Phillip Timothy is a 7th grade teacher in San Francisco; he wrote this for HuffPost in response to the latest school shooting -- and while contemplating the next "active shooter" drill at his school next week.
"I still don't understand why I am expected to teach my children how to survive in a violent world, but my country isn't expected to make the world less violent.
"None of these questions are academic. None of these questions are distant or political. They are meat and blood and gristle, and they are lives lived in fear for so long that my children don't know anything that isn't fear.
"So I really don't give a damn how important owning a gun is to you. Your sporting right to an AR-15 does not trump my students' right to a safe world. The terror that stalks American schools has to end."
Saturday, February 17, 2018
Observations on some news of the week, including new indictments from Mueller
1. The Atlantic's David Graham challenges the media's calling it "chaos" that has embroiled the White House over its handling of the Rob Porter scandal:
"This is peculiar . . . because it is difficult to imagine what would rise to the level of notable chaos relative to the standards of this White House. . . . Insofar as the administration is engulfed in chaos, it is a result of its inability to tell the truth. The Trump team doesn’t have a chaos problem so much as it has a dishonesty problem."
2. Mike Lofgreen, New York Times: A former Republican speaks about what has become of the party he left in 2011:
"What has become of the Republican Party, which I once served on Capitol Hill and which I now consider a dangerous extremist movement on a par with the ruling Fidesz party in neo-fascist Hungary? Where did its principles go? What became of Ronald Reagan’s 'party of ideas'? . . . One by one, those ideas were tossed aside for expediency and power — except the tax cut. . . .
"The tax cut, the sole important legislation from the Republican Congress, shows that catering to its rich contributors is the party’s only policy. The rest of its agenda is simply tactics and trickery. As the party has become unmoored from positive belief, it has grown manipulative, demagogic and contemptuous of truth.
"Today’s Republican Party is incapable of honest and coherent governance, with 'right' or 'wrong' reduced to a question of whether it helps the party. Its agenda is little more than institutional vandalism and a thumb in the eye. .
". . In 2011, when House Republicans threatened to drive the government into default to extort political concessions, I left the party. Seven years later, it has become so extreme that I fear it is endangering the stability of the republic."
3. Mike Luckovich, Atlanta Journal-Constitution Pulitzer-winning political cartoonist, comments via drawing his take on Donald Trump's unshakably positive attitude toward Vladimir Putin:
In the cartoon there are three talking head depictions of three former presidents and their altered names, suggesting what might have been.
Franklin D. Trump (aka FDR) says: "Pearl Harbor, Shmerl Shmarbor. Emperor Hirohito likes me!"
John F. Trump (aka JFK) says: "Russian nukes in Cuba? Fake News!"
George W. Trump (aka GWB) says: "I can work with Bin Laden."
4. The U.S. House Oversight Committee has opened an investigation into the White House's vetting and security clearance process. This was prompted by the Rob Porter, wife-abuse scandal that did not bar him from working with the most highly classified documents, with an office just adjacent to the Oval Office. Gowdy, the Republican Chair of the Committee asks: "How was he still working there?"
Note that this is the same Trey Gowdy who so brutally and doggedly pursued Hillary Clinton for using her own email system that occasionally included classified material -- as well as conducting the famous 11 hour testimony by Clinton about Benghasi. Let's hope Gowdy, who has announced he will not run for re-election, will pursue the White House security problem with even half the vigor he did Clinton's largely exonerated emails.
5. Just breaking Friday afternoon -- after this was already set for posting -- was the big news of the week. Robert Mueller has obtained a grand jury indictment of 13 Russian nationals for conspiring to interfere in our electoral process. This included many of them coming to this country, establishing false internet identifies to place negative ads or blogs, organizing rallies, and pushing memes to claim election fraud. They contacted more than 100 Americans to assist them, although the Americans were generally not aware they were assisting Russians. The indictment also states that there was contact with three unnamed members of the Trump campaign.
The indictment unequivocally states that the Russians' primary intent was to support candidate Trump's election. However, they also had the more general aim to promote discord in the United Stater and to undermine public confidence in democracy.
Those indicted are specifically charged with conspiracy to: defraud the United States; to communicate with the Trump campaign in violation of our election laws; to use fraud and propaganda to support candidate Trump; and to secretly take down the chief rivals to Trump's election: Clinton, Cruz, and Rubio.
Presumably the Russians are back in Russia and may never come to trial in the U.S. However, that it not the importance of this. This indictment is absolutely stunning in its detail and thoroughness -- and it sends a signal to anyone else that Mueller is a formidable investigator, that he is coming after you, and that he has surveillance information far beyond what anyone suspected. So beware -- all ye who may be under suspicion.
The other major importance is that there can no longer be any credible claim that this is all a hoax and a witch hunt. I'd say it just about guarantees that even Republicans could not now support Trump getting away with firing Mueller. Even he, after being briefed on it by Deputy AG Rosenstein, sent out a tweet that acknowledged that the Russian interference in our election was real.
Of course, he also falsely claimed that it shows there was no collusion and that the Russians did not "impact" the outcome of the election. Neither of which is a question that the indictment attempted to answer -- so he cannot claim that it answers them negatively. But in referring to the Russian efforts to affect out election, Trump is tacitly acknowledging that the Russian did actually try to do so.
Ralph
"This is peculiar . . . because it is difficult to imagine what would rise to the level of notable chaos relative to the standards of this White House. . . . Insofar as the administration is engulfed in chaos, it is a result of its inability to tell the truth. The Trump team doesn’t have a chaos problem so much as it has a dishonesty problem."
