Lori Falce: Mueller report proves we lost Russian info war | TribLIVE.com
Lori Falce, Columnist

Lori Falce: Mueller report proves we lost Russian info war

Lori Falce
1041510_web1_AFP_1FR3F3

Information warfare.

That is the term Special Council Robert Mueller used in his report detailing the two year investigation into Russian hacking and possible collusion or obstruction by the Trump campaign or administration.

Information warfare. The weaponization of people’s thoughts and ideas. The strategic deployment of a mixture of facts, half-truths and outright lies. Carpet-bombing the landscape with explosive doubt.

While Americans seem like they will never come to an agreement on the Mueller investigation, this small landmine on page 4, buried in the third paragraph of the summary of Volume I of the special counsel’s conclusions on collusion, identifies what is the greatest casualty of the pitched battle between liberal and conservative, Republican and Democrat.

Pundits and politicians from both camps have muddied themselves pounding their chests about the death of democracy and the loss of liberty, but the real victim is information.

Republicans read a document that says it “does not exonerate” the president as total vindication and proof of a two-year orchestrated witch hunt.

Democrats read the same document which states Mueller could not find “conscious wrongdoing” on obstruction of justice and interpret it as more obstruction and spin by the White House via U.S. Attorney General William Barr.

Truth isn’t truth anymore. It’s just perspective. Facts aren’t facts. If they support your position, they are gospel. If they don’t, they are propaganda. While we have become increasingly more politically polarized for decades, the last two years have totally destroyed our ability to look at a situation critically and agree on an objective account of what happened.

“This is the end of my presidency,” Trump reportedly railed after the May 2017 appointment of Mueller.

He was wrong. It was the end of any semblance of agreement that skies are blue and water is wet.

Objectively, it was important to the future of the nation to determine the extent of Russian interference in the presidential election. Not to impeach or exonerate the president. It was important because electing our commander-in-chief and CEO is the most important thing we do together as a people, and it must be protected.

Objectively, we should accept the Mueller report, and at the same time we should recognize that Congress still has a legitimate oversight role to play — not in Trump’s presidency but in any and every presidency.

We have to find our way to some kind of cease-fire that lets us all agree on our most basic realities: grass is green, fire is hot and government’s role is to help, not to form gangs that rumble in the parking lot after school.

Because while everyone is focusing on the Democrat-versus-Republican skirmishes and finding a way to declare every defeat a victory, the Mueller report’s real indictment is that Russia has already won the information war by convincing us our enemies were in Washington when they were in Moscow all along.

Lori Falce is a Tribune-Review community engagement editor. You can contact Lori at [email protected].

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.