Category Archives: Foreign Policy

In The Midst of the Drivel: Trump, Russia, and Our NATO Allies

I need to mark this date on the calendar.  I’m grateful to Max Boot, the same Max Boot whose foreign policy opinions generally drive me down the short road to distraction.  However, credit where it is due — he paid attention to a portion of Trump’s rambling campaign speech in Pensacola which offers more illumination on this administration’s dubious foreign policy.   The ‘almost missed point’ comes about 20 minutes into the ramblings:

“Donald Trump’s performance at NATO was unacceptable.”  Ya know why they said that? I told the people of NATO while they were standing right behind me, they’ve been delinquent. They haven’t been paying, I said ya gotta pay! And now they’ve taken in, because of that, and I guess I implied, if you don’t pay we’re outta there, and took more heat from the press.  They said Donald Trump was rude to our allies. Well they’re rude to us when they don’t pay! Right? They’re rude to us.  So, we’ll have a nation that doesn’t pay then their nation gets frisky with whoever. Russia?  So we have a nation doesn’t pay, the nation gets aggressive, we end up in World War III for someone who doesn’t even pay. “

The context is generally, and rather loosely, a rant about “global bureaucrats,” the US foreign policy establishment, and how members of the audience should perceive Trump’s performance as a triumph of ordinary people against the Great Machine,  as the Ordinary Man is exemplified by one Donald J. Trump.

There is another context, one highlighted by Natasha Bertrand who caught the topic as it fits into the Steele Memos.  The core of the matter is here:

“The reason for using Wikileaks was ‘plausible deniability” and the operation had been conducted  with full support from TRUMP and senior members of his campaign team. In return the TRUMP team had agreed to sideline Russian intervention in Ukraine as a campaign issue and to raise US/NATO defense commitments in the Baltics and Eastern Europe to deflect attention away from Ukraine, a priority for PUTIN who needed to cauterize the subject.”

So, we have the President in Pensacola,  offering up a stump style recitation of his presidential accomplishments, bragging that he has directly criticized NATO leadership and questioned their contributions to mutual defense, while rationalizing American  reluctance to assist Baltic and Eastern European nations (read: Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania) if they “get frisky.”  With whom? The President answered his own question: Russia.

Now, why would the Baltic countries be getting “frisky” with the Russian Bear?  Step back to May 2015 and the earlier Latgale Proclamation.  Latgale is the easternmost region of Latvia, with a large Russian minority.  Officials in that nation took acute notice when in late January 2015 a website appeared boasting of the creation of the People’s Republic of Latgale.  The Los Angeles Times reported:

“Until the furtive creators of the website declared independence on behalf of the country’s Russian-speaking eastern enclave, authorities here had dismissed the threat of aggression by Moscow as all but unthinkable, thanks to the collective security shield wielded by a member of NATO.  But that first online hint of pro-Russia insurrection spurred an investigation that has identified the perpetrators, Latvian Interior Minister Rihards Kozlovskis said. He declined to name the suspects or say whether anyone has been arrested, disclosing only that “a criminal process has been started.”

And the connection between Ukraine and Latvia was readily apparent to Latvian officials:

“The Latgale proclamation, which journalists and others with intelligence connections say has been traced to provocateurs in Russia, continues to unsettle Latvians and their neighbors in Lithuania and Estonia for its similarity to acts of rebellion in Ukraine a year ago that have escalated into vicious warfare and more than 6,000 deaths.”

It was NOT the Latvians who were getting “frisky,” it was Russia promoting dissident elements in the Baltic nations, perhaps seeking to replicate their actions in Crimea and eastern Ukraine.   Further, the Estonians and Lithuanians were alarmed when Russia sent 2,500 troops to the Estonian and Lithuanian borders in July 2017.

“Concern about a possible war in the Baltics is high, with majorities in Lithuania and Latvia naming armed conflict as a prime concern and all three fearing the likelihood of war more than that of extremist attacks, according to various polls. Russia has formally denied it would ever attack a member of NATO, which all three nations of the Baltics are.

