‘Why is Clinton using Russia as punching bag for her electoral contest?’
US Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton once again accused Russia of being behind the hacking of Democratic National Committee (DNC) computers.
A number of US media outlets claim Russia has also been targeting electoral systems in at least two American states, Illinois and Arizona.
However, the only evidence provided by the US government so far has been 'anonymous FBI workers'.
RT: After the White House did not officially confirm that Russia was behind the DNC hacks, why is Hillary continuing to push for it?
Brian Becker: Right, there is no presented evidence by the US government; it refuses to present evidence; it refuses to affirm that there is evidence that Russia’s behind the hack of the DNC, or now that voter data registration base in the state of Illinois and state of Arizona. And yet Hillary Clinton blithely says in front of the American foreign legion: “Russia did this, and China is doing it too.” And then she uses it; she sets up a straw dog and then beats the straw dog – the unfulfilled, unproven straw dog. She hits it with the assertion that we have to step up our game; … and she said in her speech: “Those who are carrying out cyber-attacks against us should be treated the way we would treat anyone who carries out any kind of military attack against us, and they must face the consequences,” meaning the US must be prepared to go to war against those who are going to war against it. And again these are unproven allegations.
So why is Clinton using Russia as a punching bag for her electoral contest? Is it just to try to paint Donald Trump as the Manchurian Candidate of the Russians? Or does this reflect the real hawkish hard-line view – so hard-line, I would say more right-wing than any other US president, or president to be, at least since Ronald Reagan, in terms of foreign policy toward Russia. I think it’s the latter, I think it’s not simply trying to defeat Trump; this is the real Hillary Clinton – the neo-conservative comeback, the demonization of Russia will be the hallmark of her foreign policy.
RT: Does this Russia-blame-game help Clinton in the race for the White House?
BB: It is so interesting that even though Bernie Sanders led a left-wing upraising insurgency against the Democratic Party establishment, against Clinton – once she secured the nomination by day two of the DNC, Clinton has moved steadily to the right. She is embracing and has the support of 150 of the right-wing Republican hawk foreign policy elite. She has got the support of Robert Kagan, the neo-conservative godfather and also the husband of Victoria Nuland…
She [Clinton] was the champion, the demander of the war against Libya; she wants a no-fly zone in Syria. She really is a right-wing hawk, but dressed up as a Democratic Party centrist, and that seems to be acceptable...
Clinton thinks blaming Russia she can get a lot of good resonance from the American people, as they are very malnourished on the truth since media doesn’t tell them the truth, said former CIA officer Ray McGovern.
RT: After the White House didn't officially confirm that Russia was behind the DNC hacks, why does Hillary continue to push for it?
Ray McGovern: Initially it was the grand distraction. What happened was – that WikiLeaks through a leak, not a hack, confirmed that Hillary Clinton stole the nomination from Bernie Sanders. It was very embarrassing. How are they going to divert attention from that? - “It was Russia’s fault?” How does that figure? Well, they constructed the syllogism where Mr. Putin wants Trump to win. Therefore, Mr. Putin wants to harm Hillary – “therefore, it must be the Russians!” But it wasn’t the Russians, it was WikiLeaks. “Oh, well, WikiLeaks must be working for the Russians.” It’s childish, it’s adolescent. But apparently Clinton thinks that she can get a lot of good resonance from this from the American people, who are very malnourished on the truth, given the fact that the media doesn’t tell them the truth.
RT: The DNC hacks led to the resignation of some of the party's senior figures. Why doesn't Clinton focus on that while blaming Russia for everything?
RM: That led to the resignation of the top five figures in the DNC. She doesn’t focus on that because that is too embarrassing. The question would be asked: “Why did they have to quit?” And the answer of course is that these emails showed that they deliberately stacked the deck. They deliberately stole the nomination for Clinton. What surprises me is that Sanders just sits back and says: “Oh, well, ok, they stole the nomination from me. It must be the Russian fault somehow…”
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of RT.