How powerful is Hilary Clinton? How much in the tank is the entire establishment, from the current White House Administration to the main stream media, in order to get Hillary elected?
The United States of America is readying options to engage in cyber warfare with Russia, over Hillary Clinton’s ridiculous, almost comical, narrative that Russian hackers are trying to rig the US election in order to get Trump into the White House.
Only the dumbest of dumb people actually believe the “Russian hacker” Clinton campaign story. This is Hillary’s way of distracting the public from Wikileaks Podesta emails, that expose the breathtaking corruption in and around the Clinton machine.
But to me it seems that anti-Russian hysteria is a sideshow of anti-Trump hysteria. The corporate press is all-in behind Clinton, you see, and Clinton’s strategy, pathetic though it is, is to claim that Trump is Putin’s errand boy, so the strategy is to demonize Putin, and hope that some of the demonization rubs off on Trump. This isn’t working; recent opinion polls in the US show that Putin is more popular than both Clinton and Trump. This factoid neatly points out the real problem in the US: in the immortal words of the inimitable Vladimir Zhirinovsky, leader of Russia’s Liberal Democrats, Clinton isn’t even qualified to manage a public bathhouse, while Trump has even less national leadership experience than she does. On the other hand, Clinton’s national leadership experience has been, as Trump would put it, “a disaster,” and so Trump could do much better than Clinton by delegating all presidential responsibilities to a particularly pretty bush in the White House’s rose garden.
Nevertheless, no matter how far fetched, and completely without evidence the entire hacking narrative is, the Obama White House, willing to do whatever it takes to support HRC, is now considering a cyber war retaliation against Russia.
The elite establishment has sent out its errand boy, VP Joe Biden, to deliver the message to Russia…which we are certain has Vladimir Putin shaking in his boots. Here is what Biden told “Meet the Press” moderator Chuck Todd…
“We’re sending a message” to Putin and that “it will be at the time of our choosing, and under the circumstances that will have the greatest impact.”
When asked if the public will know a message was sent, the US VP replied, “Hope not.”
Current and former officials with direct knowledge of the situation say the CIA has been asked to deliver options to the White House for a wide-ranging “clandestine” cyber operation designed to harass and “embarrass” the Kremlin leadership.
The sources did not elaborate on the exact measures the CIA was considering, but said the agency had already begun opening cyber doors, selecting targets and making other preparations for an operation. Former intelligence officers told NBC News that the agency had gathered reams of documents that could expose unsavory tactics by Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Retired Admiral James Stavridis told NBC News…
–the U.S. should attack Russia’s ability to censor its internal internet traffic and expose the financial dealings of Putin and his associates.
“It’s well known that there’s great deal of offshore money moved outside of Russia from oligarchs,” he said. “It would be very embarrassing if that was revealed, and that would be a proportional response to what we’ve seen” in Russia’s alleged hacks and leaks targeting U.S. public opinion.
Meanwhile Sean Kanuck (a former senior U.S. intelligence official responsible for analyzing Russian cyber capabilities) said not responding to Russia’s fictional election hacking would carry a cost…
“If you publicly accuse someone,” he said, “and don’t follow it up with a responsive action, that may weaken the credible threat of your response capability.”
To paraphrase Mr. Kanuck…Hillary Clinton’s completely made up “Russian hacker” story, has painted the White House into a corner. The US has to respond (maybe with a real cyber attack, most likely with a “reciprocal” fake attack) in order to save face. The good thing is, as Joe Biden notes, the public will never really know.
NBC reports further on the choice that Obama is faced with, as the entire establishment (from the White House to the CIA) scrambles to cover Hillary’s far fetched lies…
Two former CIA officers who worked on Russia told NBC News that there is a long history of the White House asking the CIA to come up with options for covert action against Russia, including cyber options — only to abandon the idea.
“We’ve always hesitated to use a lot of stuff we’ve had, but that’s a political decision,” one former officer said. “If someone has decided, `We’ve had enough of the Russians,’ there is a lot we can do. Step one is to remind them that two can play at this game and we have a lot of stuff. Step two, if you are looking to mess with their networks, we can do that, but then the issue becomes, they can do worse things to us in other places.”
A second former officer, who helped run intelligence operations against Russia, said he was asked several times in recent years to work on covert action plans, but “none of the options were particularly good, nor did we think that any of them would be particularly effective,” he said.
Putin is almost beyond embarrassing, he said, and anything the U.S. can do against, for example, Russian bank accounts, the Russian can do in response.
“Do you want to have Barack Obama bouncing checks?” he asked.
Former CIA deputy director Michael Morell expressed skepticism that the U.S. would go so far as to attack Russian networks.
“Physical attacks on networks is not something the U.S. wants to do because we don’t want to set a precedent for other countries to do it as well, including against us,” he said. “My own view is that our response shouldn’t be covert — it should overt, for everybody to see.”
The Obama administration is debating just that question, officials say — whether to respond to Russia via cyber means, or with traditional measures such as sanctions.
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Duran.