But the promises of Moscow diplomats have done little to assuage worries in the former Soviet Union states, largely because of Russia’s interpretation of events in Ukraine. Russia initially insisted its troops were not participants in the Crimean annexation and continues to deny that it has a military presence in eastern Ukraine.” [Newsweek]

Again, the example of Russia action in Ukraine, is cited as a reason for Baltic insecurity NOT as an element of Baltic aggression against the Russians.  Or, “friski-ness” as the President might characterize it.   Nor is there anything subtle about Russian intentions in Europe:

“Putin has made clear his national security goals. He wants a sphere of influence in the post-Soviet space; a new security architecture in Europe and Eurasia; and a weakened and divided NATO and EU, so that he can expand Russian influence into Europe.”  [Newsweek 7/16]

It appears that in addition to assisting Putin “cauterize” the open wounds in Ukraine, and continuing to deflect discussions regarding NATO operations into debates about who owes what to whom, the President continues to hold up his end of his bargain with the devil in the Kremlin.

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Foreign Policy, Politics

FYI: State Department Vacancies with no nominations

No, the State Department is not “moving right along.”  The Foreign Service tracking system shows the following vacancies for which there are no current nominees as of December 4, 2017:

Argentina
ASEAN
Australis
Austria
Belarus
Belgium
Belize
Bolivia
DR Congo
Cote d’Ivoire
Cuba
Egypt
Eritrea
European Union
Honduras
Hungary
Iceland
Ireland
Jamaica
Jordan
Mongolia
OECD
OSCE
Saudi Arabia
Somalia
South Africa
South Korea
Sudan
Sweden
Syria
Tajikistan
Tanzania
Trinidad and Tobago
Turkey
United Arab Emirates
UN Deputy Representative
UN Human Rights Council
UN Management & Reform
UN Rome
UN Vienna
UNESCO
Venezuela

1 Comment

Filed under Foreign Policy, Politics

Whatever Happened to HR 3364? The Amazing Disappearance of the Russian Sanctions Law

On July 25, 2017 members of the House of Representatives voted 419-3 to pass the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act; and on July 27, 2017 the Senate voted to pass it 98-2.  [HR 3364]  This is about as close to “veto proof” as any bill is likely to get.  The President* signed it on August 2, 2017.  [Hill]  Thus, HR 3364 became PL 115-44.

“Per the legislation, the administration was required to issue guidance by October 1 on how it was implementing the sanctions against Russia. That process includes publishing a list of the people and organizations who will be targeted by the sanctions, which are primarily aimed at Russia’s defense and intelligence sectors.” [TDB]

Yes, it’s now October 25, 2017 and what have we heard about those published lists of people and organizations targeted for (among other things) cyber attacks on our election systems and democratic institutions?

About all that’s come from the Oval Office is “we’re working on it,” at the Treasury Department, State Department, and Director of National Intelligence…but that October 1 deadline is in the rear view mirror and members of Congress aren’t getting any answers.  Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) did the ‘aw shucks’ reaction last Sunday:

“The Trump administration is slow when it comes to Russia. They have a blind spot on Russia I still can’t figure out,” Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said Sunday on NBC’s Meet the Press. When asked what Congress could do to force the administration to act, Graham was vague, saying only: “The Congress will have a way to hold the president accountable.”  [TDB]

Perhaps the South Carolina Senator can’t figure it out, but it’s getting ever more obvious the President* is singularly unwilling to address anything even remotely critical of Russia and its klepto-dictator Putin. [see also VF]  A person might even think PL 115-44 has been sent to Siberia? That “blind spot” doesn’t seem to be going away any time soon. [MSNBC]

However, there is some evidence the administration is aware of the requirements of the sanctions bill, there simply isn’t a sensation of alacrity or urgency?

