A panoramic view over the southernmost districts of Helsinki from Hotel Torni. Photo by KFP via Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 3.0.
The rabbit hole is a cave
by Tom Sullivan
A panoramic view over the southernmost districts of Helsinki from Hotel Torni. Photo by KFP via Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 3.0.
"U.S. Opposition to Breast-Feeding Resolution Stuns World Health Officials" atop a story in yesterday's New York Times was eye-catching for a several reasons. First, it is lousy public health policy driven more by concern for infant formula manufacturers than for infants. Second, at the May meeting in Geneva the U.S. threatened Ecuador with trade sanctions and withdrawal of military aid if it introduced the resolution promoting breast-feeding.
“We were shocked because we didn’t understand how such a small matter like breast-feeding could provoke such a dramatic response,” an unnamed Ecuadorian official told the Times.
The Times reports the U.S. recently tried unsuccessfully to stop a World Health Organization initiative to loosen patent laws to make life-saving drugs more widely available in develping countries. Washington sides with the pharmaceutical industry in opposing such efforts, and has a history of prioritizing corporate profits over health.
Finally, after "at least a dozen" countries backed away for fear of U.S. retaliation in what one advocate called "tantamount to blackmail," the United States relented.
The Times report adds:
In the end, the Americans’ efforts were mostly unsuccessful. It was the Russians who ultimately stepped in to introduce the measure — and the Americans did not threaten them.An unidentified Russian delegate commenting on the matter said, "“We’re not trying to be a hero here, but we feel that it is wrong when a big country tries to push around some very small countries, especially on an issue that is really important for the rest of the world.”
Even though the 2018 version of Trump is more independent and authentic, he still has advisers pushing for and designing the thrusts of Trumpian populism. Peter Navarro and Wilbur Ross are steering him toward a trade war; Stephen Miller, John Kelly, and Jeff Sessions have encouraged his immigration restrictionism. But who is bending the president’s ear to split the Western alliance and placate Russia?Who indeed? The sitting president increasingly looks like a man with something to hide as well as an accessory after the fact.
And if you’re Putin, embarking upon a coveted summit with the most Russophilic president since World War II, who is taking a crowbar to the alliance of your enemies, why wouldn’t you help him in 2018 and 2020? Ever since the fall of 2016, when Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell privately turned down an Obama-administration proposal for a bipartisan warning to Russia not to interfere in the election, the underlying dynamic has been set: Most Republicans would rather win an election with Putin’s help than lose one without it. The Democrats, brimming with rage, threaten to investigate Russian activity if they win a chamber of Congress this November. For Putin to redouble his attack — by hacking into voting machines or some other method — would be both strategic and in keeping with his personality. Why stop now?It is a long, but worthwhile review of what we know. But there is more to add to Chait's narrative.
Meanwhile, the White House has eliminated its top cybersecurity position. That might simply reflect a Republican bias against bureaucratic expertise. But it might also be just what it looks like: The cop on the beat is being fired because his boss is in cahoots with the crooks.
Her blog post centers on a text message she says she got from the source on Nov. 9, 2016 — about 14 hours after the polls closed — predicting that Michael Flynn, who would be Trump’s appointee for national security adviser, would be meeting with “Team Al-Assad” within 48 hours. Russia has been perhaps the Assad regime’s staunchest ally.Flynn has since pleaded to one count of lying to the FBI.
As she noted: “The substance of the text — that the Trump team started focusing on Syria right after the election — has been corroborated and tied to their discussions with Russia at least twice since then.”
In addition to the knowledge of her source’s inside information, Wheeler said, she had reason to believe that the source was involved with efforts to compromise her website and other communications. And perhaps most important, that he was involved in cyberattacks — past and future — that had done and could do real harm to innocent people.Daniel Drezner, professor of international politics at Tufts University, told the Post Wheeler's move made his jaw drop, “She would not do this on a whim.” Drezner doesn’t know her, but I do. No, she wouldn't.
