General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSlate - important - "Obama Did What He Had to Do". (Read and let's discuss)
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/06/obama_s_response_to_russian_interference_he_did_his_job.htmlHis cautious response to Russian interference protected our democracy.
By William Saletan
Did President Obama blow the 2016 election? Should he have spoken up sooner and louder about Russias interference? Thats what many Democrats are wondering, particularly after reading the Washington Posts latest investigative report on Obamas reticent response to the Russian attack. A former official tells the Post that after the election, Obamas aides, mortified by Donald Trumps victory, thought to themselves: Wow, did we mishandle this.
Theres plenty to second-guess in Obamas management of this episode. But the idea that he failed because Trump won is wrong. Obamas job wasnt to prevent the election of a particular person, even one as awful as Trump. Obamas job was to preserve the country. That meant protecting the integrity of our elections and public faith in them, which he did, to the extent possible after Russia had already hacked into the Democratic National Committee and spread misinformation. The next taskexposing the full extent of Russias interference, punishing it, and deterring future attacksis up to Trump. If he fails, the responsibility to hold him accountable falls to Congress. And if Congress fails, the job of electing a new, more patriotic legislature falls to voters.
According to the U.S. intelligence communitys Jan. 6 assessment, Vladimir Putins long-term goal in directing the interference campaign was to undermine public faith in the US democratic process. Obama responded accordingly. We set out from a first-order principle that required us to defend the integrity of the vote, Obamas former chief of staff, Denis McDonough, told the Post. Russias hacks and leaks were bad, but corruption of voter rolls and election tallies would be far worse. So the Obama administration focused on alerting state officials, fortifying cyberdefenses, and privately threatening Russia with retaliation.
Why didnt Obama raise public alarms about Russian infiltration? Because that might have backfired. Trump was predicting that the election would be rigged, says the Post. Obama officials feared providing fuel to such claims, playing into Russias efforts to discredit the outcome. According to the paper, Obama and his team worried that any action they took would be perceived as political interference in an already volatile campaign. Rather than speak up when the CIA first warned him about Putins moves, Obama waited for a high-confidence assessment from U.S. intelligence agencies on Russias role and intent. He asked congressional Republicans to join him in cautioning citizens and state election officials. You can argue that this was politically naïve. But Obama wasnt playing politics. He was trying to unite the country.
snip - read it all!
Persisted
(290 posts)leftstreet
(36,117 posts)And he expected congressional GOPers to do the right thing?
Uh, no.
He knew better, and I don't think naive is going to cut it
It's really tragic all around
Not Ruth
(3,613 posts)delisen
(6,046 posts)about an attack upon our democratic republic means the citizenry does not have the information needed to protect ourselves and defend the constitution.
The government is not our babysitter. Citizens in a Democratic Republic are not subjects.
The powerlessness so many of us feel come from not knowing the facts.
Warnings and other information going to the state officials needed to also be delivered to us- in a formal and serious manner, similar to JFK's address to the public about the USSR missiles in Cuba.
unblock
(52,387 posts)I want my family to feel safe and secure in their house, but if I see termites damaging structural beams, I'm not gonna say sleep tight and not do anything out of fear of upsetting them.
The question is did Obama do all he could behind the scenes? And whole it have played out differently had he made more of a public stink about it?
I don't know the answer to those questions.
delisen
(6,046 posts)uppityperson
(115,681 posts)oxbow
(2,034 posts)It is a fool's errand for anybody to act based on what the GOP might do. They will lie about and politicize anything the dems do. The only sane path is to do the right thing, regardless of how GOP will act.
O tried to appease them for 8 years and they ended up taking control of all branches of government as a result. It is clear that this approach did not work. If the country is under attack the president has a duty to protect the people by alerting them in no uncertain terms to the true nature of the threat.
I resent them for withholding this information because they thought Clinton would win. They withheld vital info because they thought they knew what's best for us and now we know for sure they are wrong.
GeorgeGist
(25,324 posts)the severity of the situation.
And no laurels for deferring to Mitch McConnell.
kerry-is-my-prez
(8,133 posts)sharedvalues
(6,916 posts)Obama could have had his cake and ate it too. He didn't go live with the Russia news because he was afraid of the conservative media. Obama knew that Fox, radio, Breitbart, etc. could gin up a false narrative around Russia. So he decided not to say anything.
The problem was and is the conservative media, and how effective the GOP is at manipulating the for-profit infotainment media.
But. Obama could have done something about Fox. In 2009 Obama's white house wanted to call Fox what it is - Propaganda. And Obama himself said no, we're backtracking. That is why Obama was in this pickle in 2016.