What kind of conflict would it take to get the NYT to present Trump as a serious, trustworthy leader? It's not as if they're just telling the truth, following traditional journalistic principles, and letting the chips fall where they may. The NYT presented Barack Obama as a serious, trustworthy leader, no matter what he did, every day of his 8 years in office and beyond. And you can select a respectful photograph of a man whenever you like.
If we face war with North Korea — which is what those headlines are saying — we face war with the President we have, and we will need him to be respected and trusted. At some point, out of horrible desperation, we would close ranks and accord Trump the dignity of the office to which he was elected. Anyone who actually believes the story that Trump is a deranged narcissist should be terrified of making it seem as though the only way for Trump to get respect is for us to plunge into a nuclear nightmare.
पोस्ट्स
११३ टिप्पण्या:
Don't scorn the illustration...cheer it! Illustrators need work and illustrations are more eye-catching than photographs, to which we've become inured.
Imagine on the front page, next to a story of a threat of imminent nuclear war, a cartoon illustration of Barack Obama distracted by his iPhone and surrounded by advisers who don't know what to do about it.
"What kind of conflict would it take to get the NYT to present Trump as a serious, trustworthy leader?"
None.
Action seems inevitable.
The North Koreans put their missiles on mobile launchers. Once they have figured out how to make the missiles fully operational (if they haven't already), they'd be able to blackmail U.S. and the region--because we would never know where they were. Same goes for Iran.
European history during the 1930s is mind boggling. Everyone appeased the Germans, just as we have dallied with North Korea. Both Democrats and Republicans have foolishly thought for 20 years that we could negotiate with them
As Churchill said to Chamberlain. 'You were given the choice between war and dishonour. You chose dishonour, and you will have war.'
That cartoon was an illustration of media bias so strong that the Times no longer sees a point the pretending to be objective.
THe NYT becomes a comic book.
War with North Korea? It wouldn't matter if Trump were George Washington reincarnated or if the Times chose to depict him as if he were, which he's not. Either way, I'm not going to consider Trump serious and trustworthy if he lands us in a war with those lunatics.
The NYT is trying to keep up with Trump's Twitter account.
Slightly off-topic, but the newly dumbed-down and choice-reduced Google News (you WILL see what we think is best for you, citizen) has this prime bit of Civility Bullshit™ this morning:
Americans say civility has worsened under Trump
St. George quoted Churchill.
You were given the choice between war and dishonour. You chose dishonour, and you will have war.
The "you" in that sentence meant "the House of Commons," not exclusively Chamberlin. Churchill did not blame the leader alone, but that willingness to blame (correctly!) his colleagues made him an unpopular backbencher in the prewar years.
"At some point, out of horrible desperation, we would close ranks and accord Trump the dignity of the office to which he was elected."
I don't believe this would happen. Ever.
Ever.
I am Laslo.
I've got a great idea, let's wait until the North Koreans actually blow the shit out of someone, then we'll do something retaliatory. Pretty good.
I contest the premise that CNN, the NYT, or the MSM would ever get desperate enough to actually support this president.
Then again, as a squishy Trump supporter, I can easily see him doing a Lincoln against his media opponents AND HIS SUPPORTERS WOULD LET HIM.
This is a very stupid, short sighted and miserable rabbit hole the media has lead us down.
Saw an interview between a CNN woman and a (R) yesterday. She vehemently denied and disagreed with the very concept that CNN's relentless Trump obsession had ANYTHING to do with where they were at. Such a mean and obdurate face.
No. It would take NYC or LA being nuked to turn the press around. If it hits Omaha, they would snicker that this is what Fly Over States deserve.
Ann, you have rationality on your side, but you can never have the NYT on your side.
Last Wednesday I spent hours sitting in a retinologist's waiting room, and "The View" was on. I spent some time watching it. Whoopi started yammering on about all the evidence showing that Trump colluded with the Russians. She had all this evidence which does not exist!
Ann, they have created their own reality bubble in NY, and the paper is financially dependent on not bursting it. This is how and why they printed the nonsense about Palin inspiring the shooting of Giffords, etc.
At this point, it is all about money. And in NYC, pretty much nothing other than money talks. Laslo is correct, IMO.
Nuclear war news is aimed at women.
AllenS, 6:58:
I've about decided the problem with preemption is, you will never know for sure what you preempted. Everyone will see only the costs, which are indisputable. The benefits, being counterfactual, can always be disputed.
I don't know if you were being sarcastic, but I think support for a preventative war with North Korea would evaporate (if it coalesced at all) before we achieved our goals. Practically speaking, their blowing the shit out of somebody (which I still hope won't happen) is the only casus belli that a critical mass of Americans would accept.
"...we would close ranks and accord Trump the dignity of the office to which he was elected."
If you truly believe this, then you don't understand the extent to which pride is enveloping this nation, nor the divisiveness and resulting scorched earth which pride produces.