2. Mike Lofgreen, New York Times: A former Republican speaks about what has become of the party he left in 2011:
"What has become of the Republican Party, which I once served on Capitol Hill and which I now consider a dangerous extremist movement on a par with the ruling Fidesz party in neo-fascist Hungary? Where did its principles go? What became of Ronald Reagan’s 'party of ideas'? . . . One by one, those ideas were tossed aside for expediency and power — except the tax cut. . . .
"The tax cut, the sole important legislation from the Republican Congress, shows that catering to its rich contributors is the party’s only policy. The rest of its agenda is simply tactics and trickery. As the party has become unmoored from positive belief, it has grown manipulative, demagogic and contemptuous of truth.
"Today’s Republican Party is incapable of honest and coherent governance, with 'right' or 'wrong' reduced to a question of whether it helps the party. Its agenda is little more than institutional vandalism and a thumb in the eye. .
". . In 2011, when House Republicans threatened to drive the government into default to extort political concessions, I left the party. Seven years later, it has become so extreme that I fear it is endangering the stability of the republic."
3. Mike Luckovich, Atlanta Journal-Constitution Pulitzer-winning political cartoonist, comments via drawing his take on Donald Trump's unshakably positive attitude toward Vladimir Putin:
In the cartoon there are three talking head depictions of three former presidents and their altered names, suggesting what might have been.
Franklin D. Trump (aka FDR) says: "Pearl Harbor, Shmerl Shmarbor. Emperor Hirohito likes me!"
John F. Trump (aka JFK) says: "Russian nukes in Cuba? Fake News!"
George W. Trump (aka GWB) says: "I can work with Bin Laden."
4. The U.S. House Oversight Committee has opened an investigation into the White House's vetting and security clearance process. This was prompted by the Rob Porter, wife-abuse scandal that did not bar him from working with the most highly classified documents, with an office just adjacent to the Oval Office. Gowdy, the Republican Chair of the Committee asks: "How was he still working there?"
Note that this is the same Trey Gowdy who so brutally and doggedly pursued Hillary Clinton for using her own email system that occasionally included classified material -- as well as conducting the famous 11 hour testimony by Clinton about Benghasi. Let's hope Gowdy, who has announced he will not run for re-election, will pursue the White House security problem with even half the vigor he did Clinton's largely exonerated emails.
5. Just breaking Friday afternoon -- after this was already set for posting -- was the big news of the week. Robert Mueller has obtained a grand jury indictment of 13 Russian nationals for conspiring to interfere in our electoral process. This included many of them coming to this country, establishing false internet identifies to place negative ads or blogs, organizing rallies, and pushing memes to claim election fraud. They contacted more than 100 Americans to assist them, although the Americans were generally not aware they were assisting Russians. The indictment also states that there was contact with three unnamed members of the Trump campaign.
The indictment unequivocally states that the Russians' primary intent was to support candidate Trump's election. However, they also had the more general aim to promote discord in the United Stater and to undermine public confidence in democracy.
Those indicted are specifically charged with conspiracy to: defraud the United States; to communicate with the Trump campaign in violation of our election laws; to use fraud and propaganda to support candidate Trump; and to secretly take down the chief rivals to Trump's election: Clinton, Cruz, and Rubio.
Presumably the Russians are back in Russia and may never come to trial in the U.S. However, that it not the importance of this. This indictment is absolutely stunning in its detail and thoroughness -- and it sends a signal to anyone else that Mueller is a formidable investigator, that he is coming after you, and that he has surveillance information far beyond what anyone suspected. So beware -- all ye who may be under suspicion.
The other major importance is that there can no longer be any credible claim that this is all a hoax and a witch hunt. I'd say it just about guarantees that even Republicans could not now support Trump getting away with firing Mueller. Even he, after being briefed on it by Deputy AG Rosenstein, sent out a tweet that acknowledged that the Russian interference in our election was real.
Of course, he also falsely claimed that it shows there was no collusion and that the Russians did not "impact" the outcome of the election. Neither of which is a question that the indictment attempted to answer -- so he cannot claim that it answers them negatively. But in referring to the Russian efforts to affect out election, Trump is tacitly acknowledging that the Russian did actually try to do so.
Ralph
Friday, February 16, 2018
What Trump did not say about gun deaths
President Trump made a brief public address, in part of which he spoke directly to the children of the Florida school and all children elsewhere.
'You have people who care about you, who love you, and who will do anything at all to protect you," he said. He also said he will make school safety the top priority when he meets with governors later this month.
What he did not say, because he won't:
1. Restore the 16% cut in his budget for improving the instant background check system.
2. Commit to pushing Congress to enact laws that back up this important, first-line possibility in screening out people who should not be allowed to purchase guns.
3. Commit additional funds for mental health services for students identified as possible risks for violence.
4. Defy the NRA and its lobbyists who are so well-financed by the gun industry.
5. And, of course, he did not pledge to work to change laws to restrict weapons of war being owned by private citizens. AR-15 type, semi-automatic guns have one purpose: to kill lots of people quickly. They are not hunting guns.
Ralph
PS: One year ago, Congress passed, and President Trump signed, a bill making it easier for people with mental health problems to be able to buy a gun. Of course, all one had to do before that was simply to buy one at a gun show, where background checks are not required.
At least someone on his staff is sensitive to the optics of this. At the time, he signed it without turning it into a media event -- where he proudly shows off his signature. And even a year later, they do not respond when asked for a photo of the private event.
