Wednesday, December 14, 2016

American History: Interfere in Elections Everywhere

What a hoot about the outrage regarding interference in elections for a guy who majored in history. The CIA was built on interfering in election everywhere in the world, even using assassination where necessary. Chile and helping put in brutal dictatorships is just one example -- and the role our own AFT played in helping undermine left unions, as George Schmidt exposed in his pamphlet.

So let's calm down here. They may have done it and if we could do it in Russia to overthrow Putin we would in a heartbeat. I just heard Stephen F. Cohen on Brian Lehrer -- Cohen has taken the other side on the Putin issue, as have many on the left who see American aggressive imperialism at work. and read this piece: Neo-Mcarthyism and the New Cold War.

As with anything, we need to hear all sides of an issue to make rational decisions. Fred Klonsky touched on America's history of intervention.

The United States does have a well-documented history of interfering and sometimes interrupting the workings of democracies elsewhere. It has occupied and intervened militarily in a whole swath of countries in the Caribbean and Latin America and fomented coups against democratically elected populists.
The most infamous episodes include the ousting of Iranian Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh in 1953 — whose government was replaced by an authoritarian monarchy favorable to Washington — the removal and assassination of Congolese leader Patrice Lumumba in 1961, and the violent toppling of socialist Chilean President Salvador Allende, whose government was swept aside in 1973 by a military coup led by the ruthless Gen. Augusto Pinochet. The Washington Post... Fred Klonsky,  Sunday’s hard rain.


  1. For those hyperventilating about the hacked emails from Hillary's side, relax. Except for the two exposing DNC primary hypocrisy - resulting in the hurried resignation of Wasserman-Shultz and firing of Donna Brazile from CNN - there was little notice amongst the electorate. In fact, I'd guess they had absolutely no impact on the general election.

    I'd suggest a tightening of e-mail encryption and a couple of Xanax for the panic stricken.

    1. You are kidding me, right?

      All the Wikileaks drops about the campaign that rained down on the electorate from September on were directly tied to the Russian hack.

    2. EdNotes readers may, or may not, be interested in this from today's WaPO about the effect that the hack had on the election:

      "The Economist-YouGov poll, which has tracked partisan sentiment about WikiLeaks since 2013, now finds a majority of Republicans viewing the organization favorably. In the summer of 2013, WikiLeaks was viewed more negatively than positively by Republicans by a 47-point margin; Democrats, by a 3-point margin, also viewed it negatively. Now, Republicans view WikiLeaks favorably by a 27-point margin, a 74-point swing; Democrats have swung against it by just 25 points."

    3. I studied history where we heard one side until a prof who escaped from a Stalin death camp and was backed by the CIA shockingly had us read both the anti and defenders of Stalin. That's a teacher. Opened my eyes there were many sides and since i try to read all sides and from there try to discern some truth. It seems at times that you may have a dog in the race. That hillary was the right candidate. That dems didn't really fuck up. That Bernie option was a no go. Etc. I would say that the fact this election was close enough for Russia to steal it consider trump was opponent doesn't make dems, their candidate or their strategy look good.

    4. Harris L.

      Let's be honest. While it is true that there was a massive dump of thousands of generally mundane Wikileaks material prior to the general election, exit polling suggested it had essentially no effect on changing any minds of any general election voters. And no impact at all in the economically-motivated rustbelt. The only inflammatory issues exposed related to non-Hillary Democrat primary shenanigans.

      Your quote has nothing to do with any possible effects of the Wikileaks upon the general election. That is the weakness of this whole "Hillary lost because the Russians hacked democratic emails to convince voters to pick Trump" false narrative.

      Thankfully, the embarrassing Ms. Stein has given up on her quest to prove Russia hacked the machines to steal the election for Trump. One suspects this later argument, that Hillary lost because the Russians hacked democratic emails to convince voters to pick Trump, will dissolve in the same fact-less fashion.

    5. With all respect, I disagree with your assessment of Jill Stein.
      Because of her actions, the elections results were kept in the public eye. More people realize that Trump lost the popular vote. He has no "mandate".
      Why do you think the "Master of Distraction" criticized Stein?
      And blamed illegal votes for Clinton's higher count?
      And why is he running around on a "Thank You" tour?
      To shore up his shaky, technical victory.
      As an American, I respect your right to an opinion. I believe, though that she is a hero.

  2. Don't we all already know that the DNC and the RNC contain a bunch of conspiring, self-serving weasels? The hack just confirmed it on the DNC side. I certainly didn’t read about the DNC and Clinton emails and think that the republicans were saints who didn’t have something to hide as well. Many people neglected by the democrats and career politicians decided to vote for the outsider because he was smart enough to send them a message they wanted to hear and believe in. And some of us didn’t believe all his promises but still voted for him as a f*%k you to the democrats who have ignored us. The emails did not influence my vote. My “f*%k you” vote was already in place before the emails. The democrats lost because Hillary was their candidate. Had another candidate with a message to working Americans been nominated the outcome had a shot at being different. Hillary’s fate was sealed when her campaign decided to ignore the people who then cost her the election. The democrats did not have a strong message to the neglected Americans in OH, PA, MI, WI and other disenfranchised democratic leaning voters. Making noise about Russia stealing elections is not a winning message either. It seems democrats will try any message other than, “Dear working and job-seeking Americans, We screwed up! You hardworking Americans of all colors, creeds, genders and sexual identities--we have your back and here is what we will do to secure your financial well-being…” People do not care about Russia or what the FBI director says if they can’t find a good paying job and have no hope for their future. Roseanne McCosh

  3. The fact is Hillary still has 3 million more votes and lost these states by a relatively slim margin. In Michigan 90000 people had no candidate for pres. To say emails had no impact is senseless.
    To deny Putin had an interest in trump winning and wouldn't do anything to promote it if he could is a fantasy. But I still say that even if that was why trump won the fact he was even in the game and could win was a failure of the campaign. Watch how fast sanctions on Russia go away. I agree with Harris that Putin runs a monster state with assassination of opponents etc. but I can also see the left point of view that Ukraine was possibly a CIA right wing putch. Steve Cohen doesn't defend the domestic actions of Putin but shows how a paranoid Putin would respond to the attitude of the us trying to isolate Russia and trying to undermine him domestically as the us has tried to do to Russia since 1917. This is a very old story. Do we think Hitler didn't want Limburg to gain influence and use spies to promote him? This always goes on. The level of outrage is hypocrisy. There hasn't been a candidate as weak as Hillary to make this possible. The dems who attacked and mocked Bernie supporters are the most outraged because it exposes them.

  4. I don't know if Wikileaks release of former (Republican) Secretary of State Colin Powell's hacked emails (slamming Trump) during the campaign had an impact or not. There is simply no evidence for that. I could pretend that it did or hope that it did or blame it for Trump's loss in the popular vote but I have no evidence.
    I don't think that the emails helped or hurt one side or another to any great extent. The exit poll data (if you consider that evidence) supports that view.

    1. I think there was some effect - maybe a few points -- but maybe enough in Mi, Wi to tip. Fact is that the stuff was not heavy that they were releasing. But it was part of the decades long case that she was evil -- and I knpw people who really believe that -- and I see her as just another polititian.


Comments are welcome. Irrelevant and abusive comments will be deleted, as will all commercial links. Comment moderation is on, so if your comment does not appear it is because I have not been at my computer (I do not do cell phone moderating). Or because your comment is irrelevant or idiotic.