"I once said, ‘We will bury you,’ and I got
into trouble with it. Of course, we will not bury you with a shovel. Your own
working class will bury you."─Soviet
Premier Nikita Khrushchev
We have an adversary
that thrives on our division. The notion that Russian interference in 2016 was
unprecedented reflects a willful ignorance of history.
Rob Goldman, Vice President
of Ads at Facebook, went on Twitter roughly eight hours after Deputy Attorney
General Rod Rosenstein read the indictment from the office of Special Counsel
Robert Mueller of 13 Russian operatives for interfering in the 2016
presidential election.
Very excited to see the Mueller indictment today. We shared Russian ads with Congress, Mueller and the American people to help the public understand how the Russians abused our system. Still, there are keys facts about the Russian actions that are still not well understood.— Rob Goldman (@robjective) February 17, 2018
The main goal of the Russian propaganda and misinformation effort is to divide America by using our institutions, like free speech and social media, against us. It has stoked fear and hatred amongst Americans. It is working incredibly well. We are quite divided as a nation.— Rob Goldman (@robjective) February 17, 2018
The majority of the Russian ad spend happened AFTER the election. We shared that fact, but very few outlets have covered it because it doesn’t align with the main media narrative of Tump and the election. https://t.co/2dL8Kh0hof— Rob Goldman (@robjective) February 17, 2018
Most of the coverage of Russian meddling involves their attempt to effect the outcome of the 2016 US election. I have seen all of the Russian ads and I can say very definitively that swaying the election was *NOT* the main goal.— Rob Goldman (@robjective) February 17, 2018
Over the course of eleven
presidential elections between the end of World War II and the fall of the
Soviet Union, there have been three well-documented secret attempts to
influence an American election.
In a published report
from Smithsonian
Magazine we learn Adlai Stevenson II, the Democratic nominee for president
in 1952 and 1956, had advocated a ban on the testing hydrogen bombs. Stevenson lost both bids for the presidency
to Dwight D. Eisenhower.
Stevenson publicly
stated he would not seek the nomination again in 1960, but Soviet Ambassador
Mikhail A. Menshikov hoped he would reconsider. On January 16, 1960 Menshikov
invited Stevenson to the [Soviet] embassy in DC for caviar and drinks to thank
him for helping negotiate Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev’s visit to the
United States. But there was an ulterior
motive. At one point, Menshikov pulled notes from his pocket and began
delivering Stevenson a message he said came directly from Khrushchev,
encouraging him to seriously consider another run for president.
“…We are concerned with the future, and that America has
the right president. All countries are concerned with the American election. It
is impossible for us not to be concerned about our future and the American
Presidency which is so important to everybody everywhere.”
[SKIP]
“In Russia we know well Mr. Stevenson and his views
regarding disarmament, nuclear testing, peaceful coexistence, and the
conditions of a peaceful world. He has said many sober and correct things
during his visit to Moscow and in his writings and speeches. When we compare
all the possible candidates in the United States we feel that Mr. Stevenson is
best for mutual understanding and progress toward peace.”
[SKIP]
“We don’t know how we can help to make relations better and
help those to succeed in political life who wish for better relations and more
confidence. Could the
Soviet press assist Mr. Stevenson’s personal success? How? Should the
press praise him and, if so, for what? Should it criticize him and, if so, for
what? We can always find many things to criticize Mr. Stevenson for because he
has said many harsh and critical things about the Soviet Union and Communism!
Mr. Stevenson will know best what would help him.”
The report ends by
noting, “Stevenson did eventually face the Soviets again. After becoming UN Ambassador under President
Kennedy, the winner of the 1960 election. Stevenson was tasked with presenting
evidence to the world the Soviets had placed nuclear weapons in Cuba during the
Cuban Missile Crisis in 1962. His showdown with Soviet Ambassador Zorin is one
of the key moments of the Cold War. After asking the Ambassador point blank
whether Russia had missiles in Cuba, he pressed the issue. When the Ambassador
hesitated to answer, Stevenson said, ‘I am prepared to wait for an answer until
Hell freezes over, if that is your decision.’”