“Several recent actions suggest that the Trump administration is aware of the bill’s sectoral sanctions requirements. For example, on September 29, President Trump issued a presidential memorandum delegating “to the Secretary of State, in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury, the functions and authorities vested in the President by” Section 231. Additionally, the administration has complied with other 60 day sectoral sanctions-related deadlines. For example, Sections 222 and 223 effectively codified and intensified pre-existing sectoral sanctions that had been imposed under Executive Order 13662. The government made the modifications that Section 223 required be done within 60 days on September 29. Moreover, although President Trump’s signing statement included a number of constitutional objections to specific provisions of the bill (including Section 222), Section 231 is not among them.”  [Lawfare]

There’s no great urgency demonstrated when a bill is signed on August 2, 2017 and the initial instructions don’t go out to the departments until September 29, 2017.  Section 231 (Russia) isn’t all that complicated, and more could certainly have been done to implement the provisions.

It isn’t often that every member of the Nevada congressional delegation votes in unity on any major piece of legislation, and it seems a shame that the President* hasn’t seen fit to move on this topic of important national interest.  Unlike the South Carolina Senator, I think we can guess why little action is taking place concerning Section 231.

Comments Off on Whatever Happened to HR 3364? The Amazing Disappearance of the Russian Sanctions Law

Filed under Foreign Policy, Heller, Lindsey Graham, Nevada politics, Politics

Thank You Senator Corker

Hmm, never thought I’d begin a post on a liberal blog with “Thank you, Senator Corker.” But, here it is.  The Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee issued his now famous Tweet about properly staffing the Pennsylvania Adult Day Care Center, and followed up with a serious conversation including:

“The senator, who is close to Mr. Tillerson, invoked comments that the president made on Twitter last weekend in which he appeared to undercut Mr. Tillerson’s negotiations with North Korea.

“A lot of people think that there is some kind of ‘good cop, bad cop’ act underway, but that’s just not true,” Mr. Corker said.

Without offering specifics, he said Mr. Trump had repeatedly undermined diplomacy with his Twitter fingers. “I know he has hurt, in several instances, he’s hurt us as it relates to negotiations that were underway by tweeting things out,” Mr. Corker said.”

Simply airing these views is an act of civic responsibility, and if the Senator’s comments are accurate then there are more Republican Senators who hold these views; it would behoove them to chime in, even if only on the last few lines of the chorus.  We can imagine why we’ve not heard more voices.

The Republicans may now be victims of their own gerrymandered monster.  Those who break with the President may feel at risk of facing primary challengers.  However, a president with a 32% approval rating is not necessarily a creature to be feared.   That said, there are states in which the local politics could require senatorial and congressional candidates to pose close to the president, or at least could encourage it. Senators should recall that a Trump endorsement doesn’t insure election — ask Luther Strange in Alabama.

Senator Dean Heller (R-NV) has drawn a challenger who is (thus far) playing unabashed sycophant in the Trump parade, perpetual candidate for almost anything Danny Tarkanian.  (See also: Nevada Independent)

“I have so many people that are contacting me over the past couple months saying ‘you gotta run against Dean Heller,’ ” Tarkanian said. “They understand, as I do, that we’re never going to make America great again unless we have senators in office that fully support President Trump and his America first agenda.”

There are a few problems with that agenda.  If America first means America alone, then the President’s doing a fine job of that.  Right off the bat members of NATO got the message that Trump didn’t think all that much of Article 5, at least not enough to even mention it during a meeting concerning that important mutual defense clause.  Paris Accords — not even a treaty, but a mutual decision to follow voluntary self imposed guidance on climate change mitigation — and the US backs out.  When the President said he wouldn’t mind renegotiating the agreement the rest of the world’s nations said, thank you but NO we’re not interested.

