May I be so bold as to present some key, undisputed facts with regard to the kerfuffle over allegations – including some by the CIA – the Russian government hacked into the computers of the Democratic National Committee to find embarrassing emails in hopes of swaying the 2016 presidential election to Donald Trump?
- No one is alleging that the Russians hacked into election computers to change votes. Nevertheless, some of the hysterical rhetoric from Democrats seems determined to give that impression to their low-information voters.
- If the Russians did hack into the computers of the DNC, released documents embarrassing to Democrats and it impacted the election (something that could never be proved, of course) this would be exposing the truth of something the Democrats were trying to hide. Isn't more information always better than less for those earnestly trying to make the right decision on how to vote?
- Hasn't Russia since the Cold War days always used disinformation techniques to promote its interests and impact U.S. elections, American opinion, etc.? And, at the end of the day, isn't this simply another form of propaganda? Usually, propaganda is one-sided information or even flat-out lies that are used to sway opinion. In this case, it would appear the information supposedly disseminated was accurate and truthful, just kept secret by the Democrats. Again, Russia isn't being accused of changing votes through hacking of election systems. It is being accused to trying to persuade Americans by giving them accurate information they were previously denied.
- Why are Democrats and the press, in particular, suddenly so concerned about Russian involvement in propaganda and disinformation efforts? All through the 1980s, the last days of the Soviet Union, few Democrats and even fewer U.S. reporters and news organizations considered those Soviet efforts significant. Yet, back then, money was funneled in to the U.S to support a Communist Party within the U.S. – one that actively participated in the election process – and Democrats and the major news organizations didn't chime in with as much as a peep.
- Then there is the special matter of the New York Times – a newspaper that won a Pulitzer Prize in 1932 for Walter Duranty's reporting on the Soviet Union during Josef Stalin's reign of terror and mass murder. There's just one problem. Duranty wasn't so much as "reporting" on what was happening as he was writing propaganda reports on behalf of Stalin, covering up his crimes against humanity. The New York Times has never even as much as turned in its Pulitzer Prize since this abominable disgrace. Yet that was a propaganda effort that had a much bigger impact on elections and American policy than anything that happened in 2016.
- America hacks other nations for its own purposes. It spies on other nations to guard its interests. All nations do.
- America interferes in the election processes of other nations, perhaps not in such an indirect way as alleged against Russia, but in a much more meaningful and direct way. Take, for example, elections in Israel during Barack Obama's last eight years. The U.S. funded on-the-ground efforts to support Labor Party policies and candidates, to attack Benjamin Netanyahu in particular and sent Democratic Party operatives and consultants in to take sides in those foreign elections.
- Let's say a congressional investigation determines Russia really did hack the DNC and turn over emails to WikiLeaks. What is the U.S. going to do about it – especially in light of all I have just documented?
- Nearly 35 years ago, President Reagan was taking action that would, within less than a decade, result in the end of the Cold War, the implosion of the Soviet Union and a victory by the West over Communist totalitarianism. With the approval of British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, the U.S. deployed American missiles in England to defend Western Europe from the threat of Soviet attack. Many in the U.S. and Europe were appalled with the risk. Yet, one elected U.S. official went so far as to approach secretly the Soviet leadership for help in elevating his own political leadership to the detriment of his president. That would be Democratic Sen. Ted Kennedy who committed what would in other similar circumstances be considered treasonous behavior by dispatching Sen. John Tunney, D-Calif., to seek face-to-face meetings between Kennedy and hard-line General Secretary Yuri Andropov that Kennedy would use to urge the Russians to, in his own words, "take extra steps to counteract the militaristic policies of Ronald Reagan." What did the U.S. media and the Democratic Party have to say about that? In fact, what did the CIA do about it?
Do you see why this whole imbroglio over Russian hacks is of less concern to me than what the hacks in the Democratic Party and establishment U.S. media are doing with it?
Advertisement - story continues below
Media wishing to interview Joseph Farah, please contact [email protected].