’d listen.
Trump (apparently) overruled them and was politically rewarded for it. Something in our system is amiss.
Trump is amiss.
Gee I wonder what that something is? Maybe that because of the Cold War we concentrated all foreign and military policy making power in the hands of the Executive Branch and the entire system is now paralyzed because an entirely unqualified person is at the helm? An unqualified person who won with a minority of votes but who was helped in key states by an unprecedented foreign hacking operation conducted by our major geopolitical and cyber rival? I mean come on Jim, we have been talking about the real issue for months. This Syria revelation is a symptom of a much larger problem outlined in an unprecedented 17 agency report you consistently choose to ignore and dismiss even as you rightly criticize Trump for ignoring those agencies now.
Russia has had an asymmetric advantage in cyber capabilities going back to their attacks on Estonia and Georgia in 2007. Their intelligence agencies have been waging a global disinformation campaign to undermine Western foreign policy objectives for at least the last decade. Culminating in the unprecedented election year meddling being investigated now and the co-opting of wikileaks as an arm of Russian intelligence agencies. Trump’s former campaign manager taking $17 million of payments from a pro-Putin party is on the front page of the Times today. I’ll concede there’s not enough evidence to prosecute, but Trump is about as innocent as Bill Cosby when it comes to this thing.
Q: What am I missing about this story?
A: That this post is simple troll-bait
Therefore everything in it is invalid, even the external link?
The groupthink around here really depresses me at times.
Answer me this-why are you more troubled that Trump ignored the intelligence community’s warnings on Syria than you are by the intelligence community’s warnings on Trump that have been ignored by every elected Republican official in Congress? The later is far more devastating to our democracy than the former, which is but a symptom of a much bigger problem with Russia.
What would you do, as a Congressional Republican right now? Me, I’d wait on the findings of the Muehler investigation, and then act accordingly.
It’s not that I’m more concerned about this incident than the Russia stuff, but this incident is important, and we’ve had plenty of threads about Russia in general.
Trump defied the IC and (maybe coincidentally) did something that annoyed Russia. What if that’s not a coincidence? What if he was looking for a rationale to do something tough, especially when it comes to Russia? All this goes to the mindset of our Commander in Chief, and it’s troubling.
He blew up a hangar full of broken airplanes. That’s tough? It’s more likely he was trying to wag the dog.
If so, he succeeded. I think it’s news if he went against the IC to do that.
I didn’t say whether cited links were invalid or not — I instead said that the original post is troll-bait. I suggest that links within might be true or — more likely — are entirely irrelevant.
I don’t know about “groupthink”. I think that a key aspect of web-connected life is discerning when a particular item is not worth further attention. To pick two examples, there are a gazillion pages in the climate change “deniersphere” and in the creationist nest, each of which contains multiple links to various “truthy” pieces. Some of them are mildly interesting. None of them are relevant to any actual investigation of climate change, evolution, or natural history.
If you find the cited Hersh piece interesting, good on you. If you want to author a post about it, and perhaps even tie it to the current Russia investigations, that’s entirely appropriate and I’d probably welcome it.
THIS piece, however, is simple troll-bait, and that’s why I don’t pursue it.
I’m not a fan of Seascraper, but he wrote about this issue back in April. The BMG site was kind of messed up at that point, so people may have not seen it. I bring this up in fairness to his intellectual consistency. He may be a troll at times, but he seems to have a genuine interest here.