Because they are adversaries whose interests and values are broadly against American interests and values.
RE: Putin, Uranium, and the Clintons
Peggy Noonan, Wall Street Journal, _America’s Decadent Leadership Class_10/13
It is quite dreadful and a showing of the gravest disrespect that, if U.S. intelligence agencies are correct, Russia’s Vladimir Putin has inserted himself into America’s presidential election. And it could not have deeper implications.
If Russia is indeed behind the leaks of the emails of Democratic Party operatives Mr. Putin may have many reasons, as he often does, but the most frightening would be that he views the current American political leadership class as utterly decadent and unworthy of traditional diplomatic norms and boundaries. And, thinks, therefore, it deserves what it gets.
Why would he find them decadent—morally hollowed out, unserious? That is the terrible part: because he knows them.
Think of how he’s experienced them the past few years. Readers of these pages know of the Uranium One deal in which a Canadian businessman got Bill Clinton to help him get control of uranium mining fields in Kazakhstan. The businessman soon gave $31 million to the Clinton Foundation, with a pledge of $100 million more. Uranium One acquired significant holdings in the U.S. A Russian company moved to buy it. The deal needed U.S. approval, including from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
While it was under consideration the Clinton Foundation received more money from Uranium One. Bill Clinton got a $500,000 speech fee. Mrs. Clinton approved the deal. The Russian company is now one of the world’s largest uranium producers. Significant amounts of U.S. uranium are, in effect, owned by Russia. This summer a WikiLeaks dump showed the State Department warning that Russia was moving to control the global supply of nuclear fuel. The deal went through anyway, and the foundation flourished.
Peter Schweizer, who broke the Uranium One story, reported in these pages how Mrs. Clinton also pushed for a U.S.-Russian technology initiative whose goals included “the development of ties between the Russian and American people.” Mrs Clinton looked for U.S. investors and found them. Of the 28 announced “key partners,” 60% had made financial commitments to the Clinton Foundation. Even Russian investors ponied up.
But the research coming out of the initiative raised alarms: U.S. military experts warned of satellite, space and nuclear technology transfers. The FBI thought the Russian partners’ motive was to “gain access to classified, sensitive, and emerging technology.” WikiLeaks later unearthed a State Department cable expressing concern about the project. Somehow, said Mr. Schweizer, the Clinton State Department “missed or ignored obvious red flags.”
What would Mr. Putin, knowing all this and inferring Mrs. Clinton’s real priorities, conclude about the American political system and its major practitioners? Would he feel contempt? Might he toy with them?
As for Donald Trump, we don’t know, because he has not released his tax returns, what ties if any he has with Russia. There are charges that Trump businesses are entangled with powerful Russian financiers. We know some of his top advisers had business ties to Russia or affiliated nations and leaders.
Again, what might Mr. Putin think of this? Might he amuse himself with mischief, even to the point of attempting to hack the election returns? We’ll see.
But nothing is more dangerous than this: that Mr. Putin and perhaps other world leaders have come to have diminished respect for the morality, patriotism and large-mindedness of our leaders. Nikita Khrushchev had a rough respect for JFK and his men and that respect, in the Cuban Missile Crisis, helped avert nuclear war. Mikhail Gorbachev was in the end half-awed by Ronald Reagan’s goodness and idealism; the world knew George H.W. Bush and respected his integrity, and so he was able to build coalitions that were real coalitions, not just names. Now, whoever wins, we are in a different place, a lesser and more dangerous one…
1 Like
^ the above reflects the author’s poor understanding of the Cuban missile crisis. Krushchev thought the Kennedy was a “boy” who could be pushed around in the international arena. He believed that he could present the U.S. with a fait accompli.
Putin fears a Clinton presidency because of her relative hawkish foreign policy. A Trump presidency would pave the way for Russia’s revanchist goals.
Well, that would be a shame.
I just don’t see the big deal in Congress stonewalling the shit out of either of them. Repealing Obamacare is a dream at this point as neither Trump or Hillary will. As far as everything else, obstruct until their faces turn red.
2 Likes
Had breakfast with my Mother this morning, who is a card carrying full blooded super ultra left leaning Democrat. A RABID women’s rights, gun hating loon(Love ya Mom)!
So, I was absolutely floored (I spit up coffee) when good ole Mom announced that she will be voting for Johnson.
If clinton can’t win my Mother’s vote then I wonder, is this the end of days?
I am now considering voting for Johnson myself, in solidarity with Mom against the ridiculous choice we have all been given between these two buffoons.
Johnson needs to get on the stick and suck up enough votes to show that real change is on the way.
1 Like
A lot of what you wrote falls into the category of personal opinion. Can you conclusively prove Putin sees US-Russian relations as a zero sum game?
Also perhaps you don’t now this living in EE, but in America the news here is a constant 24/7 barrage of anti-Trump propaganda. We rarely if ever hear anything positive about Trump or negative about Hillary Clinton. Ask yourself the same question you did with regards to RT pushing Trump on the Russian people - Why are America’s elite working so hard to have Clinton in the white house?
Lastly, I would argue there is no America to protect if it continues to rot from within. Almost no one will respect Hillary Clinton as president now that we conclusively know for a fact she cheated her way into the White House. She plans to continue importing 1M new immigrants annually plus 1/2 million refugees (total) while the country is already in a constant state of racial strife. If America continues down this path of a divided people, Russians will win in the long term. IIRC didn’t the Russians attempt to promote a race war in America during the cold war? Well a Hillary Clinton presidency will continue to nudge America into that direction.
And Trump will have everyone joining hands, and singing Kumbaya?
Please.
