"Then I fear, in his hot-headed way, he (Trump) starts fighting with the Russians, and it wouldn't be long then until a state of war against Russia is declared."
As 2016 draws to a close, we find ourselves a deeply unsettled nation. We're unable to draw the lines of our national interest. Is it jobs and economy, is it national security, or is it now in our interest to ensure global security — in other words, act as the world's policemen?
As the "failing" (to quote Trump) New York Times degenerates into a Washington Post organization with its stagnant Cold War vision of a 1950s world where the Russians are to blame for most everything — Hillary's loss, most of the aggression and disorder in the world, the desire to destabilize Europe, etc. — the Times has added the issue of 'fake news' to reassert its problematic role as the dominant voice for the Washington establishment.
Certainly this is true in the case of Russia's 'hacking' the 2016 election and putting into office its Manchurian Candidate in Donald Trump. Apparently the CIA (via various unnamed intelligence officials), and the FBI, NSA, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper (who notoriously lied to Congress in the Snowden affair), President Obama, the DNC, Hillary Clinton, and Congress agree that Russia, and Mr. Putin predominantly, is responsible.
Certainly the psychotic, war-loving Senator John McCain is right up there alongside these patriots, calling President Putin a "thug, bully and a murderer and anybody else who describes him as anything else is lying." He actually said this — the man whose sound judgment chose Sarah Palin as his VP nominee in '08. And the Times followed by printing the story in its full glory on page one, clearly agreeing with McCain's point of view.
I don't remember Presidents Eisenhower, Nixon, or Reagan, in the darkest days of the 1950s/80s, ever singling out a Russian President like this. The invective was aimed at the Soviet regime, but never were Khrushchev or Brezhnev the target of this bile. I guess this is a new form of American diplomacy. If a black youth in our inner cities were killed or a Pakistani wedding party were murdered by our drones, would President Obama be singled out as a murderer, bully, thug?
Such personalization is a sign of sickness in our thinking and way beneath what should be our standards.
Note the enclosed link ("US Intel Vets Dispute Russia Hacking Claims") from the Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity (which includes the ex-NSA reformer Bill Binney, a mathematical genius who inspired the Nic Cage character in "Snowden"). He talks here about what hacking really means, as opposed to a 'leak'.
The Times and other mainstream media have surprisingly evaded any contrary evidence, such as that presented by Craig Murray, ex-ambassador and Wikileaks spokesman who says he was given the information in a Washington park by a Democratic 'insider' who was disgusted by the behavior of the DNC; Murray then gave it to Wikileaks. This was a 'leak,' not a 'hack,' and always seemed to me the likely source for this scandal (as I think the Sony leak was as well, falsely blamed on North Korea, but that's another matter).
And if this were to be properly investigated, it might very well lead to the discovery that this was Hillary Clinton's 'Nixon moment.' Clearly the DNC offices were up to no good. Ironically, Clinton first made her name as one of the investigators into Watergate. See Mark Ames's article, "Site Behind McCarthyite Blacklist," tracking this foul play to Washington Post journalist Craig Timberg.