'You have people who care about you, who love you, and who will do anything at all to protect you," he said. He also said he will make school safety the top priority when he meets with governors later this month.
What he did not say, because he won't:
1. Restore the 16% cut in his budget for improving the instant background check system.
2. Commit to pushing Congress to enact laws that back up this important, first-line possibility in screening out people who should not be allowed to purchase guns.
3. Commit additional funds for mental health services for students identified as possible risks for violence.
4. Defy the NRA and its lobbyists who are so well-financed by the gun industry.
5. And, of course, he did not pledge to work to change laws to restrict weapons of war being owned by private citizens. AR-15 type, semi-automatic guns have one purpose: to kill lots of people quickly. They are not hunting guns.
Ralph
PS: One year ago, Congress passed, and President Trump signed, a bill making it easier for people with mental health problems to be able to buy a gun. Of course, all one had to do before that was simply to buy one at a gun show, where background checks are not required.
At least someone on his staff is sensitive to the optics of this. At the time, he signed it without turning it into a media event -- where he proudly shows off his signature. And even a year later, they do not respond when asked for a photo of the private event.
Thursday, February 15, 2018
Another mass school shooting -- 17 dead
A high school in Florida, a troubled 19 year old ex-student with a fascination for guns who had been expelled last year for disciplinary reasons, who had also threatened other students in the past. He returned to campus today with an AR-15 type rifle and went on a shooting rampage; 17 are dead and another 15 wounded. The boy who did the shooting is in police custody.
Later last evening, we learned that the boy's adoptive mother had died three months ago at age 68, and he had been living with a friend since. His adoptive father had died years ago.
Murphy also, with obvious sadness and anger, said that this is an American phenomenon. It does not happen like this in other countries. Yes, there are terrorist attacks, with an ideology and suicide bombs. But the lone, isolated, often disturbed individual, who uses easily-obtained, semi-automatic guns for a school or church massacre, is strictly our own, peculiar to our culture.
In fact, when the school expelled this student, it also issued an order that he was not to be allowed on campus with a backpack, presumably so that he could not come in with a concealed weapon. Details of today's shooting are not yet known, so we don't know how that was avoided. But he was officially identified, and widely known among students, as a gun-safety risk.
Sen. Murphy told Chris Hayes that, since the Sandy Hook shooting, Connecticut has tightened its gun control laws -- with a resultant 40% reduction in homicides. Hayes shared the information that the combined deaths from guns and from opioid overdoses is 100,000 a year. And Congress has done little about either of them.
The budget that Trump just submitted last week cuts funding for the instant background check system by 16% -- from $73 million to $61 million -- despite near universal public support for strengthening instant background checks. According to campaign finance records, the NRA contributed roughly $30 million to Trump's presidential campaign.
Ralph
Later last evening, we learned that the boy's adoptive mother had died three months ago at age 68, and he had been living with a friend since. His adoptive father had died years ago.
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-CN), whose constituency includes the Sandy Hook elementary school that was the scene of a mass shooting several years ago, is one of the leading senators trying to effect some change. He says Congress must -- at the least -- take the first step: to provide the funding and find the will to enforce the laws that we already have. And that has to include providing the services to help someone like this student who had already been identified in the past as a potential risk for just what happened.
Murphy also, with obvious sadness and anger, said that this is an American phenomenon. It does not happen like this in other countries. Yes, there are terrorist attacks, with an ideology and suicide bombs. But the lone, isolated, often disturbed individual, who uses easily-obtained, semi-automatic guns for a school or church massacre, is strictly our own, peculiar to our culture.
In fact, when the school expelled this student, it also issued an order that he was not to be allowed on campus with a backpack, presumably so that he could not come in with a concealed weapon. Details of today's shooting are not yet known, so we don't know how that was avoided. But he was officially identified, and widely known among students, as a gun-safety risk.
Sen. Murphy told Chris Hayes that, since the Sandy Hook shooting, Connecticut has tightened its gun control laws -- with a resultant 40% reduction in homicides. Hayes shared the information that the combined deaths from guns and from opioid overdoses is 100,000 a year. And Congress has done little about either of them.
The budget that Trump just submitted last week cuts funding for the instant background check system by 16% -- from $73 million to $61 million -- despite near universal public support for strengthening instant background checks. According to campaign finance records, the NRA contributed roughly $30 million to Trump's presidential campaign.
Ralph
Wednesday, February 14, 2018
FBI's Wray's testimony undermines White House story of what they knew, when.
S. V. Date, HuffPost's senior White House correspondent, reports on FBI Director Christopher Wray's testimony before the Senate Intelligence Committee. He was asked by Sen. Ron Wyden (D-OR), essentially, what did you tell the White House and when?
Wray replied, after some cautions about not being able to give specifics about an investigation, said the FBI gave them a preliminary report on Porter in March of 2017 and then a completed report in late July of 2017.
Wray added that "soon thereafter" the White House requested some further follow-up, which it completed and returned in November 2017. He then said the FBI closed its investigation in January 2018, but then received "additional information" in early February, which it also passed on the the White House.
This contradicts in several specifics the White House story that Chief of Staff Kelly only learned that the allegations were true on Tuesday of last week and took action within 20 minutes.
Now, one can imagine that the WH wiggle room is that the FBI is correct in that it informed the WH of the allegations when it said it did -- and that Porter denied, or at least minimized, them to his White House boss. Then, when the media published the picture of the ex-wife's black eye and the evidence of a police restraining order from the time, they could no longer white wash it.