Pride is essentially competitive in nature. Prideful people only care about them or their side being above the others in some self-selected measure.
One man counts his money and says 'I have more than others. I am better than them.' Another man who is poorer looks at the rich and says 'I don't care about money, I am better than them.'
Pride produces enmity and divides a family, community, or a nation. A prideful people loose their concern for others because they want others to be or go below them in some measure. Their concern isn't 'do I have enough?' Their concern is 'do I have more than than others.'
People filled with pride eventually don't care if their company, community, or their country burns to the ground, as long as "those guys" don't win, or get credit, or get praise, or get supported.
You can spot and get a sense of the degree of pride by watching often people criticize, blame, or put down "those guys."
My read is that many including the NYTs won't close ranks and accord Trump the dignity of the office to which he was elected. We will refuse to give him any shade even at the peril of our country. And if it were a Democrat in the presidency, others who oppose the Dems would do no differently. And if continued, it will be our downfall.
Their concern isn't 'am I helping the country.' Their concern is 'am I beating my opponent, rival, or perceived enemy.'
The Hartford Courant front page this morning (July 5, 2017) contains this headline
KOREA MISSILE TESTS TRUMP
Whew! For a while there I thought it might have been a danger to all of us. I'm so relieved.
What kind of conflict would it take to get the NYT to present Trump as a serious, trustworthy leader?
Don’t make me laugh. I have chapped lips. The Gray Lady doesn’t go for outsider alphas.
Both Democrats and Republicans have foolishly thought for 20 years that we could negotiate with them.
I cannot remember a time when the public mood would have supported a war with NK. And an all-out war is just not politically feasible at this time. But there’s still much that can be done diplomatically with NK. Obama diplomacy is to Trump diplomacy as a fart is to a tornado.
Krauthammer says Trump should threaten China by announcing a plan to assist Japan to nuke up. He believes this tactic will frighten China so much that China would force NK to de-nuke.
I believe this to be a bad idea. Let’s assume that Japan would agree, although it is far from certain that they would. The thing about threats is if they go unheeded by the opponent you have to follow through. Assisting Japan, or any other nation, to develop their own nuclear weapon seems drastic to me.
And I am also uncertain about China’s real ability to pull the fangs of NK. Short of a war with NK what can China really do? NK could find economic sponsors elsewhere. Perhaps Iran would prop them up, like the Soviets did with the island paradise Cuba. Obama made sure the mullahs have loads of ready cash to hand out.
Ann Althouse said...
Imagine on the front page, next to a story of a threat of imminent nuclear war, a cartoon illustration of Barack Obama distracted by his iPhone and surrounded by advisers who don't know what to do about it.
Or having to be yanked in off the golf course to sit in a seat on the side of the table during the Bin Laden raid. Oh, wait, we don't have to imagine that one. The boss normally sits in the big chair at the head of the table.
If the cartoon would have included styrofoam Greek columns in the background, Trump would be taken far more seriously.
The North Koreans wipeout Honolulu and the Times will blame Trump's racism.
"I don't believe this would happen. Ever."
I'm picturing the way George W. Bush was treated after 9/11. From the bullhorn speech until... well, maybe for a few days.
Sorry - I broke your spaces in a post rule. Unintended.
Ann Althouse said...
Imagine on the front page, next to a story of a threat of imminent nuclear war, a cartoon illustration of Barack Obama distracted by his iPhone and surrounded by advisers who don't know what to do about it.
Aren't you essentially describing the Fox News Channel, Rush Limbaugh and Breitbart for the last eight years?
You seem so concerned about the Times; most conservatives gave up on the Times altogether a long time ago. Donald Trump also seems to be concerned about the Times, and cable news, in a way that Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld and George W. Bush never did.
Maybe US should publicly announce ahead of time that henceforth it will be tit-for-tat: every time North Korea tests a missile or nuclear weapon we will take out one or perhaps two of their missile and nuclear sites. Do it like clockwork. And use tactical nuclear tomahawks if necessary, but aimed at underground facilities not population centers.
This is an idea straight out of game theory and evolutionary psychology.
This Mark Bowden article from The Atlantic on North Koreais about as good as it gets.
Many options. All bad. Or so he says.
The ideal solution would be a pro-China puppet state in North Korean that satisfies China's economic and stability needs and does not threaten anyone.
His sources for the article are:
Abe Denmark, a former deputy assistant secretary of defense for East Asia under Barack Obama.
Michèle Flournoy, a former undersecretary of defense in the Obama administration and currently the CEO of the Center for a New American Security,
Sam Gardiner, a retired U.S. Air Force colonel who specialized in conducting war games at the National War College
Thomas McInerney, a retired Air Force lieutenant general and a Fox News military analyst who has been an outspoken advocate of a preventive strike
Jim Walsh is a senior research associate at the MIT Security Studies Program and a board member of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation.
