CIA: Russians Hacked the Election to Give Trump the Win

Over the weekend, the Washington Post reported that the Democratic National Committee and Clinton campaign email servers were hacked into by the Russians to help Trump win the election.  And, that Vladimir Putin had personally directed the hack.  This from an anonymous source that said a handful of U.S. Senators were secretly briefed on this in a closed door session by the CIA.  But, the CIA also stressed that not all national security agencies agree on this.

So, once again, we're being fed a story from an anonymous source that can't be verified.  We don't even know what Senators were briefed.  In the era of "fake news"stories, this may just be another one. Before this latest story, the Washington Post did a hit-job on the Trump win on Thanksgiving by declaring that the Russians created "fake news" on hundreds of Internet sites in order to give Trump the win.  One has to wonder if the "Post" has an agenda here, and why they are the sole provocateur on these Russian/Trump stories.

My biggest problem is believing the whole concept of Putin wanting Trump to win. It doesn't pass the smell test.   I cannot imagine Putin preferring Trump because of all the ways in which Trump could hurt the Russian state.

First of all, Trump is a climate denier who believes that we should back off from restricting the usage of fossil fuels; especially oil.  For Russia, this is a problem since their economy is so dependent on oil.  Any increased production under a Trump presidency will lower the price and economically depress the Russian economy.

Unlike Hillary, Trump has promised to rebuild our military.  Does anyone really think Putin wants the U.S.military to get stronger and more advanced?  On top of that, Donald Trump is more likely to deploy a missile defense system in Europe.  Something that Putin does not want to happen.  Further, Trump has never once stated that he wouldn't put boots on the ground, and Hillary clearly stated that wouldn't happen in her administration. Also, Trump may ignore the Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty signed by Obama without Senate approval as mandated by law.  Thus we could be on track to rebuild our nuclear weapons power.

Lastly, Trump's temperament is a great unknown with respect to how he would deal with any conflicts that occur between Russia and the U.S.   This could force Putin to give pause when attempting to take over another country or area such as Crimea. The Democrats and Hillary Clinton have long held the belief that Trump was the last person they wanted with his finger on the nuclear button.

What I'm more concerned about, is that this election could be totally discredited and Trump's win nullified.  What then?  Could Hillary sue in federal court and take the win away from Trump on the basis that he won unfairly?  Would the whole election process have to be rerun?  If so,  would Obama remain in office while that process was completed. That is certainly a possibility since he has ordered a completed intelligence review on his desk before he leaves office.  And, if the election is rerun, for sure, the voter turnout for the Democrats would be great.  This is certainly a mess that our founding fathers never anticipated as they drafted the Constitution.

References:

Secret CIA assessment says Russia was trying to help Trump win: https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/obama-orders-review-of-russian-hacking-during-presidential-campaign/2016/12/09/31d6b300-be2a-11e6-94ac-3d324840106c_story.html?utm_term=.f799ed76f51b

CIA Concludes Russia Interfered with U.S. Election to Help Trump: http://fortune.com/2016/12/10/cia-concludes-russia-interfered-with-u-s-election-to-help-trump/

CIA: Russia Interfered With U.S. Elections: Politicians and pundits are calling for further investigation into the matter: http://www.snopes.com/2016/12/10/cia-russia-interfered-with-u-s-elections/

U.S. President Barack Obama ordered intelligence agencies to review cyber attacks and foreign intervention into the 2016 election and deliver a report before he leaves office on Jan. 20, the White House said on Friday: http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-election-cyber-russia-idUSKBN13Z05B?feedType=RSS&feedName=politicsNews&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social

Oil, taxes — and big problems for Russia's economy - CNBC.com: http://www.cnbc.com/2016/04/01/oil-taxes--and-big-problems-for-russias-economy.html

Obama and Robert Gates Memoir: "Duty"

I didn't have to read former Defense Secretary Robert Gates' memoir "Duty" to know that Obama has been playing politics with the military from the very day he became the "supposed" Commander-In-Chief.  Almost every major policy change with regard to the military has been done to satisfy one or more factions of his political base.  From openly serving gays; to women in the battlefield; to tighter rules of engagement that may threaten the very lives of our soldiers; to cutting half the amount of surge forces in Afghanistan; to cuts in nuclear weapons and budgets; Obama has done nothing but weaken the best military on the planet.

But the biggest weakening of our military is the loss of the very "brains" that have made it a major force to be reckoned with.  In just 5 years, Obama has managed to "purge" a record 200 of the highest ranking officers and insure that another 167 never get promoted to higher levels.  All because those dedicated and concerned officers dared to question or comment about any of this President's changes in policy.  Of course, this purging comes from a President who hasn't fired a single, top-level person in his Administration despite the many scandals that have come to light under his watch.

Sadly, it may take years, if not a decade or more, to replace the experience and military acumen that has been lost due to Obama's failed understanding of military life and the decades of procedures that have been adopted to insure that lives are protected and morale is maintained.

Reference:

'Purge surge': Obama fires another commander: http://www.wnd.com/2013/11/purge-surge-obama-fires-another-commander/

Rolling Stone Mag: Actions Have Consequences

Right now, the folks at Rolling Stone are probably high-fiving each other for their headline-grabbing story that actually brought down a key general in our war effort in Afghanistan. But, the last laugh just may be had by General McChrystal himself. As a result of that story the relationship that the media has enjoyed with our military over the last few decades may have seriously changed. In fact, what Rolling Stone Magazine has done may actually cause the military to deny the media access for many years to come.