At the very least, it makes the White House -- going at least to Kelly, if not Trump himself -- look duplicitous. If your top staffer who handles all the secret documents for the president can't get a security clearance, of course you would ask the FBI why -- immediately following that partial report in March 2017.
I'm guessing that it was brought to Trump's attention and that he made the decision to ignore the allegations. Because he always believes the men, not the women. It also means that, given a discrepancy between what an FBI investigation tells you, and what a staff member says about charges against himself, you choose to believe the staff member, not the FBI.
It's not credible that the FBI didn't have that black-eye photo from a cooperating witness who shared at least the info, if not the photo, with the White House. But it was only when it got published and could no longer be denied that they acted. Same pattern as with Michael Flynn.
One side point that someone made is that, for unknown reasons, Jared Kushner also has not yet received a permanent security clearance. With him, it may be that he initially concealed evidence of his contacts with Russia. It may be those contacts in themselves. Or it may be his complex financial businesses. At any rate, Trump has reportedly waived the requirement (which he can do) for Kushner, and he remains a top adviser to the president, with nothing more than an interim security clearance. The suggestion was that, if they had booted Porter, it would shine the spotlight on Trump's preferential treatment for his son-in-law. So they just let it slide, keeping Porter on with an interim clearance (but also, we now know, with info from the FBI that he would never get a permanent top secret clearance.)
I'm inclined to think that it's simpler than that -- that the argument went like this: (1) Porter says he's innocent and the ex-wives are exaggerating out of anger at him; (2) men are vulnerable to women's claims, and a "mere allegation" (a term Trump used in a tweet) can ruin a man's career; and (3) besides, Porter is an exemplary public servant -- one of the few "professionals" on the White House staff (as Kelly originally said) -- and that, even if true, it doesn't affect his work. So let's keep him. Old boys club, and all that.
Here's the problem: for over a year, Porter has been what the FBI would identify as a security risk because of his potential vulnerability to blackmail. Right there in an office just outside the president's, handling every top secret document that came to the president.
Is it that they don't believe the FBI? They are thorough in these checks. Of course the FBI must have had the photo from their interview with the ex-wife a year ago. The black eye had occurred in 2005. Or is it just that Trump just doesn't care? It's being reported today that, at the time all this broke open, Porter was being considered for an even higher position, possibly deputy chief of staff, to replace the one who was pushed out and into another job last week.
Even if it is that Trump just doesn't care, are we to believe that a retired, respected Marine general (Kelly) would continue to serve a president who didn't care about the security of the nation? It's beginning to look more and more like that is the case. We now have at least two serious occasions in which Kelly has demonstrably lied to the public as Chief of Staff to the President of the United States.
Even worse, POTUS probably would agree with Kelly and not care if he lied. The main problem for Kelly is that he's getting too much media coverage. That's what bothers Trump, to be upstaged.
Ralph
Wray replied, after some cautions about not being able to give specifics about an investigation, said the FBI gave them a preliminary report on Porter in March of 2017 and then a completed report in late July of 2017.
Wray added that "soon thereafter" the White House requested some further follow-up, which it completed and returned in November 2017. He then said the FBI closed its investigation in January 2018, but then received "additional information" in early February, which it also passed on the the White House.
This contradicts in several specifics the White House story that Chief of Staff Kelly only learned that the allegations were true on Tuesday of last week and took action within 20 minutes.
Now, one can imagine that the WH wiggle room is that the FBI is correct in that it informed the WH of the allegations when it said it did -- and that Porter denied, or at least minimized, them to his White House boss. Then, when the media published the picture of the ex-wife's black eye and the evidence of a police restraining order from the time, they could no longer white wash it.
At the very least, it makes the White House -- going at least to Kelly, if not Trump himself -- look duplicitous. If your top staffer who handles all the secret documents for the president can't get a security clearance, of course you would ask the FBI why -- immediately following that partial report in March 2017.
I'm guessing that it was brought to Trump's attention and that he made the decision to ignore the allegations. Because he always believes the men, not the women. It also means that, given a discrepancy between what an FBI investigation tells you, and what a staff member says about charges against himself, you choose to believe the staff member, not the FBI.
It's not credible that the FBI didn't have that black-eye photo from a cooperating witness who shared at least the info, if not the photo, with the White House. But it was only when it got published and could no longer be denied that they acted. Same pattern as with Michael Flynn.
One side point that someone made is that, for unknown reasons, Jared Kushner also has not yet received a permanent security clearance. With him, it may be that he initially concealed evidence of his contacts with Russia. It may be those contacts in themselves. Or it may be his complex financial businesses. At any rate, Trump has reportedly waived the requirement (which he can do) for Kushner, and he remains a top adviser to the president, with nothing more than an interim security clearance. The suggestion was that, if they had booted Porter, it would shine the spotlight on Trump's preferential treatment for his son-in-law. So they just let it slide, keeping Porter on with an interim clearance (but also, we now know, with info from the FBI that he would never get a permanent top secret clearance.)
I'm inclined to think that it's simpler than that -- that the argument went like this: (1) Porter says he's innocent and the ex-wives are exaggerating out of anger at him; (2) men are vulnerable to women's claims, and a "mere allegation" (a term Trump used in a tweet) can ruin a man's career; and (3) besides, Porter is an exemplary public servant -- one of the few "professionals" on the White House staff (as Kelly originally said) -- and that, even if true, it doesn't affect his work. So let's keep him. Old boys club, and all that.