We’re now in Round 4 of talks to renegotiate the NAFTA and the US Chamber of Commerce isn’t pleased with the administration’s demands, which border on protectionism (if they don’t ramble right into it).  As of two days ago the administration appeared poised to insert “deal breaking demands” into the bargaining process, some of which would seriously upset supply chains for the auto industry.  While there are certainly NAFTA provisions which might be improved, the current administration has proposed items which sound very much like the TPP provisions Trump opposed when he pulled the US out of those talks. [WaPo]

And then there’s North Korea.  While the remnants of the State Department (there are still a massive number of unfilled positions, many of which have NO nominees) try to tackle this problem, the President issues saber rattling tweets and undercuts his own Secretary of State.  [NPR]  It isn’t the least bit reassuring to hear informed comments like this when discussing the delicate and significant relations with the North Koreans:

“Without political appointments in place, governments in Asia and around the world are canvassing the Trump administration, trying to open lines to various advisors in the White House. And they’re getting mixed messages that are often hard to sort out.”

Oh, but wait there’s even more.  In addition to leaving our allies scrambling around at least since last August trying to find definitive answers to a chaotic foreign policy, they may also question whether our word means much of anything.  We need to recall that whatever Trump says, there are 6 nations involved in the Iran nuclear development containment deal and two of them aren’t happy: the Iranians and the Russians.  The Chinese government went on record in late September in support of the containment plan treaty, and three days ago the United Kingdom made its position clear in a medium Trump would understand (Twitter) “The Iran Deal is Working.”  The French foreign minister made a longer, but similar comment:

“It’s essential to maintain it to prevent a spiral of proliferation that would encourage hardliners in Iran to pursue nuclear weapons,” the minister told journalists in New York on the sidelines of this week’s UN general assembly.

French President Macron has also made his support for the agreement clear.  The German government has stated its support for a continuation of the agreement.   The P5+1 that signed the treaty could end up being the Chinese, French, Germans, Russians, and British vs. the US.  America “first” literally becoming America alone.

Senator Corker has a reputation for speaking carefully — all the more reason to listen to his warning.

Comments Off on Thank You Senator Corker

Filed under Economy, Foreign Policy, Heller, Iran, NAFTA, Nevada politics, Politics, Tarkanian

This Isn’t Normal And We Can’t Let It Be

In 1830 the United States had a total population of 12,806,702 spread among 24 states. New York City was our largest urban area with 202,589 people, Baltimore was second with 80,620. [Cen]  There was nothing about the American economy, which lurched from crisis to crisis during the 1830s, that would cause European powers to see the US as a power player:

“During this time, English traders could not collect on their sales in America, and many of them went bankrupt. Cotton mills closed in England, and American planters saw their markets disappear. By the summer of 1837, business was paralyzed, and it was not until the early 1840s that a semblance of confidence in business was restored.” [RU.edu]

We’re not, obviously, in the same category as we were 180 years ago, but we aren’t on the trajectory we were following a matter of months ago.   This, for Americans, isn’t normal.  Out of the economic and social debris of the American Civil War came an industrial nation,  fully prepared to compete with European nations, far ahead of some nations in terms of industrialization, financial markets (not that we were free from speculation and its results), and growing into importance as a world leader.  After booms and busts, periods of isolationism and nativism, and two world wars the US emerged as a super-power.  By 1953 President Dwight Eisenhower could say,”Whatever America hopes to bring to pass in the world must first come to pass in the heart of America.” [NA]

Former General Eisenhower had another line which should resonate with us today: “Now I think, speaking roughly, by leadership we mean the art of getting someone else to do something that you want done because he wants to do it, not because your position of power can compel him to do it, or your position of authority.”  [NA]

