Daily Archives: December 30, 2016

When You Sling Mud, You Dirty Yourself

CBS “News” has the story Russia responds to U.S. sanctions.

Russian President Vladimir Putin said Friday that his country would not expel U.S. diplomats in response to a new round of U.S. sanctions.

Why does Obama think it appropriate to retaliate against Russia for the DNC meddling in our election? Reminds one of our retaliation against Iraq for the Saudi Arabian attack on 9/11. By claiming the leaks came from Russian cyber attacks, Obama is confirming that the leaked information was true. Yet there are no consequences for Americans’ corrupting the primary elections. This casts serious doubts on Obama’s integrity. Makes you wonder if 9/11 could have been a false flag operation.

It sure does not add credibility to our claims against Assad in Syria.

It was the strongest action the Obama administration has taken to date to retaliate for a cyberattack, and more comprehensive than last year’s sanctions on North Korea after it hacked Sony Pictures Entertainment.

Was this attack just as phony as the claims against Russia? If our government comes away from these repeated claims with a shred of credibility, it will be a miracle.

The Craziest Story Ever Told

The Washington Post has the story Obama administration announces measures to punish Russia for 2016 election interference.

Taken together, the sanctions and expulsions announced Thursday were the most far-reaching U.S. response to Russian activities since the end of the Cold War, and the most specific related to Russian hacking. The administration also released a listing of addresses of computers linked to the Russian cyberattacks and samples of malware inserted into U.S. systems.

There is no way that these accusations against the Russians can be true. If they were really as good as our “intelligence” community says they are, they would not have left traceable tracks. The WikiLeaks people who know where the material came from say it isn’t the Russians who leaked the information. They claim it was a Washington insider who leaked the emails. So, who are you going to believe?

Let us suppose that Obama is correct in his accusations that the Russians leaked information that was so damaging to Hillary Clinton that it caused her to lose the election. Then he is admitting that the leaked emails are absolutely true, that they are, in fact, a true representation of what the Democratic National Committee actually did.

Why would Obama go to such extreme lengths to corroborate what is in the leaked emails? Can it be that the Russians have even worse information that they could leak, and he needs to discredit it before they leak it? However, if he is confirming that what they have leaked so far is true, then how will this cast doubts on what they leak next?

I hate it when people come out with some preposterous explanation and then say that this is the only possibility they can imagine. I always retort that this is no proof of what they are proposing, but it is only a proof of their inability to imagine something else. So please, won’t somebody rescue me and come out with an imagined counter story to the one I am proposing here?