Here's the problem: for over a year, Porter has been what the FBI would identify as a security risk because of his potential vulnerability to blackmail. Right there in an office just outside the president's, handling every top secret document that came to the president.
Is it that they don't believe the FBI? They are thorough in these checks. Of course the FBI must have had the photo from their interview with the ex-wife a year ago. The black eye had occurred in 2005. Or is it just that Trump just doesn't care? It's being reported today that, at the time all this broke open, Porter was being considered for an even higher position, possibly deputy chief of staff, to replace the one who was pushed out and into another job last week.
Even if it is that Trump just doesn't care, are we to believe that a retired, respected Marine general (Kelly) would continue to serve a president who didn't care about the security of the nation? It's beginning to look more and more like that is the case. We now have at least two serious occasions in which Kelly has demonstrably lied to the public as Chief of Staff to the President of the United States.
Even worse, POTUS probably would agree with Kelly and not care if he lied. The main problem for Kelly is that he's getting too much media coverage. That's what bothers Trump, to be upstaged.
Ralph
Tuesday, February 13, 2018
Pence: US ready to talk with North Korea
Scott Rogin, reporting in the Washington Post, helped put into perspective the U.S. position vis a vis South Korea in light of its open welcome to the North Korean delegation -- mostly featuring Kim Jong Un's sister and close adviser. Here are some excerpts of Rogin's article:
"Vice President Pence, in an interview aboard Air Force Two on the way home from the Winter Olympics . . . [explained that] the United States and South Korea agreed on terms for further engagement with North Korea -- first by the South Koreans and potentially with the United State soon thereafter."
Rogin then explained that the costly sanctions against the North will continue, but "the Trump administration is now willing to sit down and talk with the regime while that pressure campaign is ongoing. . . . [i.e.] maximum pressure and engagement at the same time" . . . .
Pence added: "So the maximum pressure campaign is going to contionue and intensify. But if you want to talk, we'll talk."
Rogin continues, saying that Pence and Moon worked this out during their bilateral meetings on Thursday and Saturday evening. "Before these meetings, the Trump and Moon administrations were not aligned on whether Seoul's new engagement with Pyongyang should continue after the Olympics end."
But, according to what Pence told Rogin, he (Pence, in daily contact with President Trump) told Moon that the international community "must not repeat the mistakes of the past by giving North Korea concessions in exchange for talking. . . . Moon assured Pence he would tell the North Koreans clearly that they would not get economic or diplomatic benefits for just talking -- only for taking concrete steps toward denuclearization. Based on that assurance, Pence felt confident he could endorse post-Olympic engagement with Pyongyang."
The big difference here is that, in the past, the Trump position has been that steps toward denuclearization must happen prior to even beginning talks. Now our position is that this is not a pre-condition but, rather, part of the negotiations to be worked out during talks.
Even if this is nothing more than the U.S. agreement to talk about having talks, that is a concession from Trump's previous position. It is the one Rex Tillerson voiced several weeks ago that, at the time, put him at odds with the president.
Whether the North will accept this, or will have concessions it demands -- such as a delay in joint U.S.-South Korean military exercises in the reagion -- remains to be seen.
Rogin concludes: "The White House's endorsement of the concept of initial talks without preconditions is hugely significant. It provides a real fix to the break between Washington and Seoul. It also increases the chances the United States and North Korea will soon begin a process that represents the best hope of preventing a devastating international conflict."
* * * * *
"Despite the mutual chilliness between U.S. and North Korean officials in South Korea last week, behind the scenes real progress was made toward a new diplomatic opening that could result in direct talks without preconditions . . .. This window of opportunity was born out of a new understanding reached between the White House and the president of South Korea."Vice President Pence, in an interview aboard Air Force Two on the way home from the Winter Olympics . . . [explained that] the United States and South Korea agreed on terms for further engagement with North Korea -- first by the South Koreans and potentially with the United State soon thereafter."
Rogin then explained that the costly sanctions against the North will continue, but "the Trump administration is now willing to sit down and talk with the regime while that pressure campaign is ongoing. . . . [i.e.] maximum pressure and engagement at the same time" . . . .
Pence added: "So the maximum pressure campaign is going to contionue and intensify. But if you want to talk, we'll talk."
Rogin continues, saying that Pence and Moon worked this out during their bilateral meetings on Thursday and Saturday evening. "Before these meetings, the Trump and Moon administrations were not aligned on whether Seoul's new engagement with Pyongyang should continue after the Olympics end."
But, according to what Pence told Rogin, he (Pence, in daily contact with President Trump) told Moon that the international community "must not repeat the mistakes of the past by giving North Korea concessions in exchange for talking. . . . Moon assured Pence he would tell the North Koreans clearly that they would not get economic or diplomatic benefits for just talking -- only for taking concrete steps toward denuclearization. Based on that assurance, Pence felt confident he could endorse post-Olympic engagement with Pyongyang."
The big difference here is that, in the past, the Trump position has been that steps toward denuclearization must happen prior to even beginning talks. Now our position is that this is not a pre-condition but, rather, part of the negotiations to be worked out during talks.
Even if this is nothing more than the U.S. agreement to talk about having talks, that is a concession from Trump's previous position. It is the one Rex Tillerson voiced several weeks ago that, at the time, put him at odds with the president.
Whether the North will accept this, or will have concessions it demands -- such as a delay in joint U.S.-South Korean military exercises in the reagion -- remains to be seen.
