In my prior post on Kim Jong Un's "beautiful letter," in which Trump claims Kim made "a small apology" for recent missiles launched, there was confusion and doubt about the truthfulness of Trump's statement.
And it's even more dubious now that Kim has done it again. Even as Trump's praise of Kim's "apology" still rings in the news cycle, he's done it again. Fired some kind of projectiles into the sea near Japan and South Korea again yesterday.
Kim also said, according to Trump, that he would stop firing the missiles when the US and South Korea ended the joint military exercises. Apparently they didn't stop, so he fired more . . . something.
That just doesn't jibe with "an apology" for firing missiles.
Here's the only way this makes sense to me. Kim now clearly has the upper hand in these negotiations. Trump needs a third summit meeting more than Kim does, with the US election coming up. So the shoe is on the other foot now.
Not in any substantive way. Kim has no advantage nor any incentive to actually move toward denuclearization. But Trump definitely needs to have something that he can distort into propaganda, pointing to success, for political purposes in the 2020 election.
Ralph
Saturday, August 17, 2019
Friday, August 16, 2019
Kim Jung Un manipulates Trump again
This is based in part on an article in The Hill by John Bowden.
President Trump has announced what he calls "a really beautiful letter" from Kim Jong Un. That's odd, because most of what Trump says about Kim's letter doesn't sound so beautiful.
It was, Trump says, "a long letter, much of it complaining about the ridiculous and expensive exercises" that we are currently carrying out with our military ally South Korea. These regularly scheduled, 'war game' exercises help maintain military readiness for both the U.S. and the South Korean forces against possible aggression from North Korea.
Trump has no background for strategic planning and can only see the possibilities for economic development in North Korea -- golf resorts overlooking the coastal area; high rises in the big cities. So he tends to be more sympathetic toward Kim's position than to our own foreign policy establishment.
He did say that Kim "made a small apology" for the recent testing of short range missiles and said that "the testing would stop when the US/South Korea exercises end. Kim adds further, according to Bowden's article: "Pyongyang will judge the future of its relations with the U.S. on whether the Trump administration goes through with the joint exercises. North Korean officials have maintained that any joint operations between the U.S. and South Korea violate an agreement signed by Trump and Kim upon their first meeting last year."
This doesn't make much sense. As recently as four days prior to Kim's letter, the North shot two more projectiles into the sea as a warning, making a total of five missile launches in the past two weeks. Then suddenly Kim gets kudos from Trump for the "small" apology Trump says the letter contains about the missiles. Where's the apology and what does Kim propose to do as penance? Absolutely nothing. He'll stop with the missiles if we stop violating the agreement, which Kim says he and Trump signed. But apparently there's disagreement about that.
No wonder they get nowhere in negotiations.
Then Trump goes back to praising Kim's letter again. It was a really long letter -- three full pages, all the way from the top to the bottom. Just imagine!!!! It must have really taxed Trump's powers of concentration to read it all.
Bowden's article gives us a little more clarity. U.S. and North Korean officials have been engaged in negotiations toward setting up a third summit meeting. Apparently there are more knowledgeable negotiators in that team than we would think from Trump's account of this letter.
I'm highly skeptical. Kim is the smarter and more skilled manipulator than Trump, who would probably be satisfied with a meeting/photo-op that would contain something that Trump can then distort into politically useful propaganda -- like a break-through in negotiations that will eventually lead to a denuclearization of North Korea.
And Kim knows that's what Trump most wants -- bragging rights and political gain -- and he might just give it to him. Not that it will lead to real substantive progress, but just enough for just long enough to benefit Trump in 2020.
But what will Kim's price be for that? Because Trump will probably be willing to pay it. He has precious little else to claim as "promises fulfilled."
Ralph
President Trump has announced what he calls "a really beautiful letter" from Kim Jong Un. That's odd, because most of what Trump says about Kim's letter doesn't sound so beautiful.
It was, Trump says, "a long letter, much of it complaining about the ridiculous and expensive exercises" that we are currently carrying out with our military ally South Korea. These regularly scheduled, 'war game' exercises help maintain military readiness for both the U.S. and the South Korean forces against possible aggression from North Korea.
Trump has no background for strategic planning and can only see the possibilities for economic development in North Korea -- golf resorts overlooking the coastal area; high rises in the big cities. So he tends to be more sympathetic toward Kim's position than to our own foreign policy establishment.
