In an op-ed in the Washington Post Katrina vanden Heuvel, with whom I rarely agree, says some things with which I agree completely:
The bottom line is that opposition to Trump cannot become the same as opposition to common sense. Common sense dictates that we protect our democracy by strengthening our election systems to counter outside interference. It dictates an independent investigation of claims of Russian meddling in the presidential campaign. But it also tells us that we cannot address many of our most urgent challenges — from Syria and climate change to nuclear proliferation and cyber issues — without the United States and Russia finding ways to work together when it serves our mutual interests. We do not have to embrace the Russian government to work on vital interests with it. And we cannot afford a revival of Cold War passions that would discredit those seeking to de-escalate tensions. Efforts to curtail debate could be a disservice to our country’s security.
That’s a realistic view of our relationship with Russia but if politics is war it’s impossible. When you hate your opponents more than you love what you’re striving for, you should re-evaluate your priorities.
Yes, there are a number of issues at play wrt Trump, but it certainly seems short sighted in the extreme to prioritize near term political gain above our relationship with an important global player. And in my humble opinion that is exactly what Democrats and media are doing. It seems petty and hypocritical. I suppose Junior could be accused of same with his acceptance of an oppo meeting, but he’s not President. A bit player.
This: “When you hate your opponents more than you love what you’re striving for, you should re-evaluate your priorities.” caught my eye as it is more general. Have you passed on this wisdom to any successful authors?
“I suppose Junior could be accused of same with his acceptance of an oppo meeting, but he’s not President. A bit player.”
Kushner and Manafort went to the meeting also. Not bit players. Otherwise I agree with the tenor of the article, but I do think I would be remiss to point out the angst on Drew’s team when Obama suggested he could work with Putin after the election. Also, the leaders in opposition to all things Russian remain the neocons, who still dominate on the right. This is way more than a Democrat thing.
We should act in our own best interests. That would mean sometimes working with Russia. It would mean sometimes working with Iran. It would mean sometimes working against Israel (which appears to oppose the cease fire BTW). Neither party is so free of tribal politics that we are capable of doing that right now.
Finally, let’s not also forget that Russia is not our friend. When they act against our interests, like trying to meddle in elections and getting caught, we need to be prepared to act in response.
Steve
Who cares what’s being said in the media? Trump is, apparently, the president. The GOP controls Congress. What else do they need?
As far as politics being total war–what’s a bigger act of war? Reaching out to a foreign government that is actively and illegally meddling in an election? Or finding out that this happened?
I guess that’s fair enough, steve. Although I think, as you often do, paint with too sweeping and broad a brush, especially labels. I watched a knock down drag out debate between a guy people consider a conservative and the idiotic Max Boot with the “conservative” strenuously arguing for situational in-our-interest behavior despite any moral feelings about Russia.
In any event this meeting is a mountain out of a mole hill. Its the Dems that are going out of their minds, for obvious reasons. And you can only speculate as to what might have happened did that meeting lead to something material. Lots of that going on though. For example, tonight’s scandal du jour: Trump and Putin had a side conversation.
That’s nonsense, Modulo.
“Finally, let’s not also forget that Russia is not our friend. When they act against our interests, like trying to meddle in elections and getting caught, we need to be prepared to act in response.”
That has pretty much always been true to the natsec establishment. Russia, like any other country, is only “friendly” when it does what the US wants. After a 1/4 century of the US plowing over Russian interests, Russia has had enough. So now they are the enemy.
This isn’t just a neocon thing. It’s been the dominate US national security worldview.
“As far as politics being total war–what’s a bigger act of war? Reaching out to a foreign government that is actively and illegally meddling in an election? Or finding out that this happened?”
As I noted in another thread, opposition research with foreign governments happens in every election. The difference, in this case, is that a competent campaign will use intermediaries. The Trump Dossier is one example in which a former foreign intelligence agent was hired to use his foreign intelligence contacts to dig up dirt on Trump. This was funded by GoP groups at first and then Democratic groups. Trump probably didn’t have the organization to do something similar and he, his campaign and proxies were too ignorant to develop one. In short the difference is that the Russians came to the campaign directly instead of going to a proxy. At the end of the day I’m not sure how much substantive difference that makes.
Also, most foreign governments have an interest in the outcome of our elections, but most are much more subtle about using whatever influence they have.
Yes, odd as it may seem Russia is a different country from the U. S. So are Germany, the UK, and even Canada. Germany is doing a darned good job of persuading us to do its bidding but they’re still not our friends.
Andy,
They were asking about missing emails from Clinton’s private server, something that had to have been obtained through illegal activity that would have taken place in our country. They weren’t fishing for nasty rumors, like the Trump Dossier.