Rogin concludes: "The White House's endorsement of the concept of initial talks without preconditions is hugely significant. It provides a real fix to the break between Washington and Seoul. It also increases the chances the United States and North Korea will soon begin a process that represents the best hope of preventing a devastating international conflict."
* * * * *
Yesterday, I was both critical and scornful of Pence for raining on South Korea's Olympic unity parade. This shows that real important progress was also going on behind the scenes between us and South Korea.
I still don't see why Pence couldn't have been less rude -- but, if the end result of this concession by the U.S. moves us in a diplomatic direction and away from bomb-threatening, then that is the important thing.
Ralph
Monday, February 12, 2018
Pence and two Koreas at the Olympics
Vice President Mike Pence led the U.S. delegation to the Winter Olympics in South Korea, although he only stayed until Saturday night. The late change between North and South Korea to turn this into the first step in the direction of some sort of rapprochement, maybe leading eventually to negotiations and ultimately reunification, left the U.S. and Pence in an awkward position. But then Pence made the worst of the situation. He has a talent for doing just that.
The U.S. doesn't trust North Korea's motives, calling this a propaganda move by the North, and suspicious that any real thawing will evaporate after the TV cameras leave and that the North's real motive is to drive a wedge between the U.S. and South Korea. Nevertheless, South Korea -- our ally -- very much wanted this and promoted it. And we had Pence there acting very much like a petulant, jilted suitor.
One reason this was a good move was that getting the North to actually participate in the games, and even moreso with the two teams marching in together as one under one flag, would ensure that the North would not pull some stunt that would endanger those a the games, or to embarrass South Korea, or ruin the emphasis on world peace and unity. Not only that, it also eliminated the real worry that N.K. might have done something militarily or even explosive to disrupt the games.
So -- with all that in the background -- the two Koreas are playing this as real. The South held a VIP luncheon at which Kim Yo Jong, the sister of dictator Kim Jong-un and leader of the North's delegation, invited South Korea's president, Moon Jae-in to visit North Korea for discussions about reunification.
Kim Yo Jung -- unlike the stereotype the West has developed of the dour, drably dressed North Koreans, is a stylish young woman of 28 (or 30). who is known as an important adviser to her brother. She is quite likely the real second in command in the North. She was of course the center of attention; TV footage of her walking amiably with President Moon and interacting with him was what played continuously.
Meanwhile, Pence seemed like the grumpy older uncle who rained on everyone's parade -- except that it didn't work, and he wound up looking like the odd one out on a happy occasion. He arrived late for the VIP reception and stayed only five minutes. At the opening ceremony, Kim Yo Jung was seated within feet of him in the row behind, but Pence sat stone-faced and never turned around or made any gesture to recognize her.
He repeatedly reminded the media of North Korea's horrible human rights abuses of its own people, of the risks posed by their nuclear program, and accused the North of trying to "high-jack the message and the imagery of the Olumpic games." He went further in stating the U.S. opposition to any talks between South Korea and North Korea until the North agrees to negotiate an end to its nuclear program.
Actually, it was Pence himself who high-jacked the message and imagery of the Olympic games -- which is, more than anything, putting aside political difference and letting pure athletic prowess bring the world together in peace and harmony.
In contrast the South's president Moon welcomed the North's delegation with open arms and smiles. He is making a sincere effort to at least take a time-out, in keeping with the original spirit of the "games of peace," to put aside differences and let sports be a uniting force for good.
The Associated Press quoted Frank Jannuzi, an East Asia expert at the Mansfield Foundation in Washington, criticized the Trump administration for "straining too hard to signal disgust" of Kim Jong Un's government.
"The grievances that the world has about North Korea are very legitimate. But the Olympic moment that President Moon is trying to generate here is not the time to nurse those grievances. It's a time to focus on messages of reconciliation and peace."
From my perspective, this was a public relations disaster for the U.S., outmaneuvered by Kim in a brilliant public relations move. Poor Pence. First he gets sent to a football championship game for the purpose of a staged walk-out to protest the athletes' peaceful, kneeling protest during the national anthem. Then he gets sent half-way around the world to remain seated while everyone else stands and applauds the unified Korean athletes during the opening ceremony procession. The White House even felt it necessary to put out a statement that the vice president was only clapping for the U.S. athletes during the entrance.
Back to the AP report: North Korea's president "Moon has been keen to use the Olympics to pry open the door to better relations with its adversary. North Korea has jumped at the opportunity.
"The downside for Washington is that it could expose growing differences with Seoul on the best way to deal with North Korea and achieve the ultimate goal of denuclearization. . . .
"'It's not a complete disaster,' said James Schoff, a former senior Pentagon adviser for East Asia policy. . . . [But] by pouring cold water on hopes for better inter-Korean relations, Pence's stance could be viewed as critical of Moon's outreach to North Korea. The fact that's become the narrative is due in part to things that he's [Pence] said and his body language."
I'm afraid -- so far, anyway -- this one has to be credited as a win for the two Koreas -- the South for seizing the initiative and reaching out, and the North for graciously accepting and participating. And another international gaffe for the U.S. Who would have believed that, in one year, the U.S. would go from undeniable world leader to laughing stock? Is it Trumpian ineptitude? Or Kremlin design?
Ralph
The U.S. doesn't trust North Korea's motives, calling this a propaganda move by the North, and suspicious that any real thawing will evaporate after the TV cameras leave and that the North's real motive is to drive a wedge between the U.S. and South Korea. Nevertheless, South Korea -- our ally -- very much wanted this and promoted it. And we had Pence there acting very much like a petulant, jilted suitor.