He did say that Kim "made a small apology" for the recent testing of short range missiles and said that "the testing would stop when the US/South Korea exercises end. Kim adds further, according to Bowden's article: "Pyongyang will judge the future of its relations with the U.S. on whether the Trump administration goes through with the joint exercises. North Korean officials have maintained that any joint operations between the U.S. and South Korea violate an agreement signed by Trump and Kim upon their first meeting last year."
This doesn't make much sense. As recently as four days prior to Kim's letter, the North shot two more projectiles into the sea as a warning, making a total of five missile launches in the past two weeks. Then suddenly Kim gets kudos from Trump for the "small" apology Trump says the letter contains about the missiles. Where's the apology and what does Kim propose to do as penance? Absolutely nothing. He'll stop with the missiles if we stop violating the agreement, which Kim says he and Trump signed. But apparently there's disagreement about that.
No wonder they get nowhere in negotiations.
Then Trump goes back to praising Kim's letter again. It was a really long letter -- three full pages, all the way from the top to the bottom. Just imagine!!!! It must have really taxed Trump's powers of concentration to read it all.
Bowden's article gives us a little more clarity. U.S. and North Korean officials have been engaged in negotiations toward setting up a third summit meeting. Apparently there are more knowledgeable negotiators in that team than we would think from Trump's account of this letter.
I'm highly skeptical. Kim is the smarter and more skilled manipulator than Trump, who would probably be satisfied with a meeting/photo-op that would contain something that Trump can then distort into politically useful propaganda -- like a break-through in negotiations that will eventually lead to a denuclearization of North Korea.
And Kim knows that's what Trump most wants -- bragging rights and political gain -- and he might just give it to him. Not that it will lead to real substantive progress, but just enough for just long enough to benefit Trump in 2020.
But what will Kim's price be for that? Because Trump will probably be willing to pay it. He has precious little else to claim as "promises fulfilled."
Ralph
Monday, August 12, 2019
Bumper sticker I'd like to have
Saw online a bumper sticker I'd like to have:
"Literally, anyone else, 2020."
Susan Rice on Donald Trump
Susan Rice was Ambassador to the United Nations and later National Security Adviser to President Barack Obama. In a recent op-ed article in the New York Times, entitled "When the president is a bigot, the poison spreads . . . around the world and embolden our adversaries," Dr. Rice was very critical of President Trump in the wake of the white supremacy controversy. Here are some excerpts of what she wrote:
"It’s hard to calculate the damage that President Trump’s overt racism and almost daily attacks on black and brown people are having on the fabric of our nation. With white supremacy bolstered from the Oval Office, hate crimes and domestic terrorism incidents are increasing, including, it appears, Saturday’s mass shooting in El Paso.
"At the same time, immigrants and native-born Americans live in constant fear of law enforcement officials emboldened to think they can act with impunity. Still, Mr. Trump revels in ripping off the fragile scab over the lingering sore that is our country’s historical racial divide, as if to ensure it never heals.
"The president’s appalling goal, quite simply, is to pit Americans against one another for crass political purposes as well as, it seems, to vent his unabashed personal prejudice. . . .
"Is there no floor to how low this president and complicit Republicans are prepared to go to divide America?
"Yet, the consequences of Mr. Trump’s raw racism are not contained within America’s shores. They ricochet around the world as far away as New Zealand, poison the international climate and undermine America’s ability to secure our global interests. . . .
"That allied leaders, whose countries’ partnership we prize because they share both our interests and our values, felt compelled to condemn the president’s racist comments marks a fresh nadir in global regard for America’s leadership. . . .
"In case anyone needs reminding: A majority of the world is populated by what we Americans call “people of color.” To fight terrorism or prevent the spread of pandemic disease, to stem weapons proliferation or organized criminal organizations, to address climate change or punish outlaw states, we need the willing cooperation of nations around the world. None of these transnational security challenges can be combated effectively by the United States alone.
"With the president increasingly alienating our allies and insulting potential partners as “shithole” countries, America is hardly well positioned to call upon the good will and cooperation of other states when next we need it most. . . .
* * * * *
"It’s hard to calculate the damage that President Trump’s overt racism and almost daily attacks on black and brown people are having on the fabric of our nation. With white supremacy bolstered from the Oval Office, hate crimes and domestic terrorism incidents are increasing, including, it appears, Saturday’s mass shooting in El Paso.
"At the same time, immigrants and native-born Americans live in constant fear of law enforcement officials emboldened to think they can act with impunity. Still, Mr. Trump revels in ripping off the fragile scab over the lingering sore that is our country’s historical racial divide, as if to ensure it never heals.
