Mike Whitney: US Democrats’ anti-Russian rhetoric causing serious damage to Party
Added: (Tue Dec 27 2016)
Pressbox (Press Release) -
The US Democratic Party is doing incalculable damage to itself by shape-shifting into the party of baseless conspiracy theories, groundless accusations, and sour grapes, says the article by American analyst from Washington Mike Whitney entitled “The Democrats ‘Russia Hacking’ Campaign is Political Suicide” published in several foreign media.
According to the author, Hillary Clinton was the most distrusted presidential candidate in party history.
“The vast majority of Americans do not want to align themselves with a party of buck-passing juveniles that have no vision for the future but want to devote all their energy to kooky witch-hunts that further prove they are unfit for high office,” he believes.
“The reason Hillary Clinton lost the election is because she is a polarizing, untrustworthy warmonger. Period. [Vladimir] Putin had nothing to do with it,” the expert stresses.
However, in his opinion, many of the US major media have attached themselves “leech-like to this pathetic fairytale,” and one of these media is the New York Times.
“American intelligence agencies have told the White House they have ‘high confidence’ that the Russian government was behind the theft of emails and documents from the Democratic National Committee. […] The attack on the congressional committee’s system appears to have come from an entity known as Fancy Bear, which is connected to the GRU, the Russian military intelligence service […] Clinton campaign officials have suggested that President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia could be trying to tilt the election to Mr. Trump, who has expressed admiration for the Russian leader,” Mike Whitney cites an article published by New York Times.
Meanwhile, he pays particular attention to the fact that readers have to delve much deeper into the article to find this shocking disclaimer.
“But the campaign officials acknowledge that they have no evidence. The Trump campaign has dismissed the accusations about Russia as a deliberate distraction,” the expert quotes an extract from the article.
From his point of view, such journalistic materials have no sufficient evidence and cannot be credible.
“All they have is a few anonymous agents who refuse to identify themselves speculating on alleged hacking incidents […] But, of course, all this bunkum about ‘Fancy Bear’ and ‘Russian military intelligence’ and the ‘high confidence’ of unnamed US intelligence agents is enough to scare the hell out of many readers and leave them with the impression that the Kremlin is up to its old Cold War tricks again,” the analyst says.
According to him, the New York Times editors know that it’s quite easy to tap into 40-years of anti-Soviet brainwashing and convince the gullible sheeple that Washington and Moscow are still mortal enemies.
“It would have been helpful if the [New York] Times had given the story a bit of context, that is, pointed out that the US has relentlessly expanded NATO eastward establishing military bases in all of the former Soviet satellite states, toppled the Moscow-friendly regime in Ukraine, and built nuclear weapons sites in east Europe just a few hundred miles from Moscow. The Times writers might have also noted that this latest propaganda campaign against Russia could very well be the result of Moscow’s triumph over US-backed militants in Syria that are facing a decisive defeat due in large part to Russian involvement,” Mike Whitney says.
According to him, the New York Times and the other US propaganda organs are functioning whipping up public sentiment against the “evildoers” so Washington can drag the country into another imperial war of expansion.
“The whole “hacking” mantra fits perfectly with the Pentagon’s hybrid war strategy which manipulates information in order to shape public perceptions and gain support for another round of genocidal violence in some far-flung location,” the expert believes.
In his opinion, Hillary Clinton “would be on-board with such a plan” as she “never met a war she didn’t like.”
“But let’s cut to the chase: [Vladimir] Putin didn’t lose the election for Hillary [Clinton]. [Barack] Obama did. People wanted change, and they didn’t get it, so they moved on to Door Number 2: Donald Trump,” the analyst stresses.
From his point of view, the Democrats lost ground all over the country because Barack Obama didn’t deliver the goods.
“Overall, Democrats experienced widespread erosion in support from 2008 to 2016. Their share of the vote fell in 196 of the 221 metropolitan areas examined. The loss in support was sufficiently large to move 37 areas from the Democratic column to the Republican column […] Democrats also were more likely to have lost ground in manufacturing-dependent areas. Of the 56 communities with a relatively large share of manufacturing jobs, Trump picked up victories in 15 metro areas that had supported Obama in 2008 and held onto another 29, leaving only 12 communities in the Democrats’ column,” the expert reminds, referring to the Pew Research study.
In his opinion, the other reason for Democrats’ loss in support is the fact that Hillary Clinton didn’t address the issues that ordinary working people really care about, that is money, security and jobs.
“People are afraid because things are getting worse not better. Their standards of living are slipping, they’re worried about their retirement, their jobs, their health care, and the pile of debt their kids have accumulated to go to college. They’ve lost confidence in the media, the congress, the courts and the president who promised change but never lifted a finger for working people his entire time in office. […] The Democrats have no vision for the future, and without vision, the party will disintegrate which is precisely what’s happening. The Democratic Party is disintegrating before our very eyes. This latest ‘Russian hacking’ diversion is just speeding along the process,” Mike Whitney believes.