Sydney A. Seiler, a North Korea expert who spent decades at the CIA, the National Security Council, and elsewhere
John Plumb, a Navy submarine officer who served as a director of defense policy and strategy for the National Security Council during the Obama administration
Scott A. Snyder, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations
A former senior adviser to the White House on national security, who asked not to be named.
I count four former Obama Administration officials. Hard to know how dovish or hawkish they are.
"I'm picturing the way George W. Bush was treated after 9/11. From the bullhorn speech until... well, maybe for a few days."
I'll believe it when Hillary Clinton and John Kerry vote for military force (before they vote against it).
All bad options.
Trump is doing the best he can trying to use China. China can pretty much shut down NK if they want to. The headache is what's next.
Options:
- unification china and SK don't want it
- Collapses - China does not want refugee
- war - SK does not want
- nukes for SK and Japan - both populations not ready yet...
- more anti ballistic - yes
- use UN to pressure China - yes
- US increase pressure on China - yes
- China talk tough and do little - doing
Saw this today: "Ri Jong Ho, high-level defector and former official in Office 39, says North Korea gets much more oil from Russia than previously known".
It isn't just China who is supporting nKorea. Russia too has a border with Kim's private empire.
I hope we don't preempt, but keep working the economic sanctions side of the coin. War would mean hundreds of thousands dead. Not a good outcome. The economic collapse of nKorea might mean liberation for those folks, who are suffering mightily. It is one large human rights abuse up there in nKorea.
Regards — Cliff
NYT:
Trump Plunges World into Nuclear Holocaust. Women, Minorities, and LGBT Community Hardest Hit.
Ray's last line is important. China is making a show, but not doing anything. And they fear the refugees of a regime collapse. They recently sent more troops to the area, to reinforce the border. Maybe we should condemn China for not taking refugees. :-)
Regards — Cliff
The NYT is following "traditional journalistic principles."
Read up on Jefferson vs. Hamilton.
What Laslo said.
If we go to war against North Korea they will blame Trump's reckless bluster for starting the war. Never mind the constant aggression of NK's childish dictator, or that time the Clinton administration gave his father nukes.
We have the example of "Bush lied us into war for oil" already.
Chuck said:
"Donald Trump also seems to be concerned about the Times, and cable news, in a way that Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld and George W. Bush never did."
Correct. And since the Times sets the media narrative for the rest, Bush and company suffered greatly as a result.
The thing is that Trump has many options well before war. Apparently the sanctions against North Korea are not that severe. We can crank them up. And Trump can tell China to cut off North Korea from oil and gas or Trump can impose tariffs on China.
I'm not going to consider Trump serious and trustworthy if he lands us in a war with those lunatics.
The voice of the left.
If the Norks attack us, it's Trump's fault. Not Clinton who first dropped the ball. Not Bush who failed, via Condi Rice, to stop them before they had 12 million hostages in Seoul. Obama, of course, lied his way through 8 years.
The left is obsessed with Trump and nothing he could do could ever satisfy them.
If I were doing it, I would shoot down a Nork ICBM during a test just as an example. Then thank them for a realistic test scenario.
There is quite a bit we can do without going to war, but the Government needs to get serious about it.
F. ex. Russia - it is not the Soviet Union any more. Putin has a humongous sized country, but very sparsely populated, and he is stretched very thin just with the troubles he is coping with on his European borders. He does not need troubles in the Far East too, and we can give him plenty that he would have to respond to.
Likewise China - the U.S. would take some damage too, but we can give China lots of trouble with their financial system and stirring up internal troubles for them, etc., unless they get serious about helping us with Kim Young'un.
What happens if the North Koreans perform an atrocity such as sinking or seizing an American or South Korean warship (ala the USS Pueblo), downing a military or civilian aircraft, or some other maniacal activity?
Would Trump use that as causus belli?
Plus, what if nothing happens, but we say it did. We now know that the second Gulf of Tonkin 'attack' never took place, and look what that led to...
The trouble is that previous US administrations kept kicking the can down the road by claiming that North Korea had agreed to a moratorium on missile and nuclear weapons development and then giving it money. The same scenario from 1990 till now. Over and over. End result: North Korea went on developing while saying it was not and now they have an ICBM that could hit the US and nuclear weapons. If we postpone action then they will have six ICBMs which can reach California the next time the issue comes up - and it will. We could give California to Mexico and pay for another moratorium but then the next time it would be 25 ICBMs which can reach DC.
The only solution is a military solution but what that means is hard to say since a political element is involved. As far as the media goes, the left shifted around to supporting the US when Hitler invaded the Soviet Union. Previously the left supported a Nazi-Soviet pact. So I suppose the left will enable Kim until without warning he takes out Seattle - and Portlandia. And that will be too late.
Imagine on the front page, next to a story of a threat of imminent nuclear war, a cartoon illustration of Barack Obama distracted, posing for a selfie and surrounded by advisers who don't know what to do about it.
That's the Barack I remember.
I use the phrase "two city types". Two city types won't change their song when we lose one city to WMDs. It will take at least two cities.