"The president’s appalling goal, quite simply, is to pit Americans against one another for crass political purposes as well as, it seems, to vent his unabashed personal prejudice. . . .
"Is there no floor to how low this president and complicit Republicans are prepared to go to divide America?
"Yet, the consequences of Mr. Trump’s raw racism are not contained within America’s shores. They ricochet around the world as far away as New Zealand, poison the international climate and undermine America’s ability to secure our global interests. . . .
"That allied leaders, whose countries’ partnership we prize because they share both our interests and our values, felt compelled to condemn the president’s racist comments marks a fresh nadir in global regard for America’s leadership. . . .
"In case anyone needs reminding: A majority of the world is populated by what we Americans call “people of color.” To fight terrorism or prevent the spread of pandemic disease, to stem weapons proliferation or organized criminal organizations, to address climate change or punish outlaw states, we need the willing cooperation of nations around the world. None of these transnational security challenges can be combated effectively by the United States alone.
"With the president increasingly alienating our allies and insulting potential partners as “shithole” countries, America is hardly well positioned to call upon the good will and cooperation of other states when next we need it most. . . .
"Most dangerously, President Trump is serving up to our adversaries an ever more divided and weakened America, one that is animated by suspicion, rived by hatred of the “other” and increasingly incapable of uniting in the face of external threats. Russia, above all, continues to exploit and exacerbate these divisions.
"During the 2016 presidential campaign, Russian trolls stoked American white nationalism while amplifying black anger about police brutality in an effort to suppress the African-American vote. . . .
"During the 2016 presidential campaign, Russian trolls stoked American white nationalism while amplifying black anger about police brutality in an effort to suppress the African-American vote. . . .
"Our domestic fault lines remain our greatest national security vulnerability, and race is our oldest and deepest rift. When the president deliberately and repeatedly rubs salt in those wounds, while coddling the authoritarian opponents who exploit them, we must reluctantly ask ourselves: Is he playing on America’s team?"
* * * * *
We are entering a new era where people like Susan Rice are joining former CIA Director John Brennan in being openly and brutally honest in criticizing the inadequacies of President Trump.
Oh, course, in my view, she is absolutely right in what she says.
Add to such criticism from some high-level, former government officials this bit of news: A group, Republicans for the Rule of Law with Bill Kristol as one of its directors, is sponsoring a TV ad that will run during Morning Joe on MSNBC, as well as Fox's Fox and Friends. The ad urges voters to call Mitch McConnell's office and demand that he hold a vote on the House-passed election security bills he has been blocking in the Senate. The ad also includes a clip of Trump dismissing Russia as a threat to our voting system and saying that, if they offered dirt on his opponent in the future, yes, he would take it.
Ralph
Oh, course, in my view, she is absolutely right in what she says.
Add to such criticism from some high-level, former government officials this bit of news: A group, Republicans for the Rule of Law with Bill Kristol as one of its directors, is sponsoring a TV ad that will run during Morning Joe on MSNBC, as well as Fox's Fox and Friends. The ad urges voters to call Mitch McConnell's office and demand that he hold a vote on the House-passed election security bills he has been blocking in the Senate. The ad also includes a clip of Trump dismissing Russia as a threat to our voting system and saying that, if they offered dirt on his opponent in the future, yes, he would take it.
Ralph
Sunday, August 11, 2019
What's wrong with this man?
Donald J. and Melania Trump posing for a picture with a newly orphaned baby whose parents were killed in the shooting massacre in El Paso. Baby Paul's grandfather said that Paul was brought to a hospital Trump was visiting at the request of two White House aides who came to their home. [photographer not identified in the HuffPost reproduction].
Trump's grossly inappropriate grin and thumbs up gesture has been called obscene -- given the circumstances. The photo has gone viral, after first being posted on the first lady's twitter account, adding to the tone-deafness of Trump's whole failure as Consoler-in-Chief.
CNN reporter Mary Papenfuss wrote that "The president's oddly jocular pose is a bizarre contrast to the tragedy of the baby's life." And I would add, it seems even worse, given that the two month old is obviously too young to know how he is being exploited to give our narcissistic president what someone thought was a good photo op.
Tweeter Dan Moynihan summed it up: "This child just lost both parents to a white supremacist who drove 10 hours to a WalMart to kill Hispanics because, like Trump, he was concerned about an immigrant invasion. Why exactly are the President and First Lady smiling? Why the hell is he doing the thumbs up sign?"
