Leading the attack against Trump via Russia is MSNBC, and Rachel Maddow in particular. Recently, Maddow has escalated her attacks with rhetoric that was indistinguishable in form from the worst of FOX News: cherry-picked quotations, anecdotal evidence, "coincidences," false analogies, unproven assumptions, innuendoes ("is it not possible that...?), etc.
As a lifelong Democrat, I am appalled. (I am now an independent). Let me be clear: I regard the Trump administration as an unmitigated disaster, and his removal from office as an urgent necessity. Trumpism must be resisted by almost any means necessary. Almost! Among the unacceptable means: armed insurrection, assassination, and provocations that threaten to lead to war with Russia.
What do these mainstream media (MSM) Russophobes hope to accomplish with their rhetoric? A revived Cold War, perchance? To what advantage?
Intentions aside, have they paused to contemplate where this unanimously accepted demonization of Russia and Putin might be leading the United States and the world beyond? Does the question ever cross their collective minds?For that matter, why this unanimity? The MSM obsession with "balance" gives us panels with opposing views on "trickle-down economics" and climate change. ("The shape of the earth -- two views." Paul Krugman). But not on Russo-American relations.
There is, in fact, a view of Russia, that is vastly different from "the accepted wisdom" -- a view that is shared by numerous scholars and diplomats, many of whom have lived in Russia and speak and read Russian. Prominent among these dissenters are: Jack Matlock (Former Ambassador to the Soviet Union), Robert Parry, John Mearsheimer, Stephen F. Cohen, Lawrence Wilkerson, among others. All loyal American citizens. Why are they totally excluded from MSM programming? Is it perhaps too much to ask that we hear from the Russians -- e.g., Dmitri Peskov, , Maria Zakharova (Note especially the final two minutes), Vladimir Pozner, (US-Russian dual citizen), all fluent in English? (Here is a lively debate, "on both sides," with Kasparov-Applebaum v. Cohen-Pozner. In Canada, of course) .
US public and media opinion appears to be set in stone: Russia is our enemy and is out to demolish our influence in the global economy and diplomacy. There can be no doubt about this.
"There can be no doubt." Now where have I heard that before?
Oh yes!: "There is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. There is no doubt that he is amassing them to use against our friends, against our allies, and against us." That pronouncement by VP Cheney was soon followed by Colin Powell's presentation before the UN Security Council of "proof" of Saddam's WMDs. Powell's charge was met with unanimous editorial endorsement in the American press. As we Americans, along with the rest of the world, now realize, it was all a lie, resulting in irreparable damage to American credibility and prestige throughout the world.
Now it is possible that the publicly accepted demonization of Vladimir Putin is entirely justified. But if so, are we not entitled to a fair debate including informed contrary opinions, along with a presentation of evidence -- something more than the "proof by repetition" that we are offered today, or the pathetic evidence-free report of the Director of National Intelligence released in January?The MSM is mixing together several distinct issues. Most prominently: (a) alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election, (b) a presumed threat to American and western security, and (c) involvement of Trump and his associates with Russian oligarchs for personal financial gain. It is essential that these issues be identified and dealt with separately.
If DonaldTrump and RexTillerson are talking to the Russians in order to work out peaceful coexistence , mutual disarmament and an end to Cold War II, then let's call off the media hounds and wish them God speed. Who knows: if they succeed, they may earn a Nobel Peace Prize, and moreover, they will deserve it.
If, on the other hand, the Russians, in league with Trump operatives, interfered with the election in order to put Trump in the White House, and if Trump and his friends are using their offices to connive with Russian gangsters in order to enrich themselves at the expense of global peace and order, then by all means release the bloodhounds, gather the evidence and nail the bastards.
The former interpretation presupposes intelligence, morality, and humane sentiments nowhere in evidence in Trump's behavior and personal history. The latter interpretation is entirely consistent with what we have come to know about Donald Trump, whose "humane interests" do not extend beyond one particular human: Donald Trump.
In any case, it is imperative that we radically separate the profit-oriented machinations of Trump Enterprises from laudable efforts to achieve peaceful accommodation between the United States and Russia.
Clearly, the Democrats and the media have not distinguished among these issues. We are all in greater peril because of that failure
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
3
1
1