A Quick Review 

Other presidents following in this tradition sought to use American leadership in this manner.  President Kennedy’s foreign policy problems were legion, but he did manage to take a step towards arms control in the Limited Test Ban Treaty.  Lyndon Johnson’s presidency is associated with the Vietnam War, however during his tenure the US negotiated the Outer Space Treaty with the Soviet Union and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.  President Nixon followed through with the SALT talks and the ABM Treaty.  President Gerald Ford signed the Helsinki Accords.  President Carter is remembered for the Camp David Accords. President Reagan changed the SALT formula to the START format: Strategic Arms Reduction Talks, and the tension evident in 1983 ended with Reagan’s trip to Moscow toward the end of his term in office. President George H.W. Bush managed to steer a steady course when relations with China threatened to implode over Chinese reactions to popular demonstrations, and his careful commentary in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet-era regime in Germany is said to have mitigated the reaction of hardliners in Eastern Europe.  President Bill Clinton pursued what he called his Policy of Enlargement, i.e. a policy based on promoting democracy and human rights abroad.  President George Bush’s foray into Iraq has encumbered the US with several foreign policy challenges, as did Clinton’s failure to deal assertively with Rwanda, however it would be remiss to omit Bush’s initiatives to deal with global HIV/AIDS programs and treatment.  The presidency of Barack Obama included negotiations concerning climate change (Paris Accords) and the limitations on the Iranian weapons program.

However mixed the policies and results of American world leadership since the Eisenhower Administration one aspect has remained fairly constant.  Every president has sought to get someone else to do what we want because they want to do it.  This was normal American foreign policy.  Until now.

America First America Alone

The first speech was a clear signal:

“President Trump’s speech Friday will go down as one of the shorter inaugural addresses, but it will also be remembered for its populist and often dark tone.“From this day forward,” Trump said at one point, “it’s going to be only America first. America first.” Trump appears to have first used the phrase last March in an interview with The New York Times when he denied he was an isolationist. “I’m not isolationist, but I am ‘America First,’” he said. “So I like the expression. I’m ‘America First.’” [Atlantic]

He appears to understand the dark origins of the America First movement, but adds a transactional element to the implied isolationism:

“Not isolationist, but I am America First,” he said. “I like the expression.” He said he was willing to reconsider traditional American alliances if partners were not willing to pay, in cash or troop commitments, for the presence of American forces around the world. “We will not be ripped off anymore,” he said.”[NYT]

He may like the expression, but it is irrevocably associated with the infamous Lindbergh Speech delivered on September 11, 1941:

“The three most important groups who have been pressing this country toward war are the British, the Jewish and the Roosevelt administration.  Behind these groups, but of lesser importance, are a number of capitalists, Anglophiles, and intellectuals who believe that the future of mankind depends upon the domination of the British empire. Add to these the Communistic groups who were opposed to intervention until a few weeks ago, and I believe I have named the major war agitators in this country.”

Putting America First, Lindbergh rushed past the fact that the British were  blitzed in the Summer and Fall of 1940, and the Jews were the subject of Nazi genocide.  His rationale was that neither the British nor the Jews were “American” and therefore they were promoting their interests at the expense of American interests.  At the time Lindbergh delivered his speech in Des Moines the British weren’t fighting for their empire — they were fighting for their existence; and, the Jews were fighting for their lives.  Given this context, the expression “America First” should have been assigned to the great trash heap of really bad phrases, however in Trumpian terms it’s a banner to be waved in front of our adversaries, and unfortunately our allies as well.  This isn’t normal.

Normal recognizes that Article 5 of the NATO Treaty states an attack on one ally means an attack on all — no strings, no demands for payment, no second guessing — as when it was invoked after September 11, 2001 on behalf of the United States.  It is not normal to address a gathering of NATO allies and delete a reference to the article.

Normal recognizes that voluntary accords such as the Paris Climate Agreement aren’t binding, but do express the aspirations of the global community toward adopting policies and practices which do not impinge on the health of our shared planet.  It is not normal to unilaterally discard an agreement most of the changes to which (from the Kyoto version) were made at American insistence.

Normal recognizes that the deployment of U.S. forces around the world is a deterrent to adventurism and the disruption of financial and commercial functions in the global domain.  It is not normal to view these expenses as being “ripped off” by other nations.  It is truly beyond normal to decry these expenses and then advocate for a $700 billion increase in the U.S. military budget.