Newton's Third Law tells us that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. But, when it comes to dishonoring a hero like McChrystal, the opposite reaction may not be equal, but greater than the original action. In the history of military-related journalism, the well may just have dried up thanks to Rolling Stone Magazine. I hardly think the rest of the industry will be too happy about that. Any bond of trust that had existed between journalists and the military has been broken!

Why McChrystal Had To Go

From our country's earliest beginnings, the founding fathers knew the potential hazard of this or any country being taken over by a stratocracy -- a military dictatorship. To minimize that potential, they drafted, as part of our Constitution (Article 1 section 8), a specific structure that clearly positions the military under the direction of the Executive Branch of the Government and with their funding being controlled by Congress. Thus, their power is balanced between the two most prominent civilian legislative branches of government.

While it is important that we don't have a lap-dog military that can't express any concerns over the commands that they may receive from the Executive Branch, it is also important that they maintain a certain level of respect for the civilian leadership that they report to. That's because any erosion of that respect might actually create a situation whereby the military becomes autonomous to some degree; with the worst case resulting in some kind of coup.

The McChrystal situation presented a real conundrum because he is the primary architect of the military plan that is only half-way implemented in Afghanistan and prior to the draw down of troops starting next year. To lose him over his disrespectful comments may actually jeopardize the results of the war.

One option that was available to Obama was to elicit a public apology from McChrystal (assuming he's sorry). Then, bust him down by one or two stars from his four-star status and allow him to continue in his role as the Afghanistan commander. However, this ignores the fact that there might be a serious dissenting attitude in his command and below towards our civilian government.

I think the only real option for Obama was to have accepted McChrystal's resignation. He probably should have been stripped of some of his rank to show how serious an offense he had committed. For the protection of the precepts of our Constitution with regard to the military, Obama absolutely had no other option.

Our country has, probably, the best military in the world. No one man is irreplaceable. There are a lot of people in the ranks who could replace McChrystal and continue the plan in Afghanistan. Certainly, the replacement of McChrystal with Petraeus was a good choice but it might have just left Iraq exposed. In addition, Obama needs to strengthen his leadership skills so that this kind of disrespect doesn't fester once again. And, too, if we continue to see unrest in the military over the Administration's leadership, it is the people of this country who will need to reprimand Obama for his actions.

The Emperor's New Clothes

This trip of Obama to the Middle East and Europe reminds me of the story of the Emperor's New Clothes; especially when talking about foriegn policy and military experience. The fact that Mr. Obama is being shown with Generals and foreign leaders (for the very first time), doesn't really make him "what" those pictures want you to think. Everybody around him and the news media knows damn well that he is naked as a jaybird when it comes to military and foreign policy. But, just like in that story about the Emperor, no one is willing to spill the beans on the reality of his nakedness.

Update: Since writing this, this morning, I ran across this opinion piece (Click to See "Obama Faking It" by Maggie Gallagher) which somewhat repeats what I have said in my comments above.

Move On, MoveOn (.org)

One thing about MoveOn.org, they are consistent. It is as if a bunch of pre-teen/teen boys are running the show over there. You remember the school-yard rhyming ad in the New York Times: "Patreaus - Betray Us." That's one you could easily skip rope to in the school yard. Now, their latest "childish" demonstration is a video commercial about "Saving Alex" (See the YouTube Video).

First, little Alex should thank God every day for the fact that his obvious;y Democratic mother didn't "abort" his little ass to start out with. Second, even if John McCain does serve two terms, little Alex will be barely 9 years old when McCain leaves office. Even with parental permission (Right!), I really think, at age 9, little Alex might have difficulty getting into our military. Of course, there is that possibility that the "warmongering" John McCain will lower the age of enlistment and re-instate the draft so Alex will have to serve and so we can attack every other country on the planet. Third, Alex's mom should worry more that little Alex won't even graduate from high school. In this country, thanks to our splendid union-controlled schools, little Alex has about a 50 percent chance of graduation. And, fourth, if Alex doesn't graduate, mom doesn't have anything to worry about because little Alex couldn't get into the military without a high school diploma; good reading skills; and, fair math skills. Fifth, would someone please tell Alex's mom that the military in the United States is an "all volunteer" force. Finally, if we don't win in Iraq, there may be a resurgence of Al Qaeda and little Alex's chances of dying from terrorism would probably be a lot higher than him joining the military and going on to Iraq in 20 years from now.

MoveOn.org is, well, so "old" MoveOn.org. At a time when even the Democrats have "moved on" past the war and are now focused on oil prices, the housing crisis, and the economy, MoveOn.org is still in a "quagmire" over Iraq. (Note: The Democrats recently approved the latest Iraq war funding bill without even a single debate and without their typical inclusion of a date-certain for withdrawal.) Even the national news media has forgotten the war. Isn't it time, MoveOn (.org), that you, too, move on!

One last point. Little Alex's mom should worry more about the push to convert food stocks to ethanol and other biofuels in order to fight pseudo-war on Global Warming. To ignore increased oil production and to put all our hope into renewable energies may just create a worldwide famine and a worldwide economic depression. If so, many people, including little Alex, could "lose" their lives in the fight against Climate Change. In which case, the loss of 4000+ military lives and the billions of dollars spent in Iraq will be insignificant!