Former press secretary to Bill Clinton, Joe Lockhard, said it wasn't just the photo but the "unprecedented" way Trump "bashed critics and boasted of his own reception instead of placing the focus on victims and suffering communities."
Here's the thing: The photo is merely visual proof of the inability of Trump to be what a president needs to be in a time like this. During the whole trip to Dayton and then to El Paso, he kept up a running twitter war with critics, bashing his opponents and boasting of his own crowd size on his prior trip to El Paso.
Even White House staff members are acknowledging that the trip "did not go well."
Because Trump does not have any sense of empathy and can only think of himself, he turns the visit into a photo op for himself. Dollars to donuts, this photo will appear in a campaign ad before we're done with Trump.
Now, on the other hand, and to be fair, Baby Paul's uncle, Tito Anchondo, who brought him to meet Trump, says that the baby's father was a Trump supporter and that he, himself, is Republican and wanted Trump to know that their family stands with the president.
Earlier, he had told NPR that he wanted to see Trump's reaction in person, "to see if he's genuine and see if he feels maybe some kind of remorse for statements that he's made." He later told the Wasnington Post that Trump was "just there as a human being, consoling us and giving his condolences . . . [not] pushing any kind of political agenda."
Pardon my cynicism, but that sounds like a coached statement. And apparently Trump did not acknowledge any responsibility for inciting the violence that left Baby Paul an orphan. He was too busy grinning and acknowledging his "win" in getting such a good photo for the campaign ads.
Another family member, an aunt of the baby's father, Elizabeth Terry, declined to meet with the president, She did speak with The Guardian newspaper, explaining that "There are families and real lives that were destroyed and shattered. . . . We need to focus on the healing . . . and not get thrust into any type of politics. It's a time to mourn and grieve right now."
Trump's grossly inappropriate grin and thumbs up gesture has been called obscene -- given the circumstances. The photo has gone viral, after first being posted on the first lady's twitter account, adding to the tone-deafness of Trump's whole failure as Consoler-in-Chief.
CNN reporter Mary Papenfuss wrote that "The president's oddly jocular pose is a bizarre contrast to the tragedy of the baby's life." And I would add, it seems even worse, given that the two month old is obviously too young to know how he is being exploited to give our narcissistic president what someone thought was a good photo op.
Tweeter Dan Moynihan summed it up: "This child just lost both parents to a white supremacist who drove 10 hours to a WalMart to kill Hispanics because, like Trump, he was concerned about an immigrant invasion. Why exactly are the President and First Lady smiling? Why the hell is he doing the thumbs up sign?"
Former press secretary to Bill Clinton, Joe Lockhard, said it wasn't just the photo but the "unprecedented" way Trump "bashed critics and boasted of his own reception instead of placing the focus on victims and suffering communities."
Here's the thing: The photo is merely visual proof of the inability of Trump to be what a president needs to be in a time like this. During the whole trip to Dayton and then to El Paso, he kept up a running twitter war with critics, bashing his opponents and boasting of his own crowd size on his prior trip to El Paso.
Even White House staff members are acknowledging that the trip "did not go well."
Because Trump does not have any sense of empathy and can only think of himself, he turns the visit into a photo op for himself. Dollars to donuts, this photo will appear in a campaign ad before we're done with Trump.
Now, on the other hand, and to be fair, Baby Paul's uncle, Tito Anchondo, who brought him to meet Trump, says that the baby's father was a Trump supporter and that he, himself, is Republican and wanted Trump to know that their family stands with the president.
Earlier, he had told NPR that he wanted to see Trump's reaction in person, "to see if he's genuine and see if he feels maybe some kind of remorse for statements that he's made." He later told the Wasnington Post that Trump was "just there as a human being, consoling us and giving his condolences . . . [not] pushing any kind of political agenda."
Pardon my cynicism, but that sounds like a coached statement. And apparently Trump did not acknowledge any responsibility for inciting the violence that left Baby Paul an orphan. He was too busy grinning and acknowledging his "win" in getting such a good photo for the campaign ads.
Another family member, an aunt of the baby's father, Elizabeth Terry, declined to meet with the president, She did speak with The Guardian newspaper, explaining that "There are families and real lives that were destroyed and shattered. . . . We need to focus on the healing . . . and not get thrust into any type of politics. It's a time to mourn and grieve right now."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