One reason this was a good move was that getting the North to actually participate in the games, and even moreso with the two teams marching in together as one under one flag, would ensure that the North would not pull some stunt that would endanger those a the games, or to embarrass South Korea, or ruin the emphasis on world peace and unity. Not only that, it also eliminated the real worry that N.K. might have done something militarily or even explosive to disrupt the games.
So -- with all that in the background -- the two Koreas are playing this as real. The South held a VIP luncheon at which Kim Yo Jong, the sister of dictator Kim Jong-un and leader of the North's delegation, invited South Korea's president, Moon Jae-in to visit North Korea for discussions about reunification.
Kim Yo Jung -- unlike the stereotype the West has developed of the dour, drably dressed North Koreans, is a stylish young woman of 28 (or 30). who is known as an important adviser to her brother. She is quite likely the real second in command in the North. She was of course the center of attention; TV footage of her walking amiably with President Moon and interacting with him was what played continuously.
Meanwhile, Pence seemed like the grumpy older uncle who rained on everyone's parade -- except that it didn't work, and he wound up looking like the odd one out on a happy occasion. He arrived late for the VIP reception and stayed only five minutes. At the opening ceremony, Kim Yo Jung was seated within feet of him in the row behind, but Pence sat stone-faced and never turned around or made any gesture to recognize her.
He repeatedly reminded the media of North Korea's horrible human rights abuses of its own people, of the risks posed by their nuclear program, and accused the North of trying to "high-jack the message and the imagery of the Olumpic games." He went further in stating the U.S. opposition to any talks between South Korea and North Korea until the North agrees to negotiate an end to its nuclear program.
Actually, it was Pence himself who high-jacked the message and imagery of the Olympic games -- which is, more than anything, putting aside political difference and letting pure athletic prowess bring the world together in peace and harmony.
In contrast the South's president Moon welcomed the North's delegation with open arms and smiles. He is making a sincere effort to at least take a time-out, in keeping with the original spirit of the "games of peace," to put aside differences and let sports be a uniting force for good.
The Associated Press quoted Frank Jannuzi, an East Asia expert at the Mansfield Foundation in Washington, criticized the Trump administration for "straining too hard to signal disgust" of Kim Jong Un's government.
"The grievances that the world has about North Korea are very legitimate. But the Olympic moment that President Moon is trying to generate here is not the time to nurse those grievances. It's a time to focus on messages of reconciliation and peace."
From my perspective, this was a public relations disaster for the U.S., outmaneuvered by Kim in a brilliant public relations move. Poor Pence. First he gets sent to a football championship game for the purpose of a staged walk-out to protest the athletes' peaceful, kneeling protest during the national anthem. Then he gets sent half-way around the world to remain seated while everyone else stands and applauds the unified Korean athletes during the opening ceremony procession. The White House even felt it necessary to put out a statement that the vice president was only clapping for the U.S. athletes during the entrance.
Back to the AP report: North Korea's president "Moon has been keen to use the Olympics to pry open the door to better relations with its adversary. North Korea has jumped at the opportunity.
"The downside for Washington is that it could expose growing differences with Seoul on the best way to deal with North Korea and achieve the ultimate goal of denuclearization. . . .
"'It's not a complete disaster,' said James Schoff, a former senior Pentagon adviser for East Asia policy. . . . [But] by pouring cold water on hopes for better inter-Korean relations, Pence's stance could be viewed as critical of Moon's outreach to North Korea. The fact that's become the narrative is due in part to things that he's [Pence] said and his body language."
I'm afraid -- so far, anyway -- this one has to be credited as a win for the two Koreas -- the South for seizing the initiative and reaching out, and the North for graciously accepting and participating. And another international gaffe for the U.S. Who would have believed that, in one year, the U.S. would go from undeniable world leader to laughing stock? Is it Trumpian ineptitude? Or Kremlin design?
Ralph
Sunday, February 11, 2018
What one Vet thinks of Trump's parade: “I am not wasting a day standing/marching around in my freaking uniform so that somebody can get their rocks off.”
HuffPost's Foreign Affairs reporter made a survey (not necessarily representative, however) of military personnel and veterans to see what they thought of President Trump's desired military parade down Pennsylvania. The headline contains one of the responses. Here are some of the issues and some other responses.
First of all, logistically, it would be extremely difficult and expensive. Because it is not something we do frequently -- as do Russia, North Korea and some other autocratic countries, and as France does on its annual Bastille Day, with Trump as invited guest this year -- the heavy equipment like tanks and big gun carriers would have to be transported over long distances to Washington. That's extremely expensive -- for example, a tank gets about one mile per gallon of gasoline. And you can't exactly drive them down the interstate anyway -- their tracks destroy ordinary asphalt pavement, which will have to be repaired along the parade route.
Except for small local celebrations, the last big military parade held was 30 years ago to commemorate the end of the First Gulf War when George H.W. Bush was president. Before that, it was the celebration of the end of World War II in 1945, 63 years ago.
Second, except for relatively small numbers of troops regularly assigned for ceremonial duties connected with Arlington Cemetery, e.g., our troops are not kept in top marching form. They have much more important things to master and keep skilled at. So it would take a week of practice, for the many thousands of marching troops Trump wants, to drop everything and prepare for the parade. If they used only the crack special duty troops, it would be laughably small.
Imagine the ridicule the would follow if we put on a parade that flopped, or even showed a smidgen less than the precision with which the North Korean high-stepping soldiers march? A veteran said: "For something like this that's going to be on television . . . worldwide . . . all it takes is one person screwing up and somebody takes a picture . . . that's all that anyone remembers." Trump would not be happy.