Lest you think this exaggerated, consider the Japanese cabinet in 1945. Half of it was for continuing even after two cities. There really are people like this.
My name goes here. said...
Chuck said:
"Donald Trump also seems to be concerned about the Times, and cable news, in a way that Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld and George W. Bush never did."
Correct. And since the Times sets the media narrative for the rest, Bush and company suffered greatly as a result.
Yes, that is the standard answer that I expected. You are free of course to maintain that view, but I just don't get it. I expect that Trump's personal course will continue to drive down his poll numbers, alienate him from independent voters, and moreover that Trump will not consolidate what should be (for reasons I am not even sure that I ever understood) support among traditional Movement Conservatives. It doesn't seem to be helping with Trump's legislative agenda. Who are the conservatives who are dedicated to the New York Times? Which conservative news outlets drive their agendas under the leadership of the Times?
And how did the Bush presidency suffer from the agenda of the New York Times in a way that the Trump presidency won't? I recall candidate George Bush being caught on an open mic saying to Dick Cheny that Adam Clymer of the Times was "a real asshole." Did that do Bush any good? Is Trump's open war with the Times doing him any good? Is it a sensible strategy? Trump himself called the Times "a great, great American jewel." Dick Cheney didn't do that.
Althouse peruses, and blogs about, stories in the Times on a daily basis. I always wondered why she didn't just switch her subscription to the Wall Street Journal. Which she almost never reviews, it seems. I presume that she has a bunch of perfectly good, reasonable personal reasons for her devotion to the Times. I just regard the Times as an interesting curiosity, like The New Yorker, or NPR, or MSNBC, or a Mongolian barbecue. Not my team. Nothing representative of me; just academic and/or exotic curiosity. My expectations for any sort of political neutrality with them are nil. I know where to go, to get news commentary that agrees with me and the New York Times ain't it.
Ken B said...
"I use the phrase "two city types". Two city types won't change their song when we lose one city to WMDs. It will take at least two cities."
Nice turn of phrase.
I am Laslo.
Ann, it is very telling that you are not even the slightest bit critical of Trump for spending the past week in particular goofing off. Why are you not critical of Trump for shrinking from the office of the presidency? These are serious times and Trump is acting like he is a guest on the Maury Povich show.
What is this "NYT" of which you speak?
*cough*
In all seriousness, go watch the "C.S. Lewis Doodle" on YouTube titled, "After Priggery - What?"
It is high time -- it is long past time -- we became "prigs" in regards to the New York Times. Or, at least, if we are not "prigs" (as described by Lewis) then let us be sure that we are practicing something "better than priggery," not something worse.
We must send the NYT "to coventry." They are, in every respect, "Cleon" as described in Lewis' essay. Why should we continue to reward them by paying their advertisers? As a moral obligation, if you ever visit their website you must be sure you are using ad-blockers: A combination of AdBlock Plus and NoScript and Stylish, perhaps: Let no reward for their mendacity be pried from you.
If, of course, you can find out what the enemy's propaganda is saying by getting it for free...? If, in some way, you can cause them a financial loss while analyzing their Tokyo Rose output...? Then so much the better!
Perhaps there could be exactly one anti-NYT outlet in the nation which exhaustively comments on, and critiques, their output...in such a way that all the "important" content is contained in the commentary. The entire content of the NYT could be more or less reconstructed from the commentary, if anybody cared to do so. (Minus, of course, the adverts.)
In that way, it would be subject to the "Fair Use" doctrine. The anti-NYT outlet could then become the only friendly purchaser of the rag; all others who purchased it would be those who intended to subsidize its content (that is to say, enemy forces).
Anyone who actually believes the story that Trump is a deranged narcissist should be terrified of making it seem as though the only way for Trump to get respect is for us to plunge into a nuclear nightmare.
If they really did believe it, then they would be utterly terrified, yes. However they don't REALLY believe it so they aren't worried.
What the Dumbocrats are off doing is planning how to leverage the North Korea situation for cheap political gain. It goes something like this: if the US does a preemptive attack then Trump overreacted to a phony threat that he built up out of thin air, the North Koreans were never going to attack, their nuclear threat is wildly overblown, etc, etc, etc. But if Trump holds off and North Korea does launch an attack then why didn't he do something when he had the chance?
Except if I can see all this then so can Trump and his advisors. I have no idea what his moves and countermoves will be, but he's certainly more than ready for the likes of the Dumbocrats and the media.
As cnn has shown, the media is the enemy of the people. The nyt care much less about the country than they do themselves and the democrat media party.
What Laslo said.
