General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsObama's cautious response to Russian interference protected our democracy.
Obama Did What He Had to Do: His cautious response to Russian interference protected our democracy.
By William Saletan
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/06/obama_s_response_to_russian_interference_he_did_his_job.html?wpsrc=sh_all_dt_tw_top
Did President Obama blow the 2016 election? Should he have spoken up sooner and louder about Russia’s interference? That’s what many Democrats are wondering, particularly after reading the Washington Post’s latest investigative report on Obama’s reticent response to the Russian attack. A former official tells the Post that after the election, Obama’s aides, “mortified” by Donald Trump’s victory, thought to themselves: “Wow, did we mishandle this.”
There’s plenty to second-guess in Obama’s management of this episode. But the idea that he failed because Trump won is wrong. Obama’s job wasn’t to prevent the election of a particular person, even one as awful as Trump. Obama’s 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 task—exposing the full extent of Russia’s interference, punishing it, and deterring future attacks—is 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 community’s Jan. 6 assessment, Vladimir Putin’s 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,” Obama’s former chief of staff, Denis McDonough, told the Post. Russia’s 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 didn’t 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 Russia’s 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 Putin’s moves, Obama waited for “a high-confidence assessment from U.S. intelligence agencies on Russia’s 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 wasn’t playing politics. He was trying to unite the country.
Link to tweet
I am sure MSM would've really paid attention to Pres. Obama & these news because, you know, they did real good during the elections!
I am sure the House & Senate would've been on it had Pres. Obama had come public, because you know, they really cared about elections' integrity notwithstanding whether it means that they might lose. You know, McConnnell/Ryan that bastion duo of democracy & integrity.
(SARCASM)
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Madam45for2923
(7,178 posts)Black women didn't need Obama to be more forceful on Russia to take a huge pass on voting for a racist xenophobic islamophobic bigot.
LisaM
(27,813 posts)Obama couldn't act because of Trump's comments about rigging, the Republicans have no incentive to do anything so they don't, but somehow this preserves democracy? Doesn't Obama owe anything to the party that nominated him twice?
Madam45for2923
(7,178 posts)Even some of the left were not ready to listen to Pres. Obama during last year elections.
Madam45for2923
(7,178 posts)Madam45for2923
(7,178 posts)Madam45for2923
(7,178 posts)No, Mr. President. President Obama didn't want to be perceived as helping Clinton. That was his mistake. Everything since has been yours.
Link to tweet
Progressive dog
(6,905 posts)and protect the nation, which is what Presidents take an oath to do. I am not going to place blame on him for the Russian attack on our elections; too many Republicans and others gleefully turned stolen data into weapons in aid of the Russian attack.
Then, when informed that the attack wasn't just on Hillary, Republicans refused to listen to the intelligence agencies, choosing party over the nation.
I hope the leaders of this anti-American cabal end up in jail, broken and disgraced.
Madam45for2923
(7,178 posts)
mopinko
(70,127 posts)we will see that there was a huge effort behind the scenes to watch out for the vote totals.
i do think it was stolen, not be flipping votes, but by removing dem voters from the rolls in ways large and small.
i still want someone to examine the provisional ballots, especially in those "miracle" precincts where so many voters "flipped" from obama to cheato. that smelled funny to me from the first time i heard it. (even tho i know a trumpkin who fits this profile.)
how easy would it have been to target some high obama precincts, remove just enough loyal dems, and flip them? especially w access to clinton targeting files.
but i suspect that every transmission of vote totals, and every attempted hack of state election agencies was under the microscope in real time. they may have started too late, but i believe on nov 8th, all ears were on the russians.