Normal recognizes that not everyone gets exactly what is wanted from any international agreement, but that small steps can often lead to greater improvements.  The SALT talks begat the START talks and the START talks begat a nuclear non-proliferation treaty.  It is not normal to demand that the treaty with Iran contain precisely what the American government wants when it wants it — without securing international agreement as to the terms of the specific treaty.

Normal recognizes that it is necessary for a nation to be perceived as cooperative and willing to be held to one’s word.  It is not normal to have allies questioning whether or not the U.S. will sustain its support for NATO, cooperate with global initiatives on trade, health, and climate change, and keep its word concerning threats to global peace.

Normal recognizes that the foreign policy of other nations, such as Russia, is not in alignment with American interests.  Normal recognizes that the creation of a “Russian Century” is not in the best interest of the United States.  It is not normal to have an American president deny or try to minimize the significance of a Russian assault on American democratic practices and institutions.   It is not normal to have an American president omit reference to what is occurring in the Crimea, in Ukraine, and along the borders of western Europe.

The United States of America cannot allow the abnormal to become the new normal.

Comments Off on This Isn’t Normal And We Can’t Let It Be

Filed under Defense spending, energy policy, Foreign Policy, Politics

Who Is Supposed To Watch The Henhouse?

Let’s assume for the moment that while we may not yet know the full extent of Russian efforts to attack our election systems and voter rolls, we do know that they did so and will make future efforts to repeat their invasions based on what they have learned from 2016.  If this proposition seems reasonable, then the actions of the current administration are almost incomprehensible.

We have the official announcement that Chris Painter will leave the US State Department’s office of cyber issues at the end of this month. [TheHill]   Why the coordinator for US cyber issue policy would be leaving isn’t clear, but what is worthy of note is that Secretary of State Tillerson says staffing is a matter of “leaning in” and that the Cyber Security unit of the Department of State was organized by Secretary Clinton in 2011 to organize disparate parts of the department which dealt with cyber crime, cyber-security, internet freedom, and the protection of dissidents’ digital security. [NextGov]  One possible conclusion is that Tillerson is further truncating an already compressed organizational chart.

There are at least 50 reasons why more, not less, departments of the US government should be gearing up (not down) before the next round of elections: Alabama…Wyoming.

In September 2016 ABC News reported that Russian hackers targeted nearly half the US state voter registration systems and were successful in infiltrating four of them.  By that time 18 states had reached out to DHS Secretary Jeh Johnson for assistance with cyber-security.  As of June 2017 reports were published saying that there may have been as many as 39 breaches of state cyber security in regard to voter rolls and/or election systems. [VF] The hackers may have targeted swing states, and voter registration officials.

This onslaught would seem to support the idea that MORE needs to be done by the US Department of State, the Department of Justice, and the Department of Homeland Security (as well as the Election Assistance Commission) to help states prevent future hacks and assaults on our elections.  At this point the obvious clashes with the ideological.

There is baked into Republican ideology the notion that more can always be done with less.  The central concept appears to be that offices are filled to the transoms with unnecessary employees doing unimportant jobs.  However, consider the manpower needed to assist 50 states with 50 disparate voting systems from attacks by foreign powers intent upon doing everything from malicious mischief to outright fraud.  We might well ask not only who’s watching the hen house, but who’s even available to answer the phones?

The irony of the current situation lies in the 2016 Republican Platform which made some important promises:

“The platform highlights the recent passage of cybersecurity information sharing legislation and calls for a U.S. response to national state attacks that would include “diplomatic, financial and legal pain, curtailing visas for guilty parties, freezing their assets, and pursuing criminal actions against them.” It also calls for the U.S. to take an offensive strategy against cybersecurity attacks “to avoid the cyber equivalent of Pearl Harbor.” Supply chain issues, cyber workforce, cyber insurance, and the right to “self-defense” against cyber attackers were also included in the platform.”

Indeed, we’ve had the cyber equivalent of Pearl Harbor, but all we’ve heard from the current Republican administration is the disparagement of investigations of Russian interference as a Witch Hunt and Hoax, the suggestion that it would be “nice” if we had better relations with the Russians, talks about returning the Russian spy compounds in New York and Maryland, and now the Department of State will be operating without a coordinator for cyber-security.