Every leader since Truman has kicked the can. Armistice = a state of war by another name, a malignant twin government allowed to coexist because of larger geopolitical games. On and on it has gone. The tumor was somewhat starved but it survived and developed enough vascularization to support nuke and ballistic missile tech, which of course takes priority over caring for the sick and hungry and nourishing a healthy economy. And the world's only response was sanctions that increase the burden on the sick and hungry. The Kim dynasty always took good care of itself. So here we are, at the end of the road. The Mark Bowden piece in the Atlantic is remarkable only because of its brutal logic. I think the willingness of the sources to speak so directly about the nuclear checkmate we face, is a sign that they are deeply nervous about how close we are to a fiery conclusion. They may hope to galvanize a last best move; or at least they want to be able to point to the article as we huddle in fallout shelters, and say, "I told you so."
My suggested solution is, cut off Little Kim's bourbon supply. He would fold in a week.
Hmm...we have an article about how the NYT is disrespecting a Republican president, and Chuck's first instinct is to attack rightwing media. Sounds legit.
His second instinct is to attack trump for apparently caring what the media thinks of him, but no comparison to the way Obama treated Fox News and other rightwing media, which was every bit as aggressive and confrontational.
His third instinct is to attack another republican administration for the way they dealt with the media, while again ignoring Obama's treatment of the media.
Yeah, that's exactly the way I would expect a lifelong Republican to behave.
Yes, that is the standard answer that I expected. You are free of course to maintain that view,
Mighty generous of you!
but I just don't get it.
Sadly, I'm sure that's true.
And how did the Bush presidency suffer from the agenda of the New York Times in a way that the Trump presidency won't?
Perhaps because fifteen years later more people see through the Times these days than they did back then? Back then most people understood that the big media were biased, but folks still thought that they at least tried to be objective. They've since disabused us of that foolishness.
And FWIW, Adam Clymer really was a major league asshole.
Diary of a Conservative Trump Hater (excerpt)...
I have Fever Dreams about NORTH KOREA. While I don't want WAR with them, I DO WANT WAR IF IT WILL BRING THE DOWNFALL OF TRUMP.
TRUMP is more of a DANGER to America than NORTH KOREA WILL EVER BE.
An American City will be in smoldering ruins, and it will be TRUMP'S FAULT. People will have to acknowledge that I'M RIGHT. I'VE BEEN RIGHT ALL ALONG.
These thoughts OBSESS ME. Only ONE THING quells the FEVER.
Yes, THAT.
I MASTURBATED TO GAY PORN AGAIN. And -- of course -- then came the SHAME. ANGER. SELF-LOATHING.
All of this is TRUMP'S FAULT.
Oh, the ERECT COCKS being SUCKED by MUSCULAR YOUNG MEN.
NORTH KOREA: SAVE ME FROM MYSELF.
Oh God, how I miss George Herbert Walker Bush! GEORGE HERBERT WALKER BUSH WOULD NOT WANT ME TO MASTURBATE TO GAY PORN. I KNOW THIS.
I am Laslo.
It's one more reason to despise the NYT, not that I needed one, but I expect to get another tomorrow, and tomorrow, and tomorrow, world without end.
"What kind of conflict would it take to get the NYT to present Trump as a serious, trustworthy leader?"
He has to show us that he is a serious, trustworthy leader. He has not done so, to date. To the contrary, he is living down to his image.
Maybe Kim make a naughty GIF and CNN will get him to behave.
Everybody Loves Laslo!
You go to war with the President you have.
-Dick Cheney (sorta)
"If I were doing it, I would shoot down a Nork ICBM during a test just as an example. Then thank them for a realistic test scenario."
Brinkmanship is a dangerous game, but looks like our only option. I'd amend the above to miss the first try at interception and have the interceptor land "accidentally" over the border somewhere in China. Oops, our bad. Take the next one down. I'm not sure if our tech is that good though.
I notice Trump has stated the Chinese have tried and are unable to reign in NK. They've done their best. I'm not sure why that setup, but I'm sure it is stratigic.
I saw the Krauthammer segment about nuclearizing Japan. Wasn't he one of the folks who was critical of that when Candidate Trump first brought it up?
I'm sure all these and many other strategies have been gamed endlessly already. Russia is a part of the equation also.
I doubt if anyone (including 10 million South Koreans) wants war, but I can't believe America is willing to let nukes held over our heads be a final outcome. I've looked and can't pin down what SK's position on this is. At present they are the ones with the most skin in the game.
NK is the biggest thing out there right now, it's importance far exceeding any domestic policy, imo. An added plus is a win vs NK puts us in a really strong position re Iran. I just don't think a positive outcome is likely. Kim doesn't appear to be a rational actor.
NO NUKES! -- That was a pretty naive thing to say wasn't it. BTW, bomb shelter sales are up.
Cliff - good point on your refugees...
China should allow passage of refuges from China to North Korea.
Current China sends them back to North Korea where they are usually sent to what are basically death camps. People in camps are seen as sub human, and treated that way by the NK government.
Why does China not allow passage of refugees to SK?
Why does SK not push for this?
Us?
China because it would cause the collapse of NK. Everyone would leave. And it would create chaos.
SK because of the cost. The refugees have mostly not integrated into SK society.