In 1968, the Soviet
Politburo strongly favored Democratic presidential candidate, Hubert H. Humphrey
out of fear of Republican nominee Richard Nixon, a vehement
anti-Communist. Soviet leaders ordered their ambassador in Washington, Anatoly
Dobrynin, to approach Humphrey with an offer of clandestine funding for his
campaign. Humphrey politely declined saying, “it was more than enough
for him to have Moscow's good wishes."
Nixon won, but instead of confronting the Soviet Union, he embarked on an
era of détente and signed the first strategic arms limitation treaty, much to
Moscow’s relief.
NOTE: If you read The
Washington Post’s review
of Dobrynin’s book “In Confidence” by Robert G. Kaiser, you will be left with
the impression he “maintained a personal moral code while representing men in
Moscow who did not.” It is
unquestionably an adroit attempt to whitewash his role in the Soviets' espionage
programs.
In 1976, the Soviet
Union again secretly adopted measures to influence a U.S. presidential
election. Early that year, the KGB warned the Politburo that Sen. Henry “Scoop”
Jackson (D-WA), known for his fierce opposition to the Soviet Union, stood a
good chance of gaining the Democratic nomination.
To “conquer world
public opinion” the
KGB set up a special department, Service A, to discredit the United States.
Service A, prepared a
wide-ranging set of measures to discredit Jackson, sending
forged FBI letters to prominent U.S. newspapers and journalists claiming
that Jackson was a closeted homosexual. Even after Jackson’s campaign faltered
and he dropped out of the 1976 race, Service A kept up its homophobic war of
disinformation against him, hoping to prevent him from ever again becoming a
viable presidential candidate.
The drama series, “The Americans”, was created by former CIA
agent-turned-author Joe Weisberg for the FX network; a story about a pair of deep-cover
Soviet spies masquerading as a stereotypical Washington couple whose children,
neighbors, co-workers and friends are completely unaware of their activities. They
pose as travel agents; but at night, they weave a web of confidants, lovers,
dupes, and historical figures from the Reagan-era Cold War. The startlingly
realistic plot twists force the viewer to consider the real cost of an
undeclared war.
The
series is, of course, fictional but there’s an interesting “briefing” at the
website Spy
Museum which details the story of The Cambridge Five. In 1934, before the Great Purge of the
Communist Party, the repression of peasants and Red Army leaders, Soviet intelligence
officer Arnold Deutsch met with five Cambridge University graduates.
All were dedicated Communists
and demanded no financial compensation for their espionage services. In time,
the Soviet strategy of recruiting young, disaffected members of the British
elite would yield rich rewards. Each
quickly obtained key positions in the British government and intelligence apparatus. They did immense damage to Western security
when they learned of American efforts to build an atomic bomb, provided
documents of “inestimable value” on the Allied strategy in the Korean War and
disclosed Project Venona which broke encoded Soviet diplomatic messages.
I raise the issue of
the Cambridge Five simply to illustrate the point that so many are willing to
do harm to America. It makes you wonder
about dirty dossier author Christopher Steele, himself a Briton.
Many Americans have
forgotten the lessons of the Cold War and the disasters witnessed in the
crumbling economies and failed institutions of Communist and socialist
countries in the 1990s. Communism was on its last leg, it appeared, and its
little brother socialism was not far behind.
Little did we know that
the fires of socialism were being stoked in corners all across America where it
is held in higher regard than in nations that have suffered under it. It is
obvious where such thinking abounds and continues to spread: in our colleges
and universities. The ideologies of professors and educators have proven
stronger than facts. The “benefits” of socialism and Communism are taught from
the Ivy League to the local community college. A generation has been taught a
lie and they now believe it.