In general, those current and former service people who responded to HuffPost's query "thought it was a pretty dumb idea -- and that it would be much harder to pull off than the commander-in-chief might imagine."
First of all, logistically, it would be extremely difficult and expensive. Because it is not something we do frequently -- as do Russia, North Korea and some other autocratic countries, and as France does on its annual Bastille Day, with Trump as invited guest this year -- the heavy equipment like tanks and big gun carriers would have to be transported over long distances to Washington. That's extremely expensive -- for example, a tank gets about one mile per gallon of gasoline. And you can't exactly drive them down the interstate anyway -- their tracks destroy ordinary asphalt pavement, which will have to be repaired along the parade route.
Except for small local celebrations, the last big military parade held was 30 years ago to commemorate the end of the First Gulf War when George H.W. Bush was president. Before that, it was the celebration of the end of World War II in 1945, 63 years ago.
Second, except for relatively small numbers of troops regularly assigned for ceremonial duties connected with Arlington Cemetery, e.g., our troops are not kept in top marching form. They have much more important things to master and keep skilled at. So it would take a week of practice, for the many thousands of marching troops Trump wants, to drop everything and prepare for the parade. If they used only the crack special duty troops, it would be laughably small.
Imagine the ridicule the would follow if we put on a parade that flopped, or even showed a smidgen less than the precision with which the North Korean high-stepping soldiers march? A veteran said: "For something like this that's going to be on television . . . worldwide . . . all it takes is one person screwing up and somebody takes a picture . . . that's all that anyone remembers." Trump would not be happy.
In general, those current and former service people who responded to HuffPost's query "thought it was a pretty dumb idea -- and that it would be much harder to pull off than the commander-in-chief might imagine."
Marching is not much a part of what soldiers do these days, and it is not a large part of their training. One officer said, "If I had to choose between getting my soldiers more time on the range [practicing] shooting straight, I would . . . choose that training that . . . better prepared for the mission and better able to survive."
Another former Naval veteran said, "Personally, I think we'd look terrible." He said he hadn't marched since boot camp." Others commented about having to take away vacation time from those just rotating back from the Middle East and sending them to Washington to practice marching. How's that going to go over?
Rotations and training schedules are planned years in advance -- all that would be disrupted. The practice time would upend all that.
And then the question -- reflected in that response in the headline -- "What's the point?" Who is this for? The cover story is "to honor our service members." But when HuffPost asked veterans if they felt honored by a military parade, "the response was mostly a collective eye roll." "The only people that like this stuff are the VIPS," one 20 year veteran added.
In the more colorful language quoted in the heading: It's wasting time "so that somebody can get their rocks off."
Several vets bristled at the idea we need to show off our military strength. "We demonstrate our military strength in joint military exercises that we do pretty much all the time all over the world." The U.S. "is certainly the most powerful military in the world," said another.
"A better way to show respect for the troops would be to devote more resources to job programs and suicide prevention for veterans," said an Army reservist. Others even brought up the absurdity of Trump, "who dodged military service and mocked a prisoner of war during the campaign," would order a military parade.
Rotations and training schedules are planned years in advance -- all that would be disrupted. The practice time would upend all that.
And then the question -- reflected in that response in the headline -- "What's the point?" Who is this for? The cover story is "to honor our service members." But when HuffPost asked veterans if they felt honored by a military parade, "the response was mostly a collective eye roll." "The only people that like this stuff are the VIPS," one 20 year veteran added.
In the more colorful language quoted in the heading: It's wasting time "so that somebody can get their rocks off."
Several vets bristled at the idea we need to show off our military strength. "We demonstrate our military strength in joint military exercises that we do pretty much all the time all over the world." The U.S. "is certainly the most powerful military in the world," said another.
"A better way to show respect for the troops would be to devote more resources to job programs and suicide prevention for veterans," said an Army reservist. Others even brought up the absurdity of Trump, "who dodged military service and mocked a prisoner of war during the campaign," would order a military parade.
A former Marine said: "Trump still doesn't have the faintest idea of what meaningful patriotism looks like. . . Turning service members into props is reprehensible on its own, and even more enraging when it comes from a man who paraded his own disdain for military service."
Trump's Chief of Staff, General John Kelly, is in hot water over his handling of the current scandal of a wife-beater handling every top secret piece of paper put before the president -- without having passed the security clearance vetting. Maybe Gen. Kelly can redeem himself by standing up and telling the president that this is a no-go -- and that, if he doesn't like it, Kelly's resignation will be on his desk in 15 minutes.
Hey, and while you're at it, General, please tell the emperor that he doesn't have any clothes on. And that we know he's bald underneath the world's most elaborate comb-0ver.
Some things you can do only when you're leaving anyway. Who better than a reputable general who has nothing left to lose?
Ralph
Trump's Chief of Staff, General John Kelly, is in hot water over his handling of the current scandal of a wife-beater handling every top secret piece of paper put before the president -- without having passed the security clearance vetting. Maybe Gen. Kelly can redeem himself by standing up and telling the president that this is a no-go -- and that, if he doesn't like it, Kelly's resignation will be on his desk in 15 minutes.
Hey, and while you're at it, General, please tell the emperor that he doesn't have any clothes on. And that we know he's bald underneath the world's most elaborate comb-0ver.
Some things you can do only when you're leaving anyway. Who better than a reputable general who has nothing left to lose?
Ralph
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