Us due to potential chaos.
This is my favored strategy, and I wish the US and SK would lobby publically for it. Until this happens, I view efforts on NK as Kabuki i theater.
"What kind of conflict would it take to get the NYT to present Trump as a serious, trustworthy leader? "
But he isn't. What kind of conflict would it take for you to state the obvious instead of being so obtuse?
"If we face war with North Korea — which is what those headlines are saying — we face war with the President we have, and we will need him to be respected and trusted. "
Sure, then he must act in a way that inspires trust and confidence. Asking us to blindly trust our dear leader even when he's wrong is just plain stupid. You'd question this kind of unthinking allegiance if you weren't so preoccupied with the idea that the NYT is wrong about Trump.
Amen.
Could it be they want him to take us into a war just so he can be blamed?
Their perversity is powerful. Could it get this powerful?
Ray has it.
SK even sends back NK refugees that seek asylum in their Chinese embassy.
They are afraid of the flood of starving refugees if the Norks collapse and so is China.
My Chinese medical student pointed out that the area of China close to the Nork border is the poorest in China.
We just have to accelerate the missile defense system development. I worked on the Nike Zeus system in 1959 as an engineer.
The Democrats have always opposed and dragged feet on missile defense.
You'd question this kind of unthinking allegiance if you weren't so preoccupied with the idea that the NYT is wrong about Trump.
And you would question your assumptions if you were not so invested in the "Hillary had the election stolen from her" scenario. The left tells the right to be sensible when it is the left that has been bonkers since November 9.
Ann's allegiance to Trump is weird.
If President Obama communicated like Trump, Ann and her right wing commenters would be writing that he was bring ghetto thuglife culture to the White House and that he was defining deviant behavior down.
But Trump is a right wing populist and white. That's enough for Ann.
If we need the president to be respected and trusted don't we need him to stop with the twitter nonsense?
When Trump identified himself with the low caste working class Americans to win the Elite Job of All Elite Jobs he committed the unpardonable offense. He denied the Ivy League Marxists he had spent 40 years upwardly mobile social climbing among.
But he is still a leader's leader and a commander-in-chief's commander. Which is literally driving them insane. FTR, so did Winston Churchill.
Ann and her right wing commenters would be writing that he was bring ghetto thuglife culture to the White House and that he was defining deviant behavior down.
Did you by any slight chance notice who Obama invited to the White House.?
The dead judge album cover was the most dignified, don't you think ?
Again, take North Korea's first-strike option off the table. Rather than crying to the UN. Or waiting for the United Communist Front (NYT et al) to find God or country.
If we need the president to be respected and trusted don't we need him to stop with the twitter nonsense?
Maybe. I think Trump should move on to being interviewed by Youtubers who make videos of themselves sitting in bath tubs full of milk and cereal.
"If we face war with North Korea — which is what those headlines are saying — we face war with the President we have, and we will need him to be respected and trusted. "
He should behave in a respectful and trustworthy manner first.
@Michael K
"And you would question your assumptions if you were not so invested in the "Hillary had the election stolen from her" scenario."
He won. The election wasn't stolen from Hillary.
one large HEMP might be extensive enough to disable most of DPRK's CCCC capabilities. followed by precise targeting of known launch and nuclear installations.
He should behave in a respectful and trustworthy manner first.
That's not in the Job Description.
President Hillary Clinton:
"Nice country you've got here, Kim. It would be Too Bad if something happened to it."
NYT: "Stop Tweeting! Taking a minute out of your busy schedule to communicate directly with the American people is DERELICTION OF DUTY!" (And also ...erm...it's killing us.) No comment on Obama watching basketball in his pajamas all day.
Ann Alt-Right-House
"What kind of conflict would it take to get the NYT to present Trump as a serious, trustworthy leader? It's not as if they're just telling the truth, following traditional journalistic principles, and letting the chips fall where they may."
It is fair to assume by now that the NYT's great fear is that Trump will turn out to be "a serious and trustworthy leader."
It is not their nature to tell the truth and let the chips fall where they may. It is their nature, as it was Goebbels' nature, to repeat the big lie in the hope it will ultimately be perceived as truth. There is evidence in their comments sections that this hope bears fruit.
Your last sentence is indeed terrifying.
It surely wouldn't be the first time that a President (from both political parties) would initiate war as a means of grasping for credibility on the home front.
Americans should resists this, whenever it's done. It's ridiculous on its face to say "he started a war so now he has gravitas."
Here's what to do. In an orderly fashion, evacuate everyone out of Seoul.
It surely wouldn't be the first time that a President (from both political parties) would initiate war as a means of grasping for credibility on the home front.
Examples ?
Polk was accused of encouraging war with Mexico for less than serious reasons.
Is that what you meant ?
What president(s) did you mean ?
So Trump’s hilarious hijinx are all great fun and games until the moment we face war with North Korea, at which point it's the New York Times' fault for not taking our President seriously enough? Give me a fucking break.
