PHOTOS: Russian President Vladimir V. Putin, who the New York Times blames for everything. (Photo from Kremlin.ru.) Below: Democratic Party presidential candidate Hillary R. Clinton; former Nixon speechwriter Patrick J. Buchanan; Republican Party presidential candidate Donald J. Trump; and Felix E. Dzerzhinsky, director of the Soviet secret services from 1917 to 1922. As readers shall see, some initials are important.
I can’t tell you with “high confidence” the Russians didn’t hack into the Democratic National Committee’s email servers, but one doesn’t have to be an information technology expert to conclude with a reasonable degree of certainty the supposedly ironclad evidence tying the Russians to spying on Hillary D. R. Clinton’s Democratic Party is far from persuasive.
Among the clues uncovered by the American organs of state security – who, as the Times reports breathlessly, “now have ‘high confidence’ that the Russian government was behind the theft of e-mails and documents” – and the IT experts consulted by the Times:
- The hacking was apparently done during business hours in Moscow
- A computer involved was registered to someone named Felix Edmundovich – “a clear reference to Felix E. Dzerzhinsky, the founder of the Soviet secret police”
- And someone dubbed the hacker or hackers “Fancy Bear” and “Cozy Bear,” you know, as in Russian bear.
This gave rise to the bizarre story emanating from the Clinton Democrats that Republican candidate Donald J. Trump is working with the Russians. I hate – just hate – to agree with Mr. Trump, but that really is, as he Tweeted, plain crazy. I imagine the Russians are just as concerned about Mr. Trump as they are about Ms. Clinton. Personally, I may not quite have nation-state level capabilities, but I certainly worry about both of them. I can’t recall a worse presidential choice for our American cousins than the one they face in 2016.
However, the Times portentously reminds us, “publishing the documents – what some have called ‘weaponizing’ them – is a different issue.”
Publishing documents is weaponizing them! Who knew? I thought this was called “journalism,” or, now and then, “history.”
Speaking of which, American conservative and Nixon Administration speechwriter Patrick J. Buchanan observed recently that just as the New York Times was awarded a Pulitzer Prize for journalism in 1971 for publishing the Pentagon Papers – the secret U.S. Defense Department history of the Vietnam War that showed how the U.S. covertly expanded the war – maybe President Putin should get a Pulitzer if it turns out the Russians actually were behind the leak of the secret DNC emails to Wikileaks.
I respectfully disagree. The Pulitzer should go to the Times again – only, this time, for fiction.
This post also appears on Rabble.ca.