What Americans should be advocating are:

  1. Full and adequate funding for the Election Assistance Commission, the only agency specifically tasked with testing and certifying election equipment in our elections.
  2. Adequate staffing and funding for cyber-security activities in the Department of Homeland Security, the Department of State, the Department of Defense, and the Department of Justice.
  3. Prioritization of cyber-security efforts to prevent attacks on our election systems by agents of foreign powers or the foreign powers themselves, as demonstrated by a nationwide effort to coordinate with all the election jurisdictions in this country to assist them in countering cyber assaults.

What happened in 2016 was a serious attack, a “Pearl Harbor” in GOP parlance, and the American public deserves to have this issue taken seriously.

Comments Off on Who Is Supposed To Watch The Henhouse?

Filed under Foreign Policy, Politics

She Did It She Did It…well maybe sort of

One of these days the Fox News logo will be a shiny pretzel.  Not to be out-speculated by US broadcasts concerning the results of Donald Jr.’s June meeting with Russian emissaries, Fox News has cooked up a brew the ingredients of which require a long boil before the mass comes together…

This whole Moscow Mess shows that Hillary Clinton maybe, could have, might have, perhaps was associated with, could be considered to be cooperating, colluding, conspiring, with the opponents of the Magnitsky Act… because (now grip the rope on your logical thinking skills firmly) —

Secretary Clinton expressed the initial Obama Administration’s objections to the Magnitsky Act in 2010.  The administration argued that the State Department was already denying visas to those Russians who were implicated in Magnitsky’s death, also of interest to the administration in 2010 were Russian cooperation to keep supply lines to Afghanistan open, to negotiate with the Iranians concerning their nuclear program, and to deal with the Syrian Civil War. [NewYorker]

However, to the Residents of the Fox News Bubble Zone this translates to a flat statement of “Clinton opposed the Magnitsky Act.”  Now comes the Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc portion of our program.   “Her initial opposition coincided with a $500,000 speech her husband gave…”  Yes a few weeks later Bill Clinton gave a speech at the Renaissance Capital annual investment conference.  No connection is demonstrated — it’s all in the timing, as in post hoc ergo propter hoc line of illogical thinking.

From the perspective of the Republican apologists we have to “fast forward” to 2016 when the Clinton campaign email (hacked and stolen) said: “With the help of the research team, we killed a Bloomberg story trying to link HRC’s opposition to the Magnitsky bill a $500,000 speech that WJC gave in Moscow.”  There are a couple of things to note about the use of this statement which illustrate the problems with Fox reportage.

First, if one doesn’t put much thought into the process, the image is created that there was a connection (between Secretary Clinton’s opposition to the act and the payment of former President Clinton’s speaking fees) and that the “killing” of a story implies something nefarious about this.  Remember, the Secretary’s opposition was tied to Obama administration policy regarding dealing with the Russians in 2010.

Secondly,  the image requires a person to ignore the initial clause in the e-mail, “with the help of the research team.”  It’s not too hard to spike a story if the publisher is assured that the report is a collection of idle speculation infused with inaccurate information.  Note as well that the pilfered e-mail stated the proposed Bloomberg piece was “trying” to link the Secretary’s opposition to the Magnitsky Act to her husband’s speaking fees — not that the report succeeded in making such a connection.  If the research shows no connection, there’s no story.  Little wonder the story got the spike.

And how did Fox News get the e-mail concerning how research submitted to Bloomberg News caused the latter to put the story in the bin?  It came compliments of the unfriendly hackers.  There’s no small amount of irony in having the Trump Apologist Network utilize the same stolen e-mail the Trump’s themselves may have encouraged?  To make this connection we need to wait for the conclusions of two Congressional intelligence committees, and the Special Counsel’s investigation.

Comments Off on She Did It She Did It…well maybe sort of

Filed under Foreign Policy, media, Politics