Trump was going to put pressure on China to keep NK in line. I don't know what happened to that but we could always boycott Chinese products until they do. But that might put my favorite store--Walmart--out of business.
It seems rather rash to attack a country because they've developed a capability. Were I Trump I would do two things - remind Kim through my ambassador the US has nuclear bunker busters, and that any use of nuclear weapons against the US or its allies would certainly result in his immediate destruction. Then I would work with Congress to make sure the people working on ABM get the resources they need to make the system more reliable.
AA wrote:
"What kind of conflict would it take to get the NYT to present Trump as a serious, trustworthy leader? "
By his serial inane conduct, Trump doesn't usually project those qualities.
But Trump been surprisingly good at appointing serious persons to relevant positions of authority.
For example, Mattis (Secretary of Defense) McMaster (National Security Advisor) Tillerson (Secretary of Defense) and Gorsich (Supreme Court).
Of course, he struck out big time with Lt Gen (retired) Dirtbag, AKA Michael Flynn, now captured in the toils of his own avaricious creation.
Late to the party, but:
"we face war with the President we have, and we will need him to be respected and trusted." What do you mean, "we"? You are not assuming, are you, that the left believes it has anything in common with the deplorables, or, God forbid, thinks of the country, the actual country, as "we"?
"At some point, out of horrible desperation, we would close ranks and accord Trump the dignity of the office to which he was elected. Anyone who actually believes the story that Trump is a deranged narcissist should be terrified of making it seem as though the only way for Trump to get respect is for us to plunge into a nuclear nightmare." Impending war is just another opportunity to bash Trump, and use the "desperation" as a move in the culture war. Besides, if the US is in fact attacked we had it coming.
The left has tried to accommodate NK for decades now--also in South Korea. They wanted the regime to survive in sunshne. They wanted to give the regime the goodies it needed. Jimmy Carter himself cheered the peace in our time he had achieved back in the 1990s. (Not saying the US right has done a whole lot better.)
China just cut off fuel shipments to the PRNK--and that has a lot to do with Trump's negotiations with China. Iran is on notice that they will never receive an ICBM from the program they are funding in NK. Putin has been persuaded to sit his one out. What more do you want? Maybe the NYT can have their artist re-do that poor Photoshop when Obama was added to the war room crowd when OBL was taken down. Make him life-size this time.
Trump gets lost on his way to his limo.
By the same token, resist the argument that the President was "forced" into war.
If Congress were to declare war against someone, it might still be a bullshit move (we'd have to see context), but even in 2017 with plentiful actions to the contrary, Presidents being "the decider" on matters of War should be viewed with suspicion at best, regardless of the Party. And it certainly doesn't make a President "more serious" in the Deciding
There are those, the NYT prominently among them, who would gladly lose a war if they could discredit Trump. In fact, they would actively work to lose that war, with the larger goal in mind. We all know that is so.
If it comes to it, Trump should go to Congress to authorize use of force. Arguably, the Constitution requires it, and it is politically important to find out whether there is backing for action, before jumping off the cliff. Our track record when Presidents cut corners is not good, let's do it right for a change.
You can have the gravitas of a Henry Kissinger, or the playfulness of a professional wrestler, but it’s hardly the New York Times’ fault that you can’t have both.
Are you just now realizing what a crappy job the NYT does presenting the news?
"What kind of conflict would it take to get the NYT to present Trump as a serious, trustworthy leader? "
He should metaphorically draw a RED LINE against further missile tests.
Then when North Korea does another missile test he should say he never drew a RED LINE against missile tests.
Then he should announce a deal with China and North Korea where North Korea promises to give up all their missiles and have nothing to say when in 3 years North Korea uses the missiles they said they didn't have in the agreement.
That would get rave reviews from NYT for sure.
But that might put my favorite store--Walmart--out of business.
Have you noticed their new ad campaign about buying American ?
Is there anything Trump can't do ?
Are you just now realizing what a crappy job the NYT does presenting the news?
I take it you're new around here.
465 comments about Han Solo and CNN. 95 comments about global thermonuclear war.
Sounds about right.
465 comments about Han Solo and CNN. 95 comments about global thermonuclear war.
Yes. More now -- over 500.
I am very concerned about North Korea.
The tweets concern me because of the expenditure of political capitol -- not just with Americans but with allies around the world.
Thanks, Madeline Albright!
wwww said...
I am very concerned about North Korea.
The tweets concern me because of the expenditure of political capitol -- not just with Americans but with allies around the world.
Only when a Republican is president though. When Obama was president everything was good with North Korea. Everything.
St. George said...
465 comments about Han Solo and CNN. 95 comments about global thermonuclear war.
There is a particular troll missing from this thread. Let us hope it stays this way. There are useful discussions going on here.
Polk was accused of encouraging war with Mexico for less than serious reasons.
Hardly. The Mxican landgrab of 1846 was a very serious reason.