Also; in terms of rarely hearing anything positive about Trump or Negative about Hillary Clinton? What BLOG-o-sphere do you live on, raj?
Each “side” is absolutely brutal in the attacks on the “other” side…which brings up another important point; if one is measuring “fairness” of “the media” by just what you hear on the major Broadcast networks or by some Op-Ed from a less and less relevant news “paper”; then there is no way that one can accurately measure “fairness” or “unfairness”.
Again; where America “loses” is in the % of Americans that will absolutely hate the new President…whether it be Trump of Clinton…and the Legislative Gridlock that is sure to occur.
[quote=“Mufasa, post:3495, topic:218984, full:true”]
And Trump will have everyone joining hands, and singing Kumbaya?
Please. [/quote]
No but I definitely think halting immigration will prevent race relations from deteriorating at the rate they currently are. My contention from the beginning: fix race relations with people in America now before adding more seasoning to the stew
If you get all your news from television which many people do, it’s a non stop parade of anti-Trump pieces - CNN, ABC, NBC are all anti-Trump all the time. Even Fox news is probably 65%-35% Trump to Hillary.
Just for the sake of argument…let’s say this is true.
Trump and his supporters can’t have it both ways.
As I said on an earlier post; Trump has played the media like a fine violin when it was to his advantage…but if you make a Faustian Deal with the devil, it will come back and bite you square in the ass.
Now he is running around at his rallies yelling “rigged” and “conspiracy”…when during the Primaries he was bragging about his free media coverage and how little he had to spend for it.
3 Likes
Well I think it was advantageous when the playing field had 17 candidates. The sheer amount of coverage he received above all the other candidates definitely worked to his advantage. The name of the game was “standing out” in a sea of candidates essentially.
But now that it’s a two man race and that he has to appeal to all voters instead of just Republicans, the nature of the game is different and now the constant negative coverage is really hurting him.
Lastly, it’s not a conspiracy it’s public record. CNN is owned by Time Warner one of Hillary’s biggest donors
No.
As many have pointed out…perhaps any other candidate out of that original 17 MOST LIKELY could have been beating Clinton pretty handily…
Even Trump…with just a pivot here and there…and just a LITTLE restraint when he feels like someone is attacking his Dick size…most likely could have been doing better against Clinton at this point.
Any “conspiracy” to get Clinton elected is far more “Anti-Trump” than “Pro-Clinton”.
2 Likes
The media was going to protect Hillary and attack the other candidate with reckless abandon, no matter who it was. But with Trump, it’s even more aggressive because he threatens both establishments.
The notion of media is gone, this is now open cheerleading for a particular candidate. As Raj said, it’s not conspiracy anymore, it’s open record. CNN is now the Clinton News Network.
1 Like
This is very true, Max…and I agree with you.
But Trump has added to the aggression by splashing warm meat and blood in the face of a Pride of hungry Lions.
He doesn’t get to hide behind “it’s rigged” or “it’s a conspiracy” or who does, or does not donate to Clinton.
He needs to man-the-f*ck-up and admit where he has been at fault for the position he is in.
(NOTE: I am still not fully convinced that Trump can’t pull this off. Call me what you may. If Zeb was still around; he would tell you that I have a dismal record at predicting elections).
1 Like
Outrage, where for art thou.
The only reason I think he can still pull this off, not saying he will, but that he can, is because Hillary is such a lousy candidate.
She has all the Democrats, a chunk of Republicans, all the media, all of Hollywood, and all the rich donors backing her, and today’s ABC poll has her up by 4.
She is such a weak candidate that, she cannot close anything for shit. She let a 2 year Senator wipe the floor with her in the primaries in 2008, and a 75 year old Socialist give her a run for her money this year. I find it funny that, the party of the poor working class, put up their champion who is probably the most bought off by big business and donors than perhaps any other candidate in recent times.
1 Like
I thought Stein was the choice for super liberals who hated Hillary but refused to do a lesser of two evils vote.
And Mike Pence…poor guy.
He literally puts my back into spasms watching him twitch, squirm and contort himself as he tries to be a good soldier and defend Trump.
With that said; I think that he is putting himself in a good position moving forward.
Let me explain something to you - for Russians, everything is a zero sum game, from the times of Ivan the Terrible. There’s no win-win scenario for them, whether it’s culture, sports, economy or politics.
The economic success of Estonia (fastest internet in the world, free for all Estonians, many tech products made in Estonia such as Skype…) is seen as a “provocation” in Russia.
In their mind, if Estonia is “winning” then Russia is “losing” as it clearly demonstrates that a country is much, much better off away from the clutches of the Russian bear. The same thing with Ukraine - Russians simply cannot allow Ukraine to succeed economically and have been keeping them down for the last 25 years.
This traditional Russian mixture of bullying, envy joined with a huge inferiority complex is a defining characteristic of Putin.
I’ve read somewhere that, even if someone sane with a real estate background (obviously not Trump) became President he’d talk Putin like one would talk to a Russian real estate developer seeking a “constructive dialogue” (a win-win you might say) and get conned in the process.
By the way, I’m not that ignorant of US affairs. I lived in New Jersey for a couple of years as a teenager and decided that a war ravaged country is better than New Jersey (never could wrap by head around the “Garden State” slogan).
4 Likes
Probably but I don’t feel any real change can occur when money game is in full effect. IIRC Romney’s biggest donor was Goldman Sachs?
Beating Hillary with another establishment candidate is a pyrrhic victory.
HA HA.
BTW if I could live anywhere in the world it would be Belgrade. There isn’t a more beautiful race of women on this planet than Serbs.