Well, that's a lot to assume, including a.) that you know categorically that the U.S. really has engaged in "considerably more manipulation" and b.) that the quantity of manipulation alone determines the morality. For instance, does manipulating two elections to depose brutal dictators add up to a "moral loss" against manipulating one election of a peaceful, "benevolent" country to gain access to its resources?

I don't want to go down the rabbit hole of arguing which interventions are "more moral"--just pointing out the flaw in your reasoning.

So, let's just concede that you are completely correct. That still doesn't argue for the U.S. doing nothing in response, as some seem to suggest. It's actually mind-blowing that people are offering that as a reason that the U.S. should not protect its democratic process--allowing anyone to engage in an all out assault on it with impunity.