666 CNN blackmail comments vs. 101 here.
Twitter trash trumps nuclear war every time.
"The Mxican landgrab of 1846 was a very serious reason."
As I said, he was attacked., Whether the reasons were valid is a matter of debate. The Whigs were dead set against expansion because they feared the new territory would be slave states.
Mexico was underpopulated and could not police or defend California or Texas. There government was corrupt, as it is now, and the settlers did not want to be ruled by corrupt Mexicans.
Not that I particularly want to have a war with the NORKs, but I can state unequivocally that I would prefer to have it with the President and Cabinet that we currently have than with Obama and his crew. We could certainly use a larger Navy right now to meet the current threats across the globe, but under Ashton Carter all the defense department seemed worried about was the condition of gays in the military, not the condition of the military. When the NORKS last headed south they did it against a US/UN force that was woefully unprepared, which - of course - acted as an invitation to them. We are not currently woefully unprepared, but we are stretched thin and our readiness is poor in all branches.
Kim is not that hard a target. Take out him, and the next few replacements, attitudes will change. We can even try him beforehand as an international murderer.
How about this scenerio?
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2017/07/05/trump-doesnt-bluff-observers-writ-large-continue-to-find-emphasis-on-the-wrong-syllable/
Sounds pretty logical to me.
"Kim is not that hard a target. Take out him, and the next few replacements, attitudes will change. We can even try him beforehand as an international murderer."
Look how easy (sic) it was to topple Saddam Hussein and put Iraq right (sic). It should be easy-peasey to take out Kim and "the next few replacements" and have everything after fall right into place.
As if.
Claims of how "easy" any target will be usually turn out to be woefully wrong. By what legal basis could we just take out a series of the country's leaders?
On what grounds, by the way, could we charge Kim as an international murderer? Who do we suspect he has killed internationally? Can we prove it? Certainly, a sound case could be made against our last several Presidents (and administrations) for being international murderers and torturers. Would we sit back and allow them to be tried and prosecuted by another country? Would be we even allow them to be tried by the legitimate body, the UN?
"Mexico was underpopulated and could not police or defend California or Texas. There government was corrupt, as it is now, and the settlers did not want to be ruled by corrupt Mexicans."
That's a pretty flimsy justification for our theft of much of Mexico's land. You would do fine in Washington. Ever thought of running for office?
I'm a pacifist, but I hope Trump destroys North Korea. If that statement is too strong for you, then change it to "destroys the North Korean regime." The thought of that madman with the means to destroy the civilized world with ICBM's is intolerable.
I don't like Donald Trump, but I love the artistically beautiful cartoons, and I think they make him look more serious, and sophisticated than he is. I love Lichtenstein work, but this is true to life, and even better. You know you like them too, Professor Althouse.
Robert Cook said...
Look how easy (sic) it was to topple Saddam Hussein and put Iraq right (sic). It should be easy-peasey to take out Kim and "the next few replacements" and have everything after fall right into place.
All we had to do was let democrats be in charge for a few years and they found a way to betray another country and turn it over to murderous shitheads so they could gloat about the US losing.
Just like Vietnam. Democrats couldn't allow it to remain free of communist shitheads and they pulled funding from the agreement we signed with South Vietnam. But don't blame them for the millions of people the socialists/communists killed afterwards.
Leftists get all giddy when they see a good purge going on.
Blogger Robert Cook said...
Claims of how "easy" any target will be usually turn out to be woefully wrong. By what legal basis could we just take out a series of the country's leaders?
7/5/17, 9:37 PM
Ask and ye shall receive, Cookie:
https://undocs.org/S/RES/83(1950)
All you have to do is adjudicate that development, testing, and deployment of nuclear weapons and ICBMs is a violation of the cease-fire of the currently legally ongoing war between the North and the UN.
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/hague02.asp#art36
CHAPTER V. -- On Armistices
Article 36
An armistice suspends military operations by mutual agreement between the belligerent parties. If its duration is not fixed, the belligerent parties can resume operations at any time, provided always the enemy is warned within the time agreed upon, in accordance with the terms of the armistice.
All Trump has to say officially is 'You have 48 hours then the Korean War is back on.'
I suggest we send this contingent over to sail the USS Pueblo back USA... Pueblo, still held by North Korea today, officially remains a commissioned vessel of the United States Navy. Since early 2013, the ship has been moored along the Potong River in Pyongyang, and used there as a museum ship at the Pyongyang Victorious War Museum. Pueblo is the only ship of the U.S. Navy still on the commissioned roster currently being held captive.
898 to 112.
We have a winner!
Yesterday I saw this post on Facebook from a person living in New York City:
"North Korea has one missile that might reach Alaska and the economic might of Woonsocket, RI. Why all the belligerent talk?"
Can you imagine, if the threat of ICBMs were from Morocco, someone in Alaska saying, "North Korea has one missile that might reach Manhattan"?
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा