By Michael Brendan Dougherty
Monday, March 25, 2019
Robert Mueller’s investigation is over. And my friend
David Frum asks a question.
The question unanswered by the
attorney general’s summary of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s report is: Why?
… The prize of a Trump presidency must
have glittered alluringly, indeed, to Putin and his associates. Why?
He asks the question in several leading ways.
Did they admire Trump’s anti-NATO,
anti–European Union, anti-ally, pro–Bashar al-Assad, pro-Putin ideology?
Were they attracted by his contempt
for the rule of law and dislike of democracy?
Did they hold compromising
information about him, financial or otherwise?
Were there business dealings in the
past, present, or future?
Or were they simply attracted by
Trump’s general ignorance and incompetence, seeing him as a kind of wrecking
ball to be smashed into the U.S. government and U.S. foreign policy?
In the article, and in subsequent tweets, Frum refers to
Trump as a security risk. I might even agree with that last statement, if it
were properly qualified. Frum is a dear friend, and I’m sad to be on the other
side of him on the particulars.
Can I suggest another possible answer to his question:
“Why?”
Because they could.
We know from congressional reports and other
investigations that Russia’s campaign of organized trolling was not all that
effective. As an internet campaign, the number of impressions it made is
tiny compared to even one of the most high-volume Twitter personalities.
The heart of the Russian intervention is its hacking of
computers, and leaking through information clearinghouses like Wikileaks. This
certainly had an effect on the election.
But Frum has laid all the emphasis on Russian
intervention, and none at all on Hillary Clinton’s self-inflicted information
insecurity. Russia interest in hacking Clinton and the Democrats makes Trump
guilty in Frum’s eyes. But why isn’t Clinton’s vulnerability to this hacking a
“security risk?”
I will never understand why Clinton’s incompetence,
dishonesty, and vulnerability to foreign spying is used as an argument that she
should be president.
As for all the ideological reasons that Frum identifies
as attractive to Russia, what are they getting for their efforts?
I didn’t need to employ the FSB to figure out that Donald
Trump is notoriously unreliable for his promises. So far Trump has expanded
NATO, including in Montenegro. NATO expansionists loved the move. (Only I seem
to think that this expansion makes NATO more vulnerable to Russian
interference.)
Trump’s ignorance, bombast, and cruelty trouble me too.
But who, considering the Mueller report’s principal findings, can’t wonder
about the same of men like John Brennan, Obama’s supposed conscience and keeper
of the “kill list?”
As for being anti-democracy, by seeding disinformation to
Christopher Steele, the Clinton campaign, and elsewhere Russia has made the
defenders of the “liberal world order” demand that democratic votes are
overturned in the United Kingdom and the United States. Christopher Hitchens
used to say that religious people trying to be good can be convinced to do
wicked things. Over the past few years conscientious liberals are doing the
supposed anti-democratic work of the Russian state more effectively than Trump
ever could.
No comments:
Post a Comment