Liz
Peek, a Fox News contributor, had an interesting, informative, and- to me at
least- convincing opinion piece recently on FoxNews.com. She believes that
President Obama is ordering an investigation into possible Russian interference
in the election of Donald Trump to get revenge on him for the years he spent
publicly questioning Obama’s citizenship, in an attempt to create doubt over
the legitimacy of his presidency. In this way, he believes he may be able to
delegitimize Trump’s presidency before it even begins. Payback, they
say, is a bitch. But it isn’t presidential. Liberals, though, as they have
proven beyond a shadow of a doubt after this election, are incredibly sore
losers. (See also, ‘rioting,’ ‘threats to leave the country,’ ‘Jill Stein,’
etc.).
Wrap your mind around this:
according to the Associated Press, the President’s party won 487 counties
nationwide, while Donald Trump won 2,626, including many that voted for Obama
in either 2008 or 2012. Having your hand-picked successor lose 84+% of all the counties in the nation doesn’t bode well
for a President’s legacy.
Ms. Peek speculates, “Moscow’s
possible hacking of DNC and Podesta’s emails were retaliation for Hillary
Clinton’s assertions that Russian elections in 2011 were ‘rigged’- an accusation
that infuriated Putin. When protests erupted in Russia over the election
outcome, Putin blamed Clinton. ‘She said they were dishonest and unfair,’ Putin
said at the time. He accused then Secretary of State Clinton for giving ‘a
signal’ to demonstrators organized ‘with the support of the U.S. State
Department…We need to safeguard ourselves from this interference in our
internal affairs,’ Putin said. Does this sound familiar? Turnabout is fair
play…” She went on to say that, “Obama knows this. Politico reported in a July
piece entitled “Why Putin Hates Hillary” that the Russian leader’s anger about
Clinton’s interference was “communicated directly to President Barack Obama.”
Ms. Peek believes this is the
reason why the Russians may have tried to undermine Clinton, not because they
see Trump as an ally. She posits: “Like most of the world, Moscow no doubt
expected Clinton to win. Coming into office weakened by Putin’s meddling would
have undoubtedly pleased Moscow no end.” And, as I myself have alluded to, when
you look closely at who Trump has chosen for the top defense and security
positions in his administration, it is obvious that they will defend the
country against all adversaries and potential adversaries, Russia included.
Peek points out that, retired General James Mattis, Trump’s nominee to head
Defense, “has described Russia’s annexation of Crimea as a ‘severe’ threat,”
and is not to be trifled with.
She goes on to say that,
“Obama’s call for an investigation is transparently bogus,” citing the fact
that the CIA has only provided “scant circumstantial evidence” that even the
New York Times admitted “does not support firm judgments.” The FBI is also
highly skeptical of the CIA’s professed conclusion. Moreover, she reminds folks
“that no serious inquiry could possibly be completed by January 20, when Trump
will be sworn in.” She avers that the President himself “knows the report will
likely never be completed, and so the issue of Russian hacking will hang like a
cloud- like the ‘birther’ rumors- over the Trump White House.”
It is obviously painful for
Obama, who made the election of Hillary Clinton into a referendum on his
presidency, to experience rejection of this magnitude. This most arrogant and
undemocratic of American presidents, a man who- for eight years- imposed his
will on the citizens of his nation through executive fiat and overreach, now
potentially stands to see many of his dictates dismantled, repealed or neutered.
Ms. Peek’s article has helped me
“square the circle” of the seemingly ironic possible
Russian fondness for a Trump administration. Hers is an infinitely more logical
explanation of an otherwise enigmatic portrayal of Russia’s alleged actions in
this election cycle than one would come across in the mainstream media.
Perhaps she has solved this
latest mystery-wrapped riddle.
No comments:
Post a Comment