This commentary is by Liam Madden, who was the Republican nominee for Congress in Vermont’s November election.
Amazingly, the world’s “paper of record” let an act of war between nuclear-armed rivals go uncommented on for three weeks. The New York Times, and nearly all mainstream media, did not bother to mention the recent bombshell news of our political leadership’s gleeful frolic toward the brink of World War III.
I see this glaring lapse by the national media as an obligation and opportunity for more local media, like VTDigger, to keep the conversation inclusive of events that will likely shape history, even if centered outside of Vermont.
The event to which I’m referring is the investigative report by Pulitzer winner Seymour Hersh, who reported the Biden administration had sabotaged the Nord Stream natural gas pipeline. Hersh’s exposé, as Biden’s defenders will be quick to point out, relied on a single anonymous source. Yet, if there is any journalist in the world whose career-long history of integrity and professionalism is worthy of our trust, it is Sy Hersh. Hersh is the paragon of journalistic gravitas who brought us coverage of many of the most major inconvenient (for the powerful) truths of the last several decades, including war crimes in both Vietnam and Iraq.
To those who would dismiss this report on the grounds of Hersh’s credibility, I find it absurd. Not only is his journalistic authority virtually impeccable, but the story he’s reporting is almost unbearably obvious, anyway. Of course the U.S. government is responsible for that incredibly reckless act of war with a nuclear armed rival.
The preposterous claim by numerous pundits that Russia is responsible is not only contradicted by recent reports by 23 U.S. intelligence agencies that concluded that there is no evidence of Russian responsibility, as well as an independent investigation by Swedish officials; it is also common sense. Russia destroying its own multibillion infrastructure is as logical as stabbing yourself in the eyeball in the hopes that your enemy slips on your blood.
I don’t want to belabor my case that it is nonsense to consider Russia, and head-smackingly obvious to consider the U.S. government the prime suspect, because my real point is not to convince incredulous Biden supporters. If the world’s most respected journalist’s investigation isn’t damning enough for them, nor is the cringe-worthy mafioso-like threats of Biden and his deputies, who ominously implied that they would “end the pipeline” in the event of Russian invasion, and gloated that they were “delighted Nordstream is a hunk of metal on the bottom of the ocean,” then nothing I say will be convincing to them either.
Breaking the silence after the three weeks of censorship by omission, The New York Times finally ran an article with a two-sentence dismissive mention of Hersh’s report. It was a piece that provided not a shred of evidence, and yet with no discernible embarrassment took as evidence the word of U.S. espionage officials (WMDs anyone?) for a story that conveniently blamed the sabotage on rogue Ukrainian or Russian nationals.
From the Times piece:
“U.S. officials declined to disclose the nature of the intelligence, how it was obtained or any details of the strength of the evidence it contains. They have said that there are no firm conclusions about it, …(except that) the new intelligence provided no evidence so far of the Ukrainian government’s complicity in the attack on the pipelines..”
I happen to speak thinly veiled government damage control; please allow me to translate:
“Nothing to see here, folks. Move along now. No one who anyone can hold accountable had anything to do with this. We have hot new evidence telling us that, well, we can’t tell you. But, rest assured, it’s solid, except that even we say this, intelligence provides no firm conclusions.”
For those of us who can see no reason to accept evidence-less assertions from the people suspected of the crime, or at least those with enormous motivations to commit the crime, and also the extreme plausibility in the case against Biden, my point is that the action was an act of war, and will likely result in a proportional covert attack against some highly valuable infrastructure that we hold dear. And, of course, this will not go unanswered, and we will have, predictably, been accelerated down the path of direct and/or escalated conflict with Russia.
And worse yet, we bear this risk for no reason other than arrogant, irrational, borderline psychopathy. The pipeline’s destruction was not needed to weaken Russia financially or militarily, which would at least fig-leaf the justification to destroy it behind some pseudo-practical excuse. But alas, Nord Stream was closed for business and served no military purpose. Destroying it was just a chest thump to show Putin how dangerously belligerent Biden and Co. are.
Please don’t make the nonsense argument that I am arguing in favor of Putin. I am arguing in favor of diplomacy, rational risks, and a healthier political system. Equating those things with Kremlin apologism is called the “false choice” fallacy. It is the same manipulative drivel that is the last refuge of warmongers and fundamentalists, from McCarthy’s red scare to George W’s “you’re with us or you’re with the terrorists.”
Besides, my point is not to indict Biden’s judgment and raise support for an alternative. He is just the inevitable product of a deeply broken system of politics. We didn’t really choose him. The logic of the political system that we inhabit chose him. If our political system gives us choices between a man invested in Chinese-funded shell companies, a plagiarist who callously risks our lives in an escalatory bravado, and on the other hand, a pathological narcissist and fraud who watched amused as a violent mob attacked our Capitol, then we need a new political system, not just better candidates.
How can we accept the risk of either nuclear war or government by QAnon shaman? We accept it because we follow the logic of the system, and we will always prefer the lesser of two evils. Unfortunately, this clearly brings us more and more evil choices, more and more frequently. So, when and how do we get off this runaway train?
For the impatient, investigate innovations like liquid democracy, qualified democracy, approval voting, and thinkers like Daniel Schmatchenberger and the Consilience Project, who look for innovative models for modern governance, like Taiwan’s remarkable efforts in digital citizen engagement, and the application of block chain accounting to government contracts.
Our political system approached the best that was possible for the 1790s. It approaches suicidally inadequate for today. Evolving it, so that we can govern ourselves with the godlike wisdom and love needed to guide and balance our already godlike power, is the only path forward if you value not just safety and peace, but also self-governance, the beauty of our natural world, and the possibility of human flourishing.
