[“Fear: Trump in the White House”]... derives its title from an offhand remark that then-candidate Trump made in an interview with Woodward and Post political reporter Robert Costa in April 2016. Costa asked Trump whether he agreed with a statement by then-President Barack Obama, who had said in an Atlantic magazine interview that “real power means you can get what you want without having to exert violence.”
At first Trump seemed to agree, saying: “Well, I think there’s a certain truth to that. . . . Real power is through respect.” But then he added a personal twist: “Real power is, I don’t even want to use the word: ‘Fear.’ ”
Woodward, who declined to be quoted for this article, has privately described the remark as “an almost Shakespearean aside.”...
July 30, 2018
"In a new book, Bob Woodward plans to reveal the ‘harrowing life’ inside Donald Trump’s White House."
WaPo reports.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
49 comments:
“Real power is, I don’t even want to use the word: ‘Fear.’ ”
It's only been axiomatic for the last 300,000 years or so.
Meanwhile, Trump and Mexico are close to an agreement which will leave Canada and the leftists out in the cold.
In the big picture AMLO wants to advance the Mexican manufacturing base; expand the aggregate economic base; and also stop the corporate exploitation of the Mexican farm worker. In these objectives U.S. President Trump is more than willing to be a partner with President Lopez Obrador. Heck, President Trump would actually love to assist AMLO on that agenda; it is mutually beneficial.
Diametrically, Justin from Canada has doubled-down on the retention of the fatal flaw and does not want an expanded domestic manufacturing base. The enviro-nuts of his base just will not support it and a carbon tax looms on the horizon.
Enviro nuts are not good for economic health.
I'm sure he had help from those WaPo reporters who have the amazing ability to read Trump's mind.
Iran is afraid to talk to Trump. The United States is "totally unreliable."
Mark Felt is dead. Woodward is running on fumes.
Men have less scruple in offending one who they love than one who they fear, for love is preserved by the link of obligation which, owing to the baseness of men, is broken at every opportunity when their self-interest intervenes; but fear preserves you because a dread of punishment never wanes. -You Know Who.
"Iran is afraid to talk to Trump. "
They just need to be a little more afraid, then they will.
Iranian Rial
This indicates out of control capital flight. Granted the big guys in Iran already keep most of the $ abroad.
Woodward is well known to make things up, such as private death bed conversations that he was supposedly party to.
I see no reason to take him seriously.
Woodward is the Hedda Hopper of DC.
The Iranians, except for the mullahs, are rational and will eventually decide they belong in the West.
The radical Islamists have hijacked a great nations. Their time is coming to an end. Do they want an easy out or a painful out.
Exile is tough since few Shia nations are viable.
Khans victory in Pakistan is worrisome, he's too tied to the military, and the islamists.
Mortician has a new fook to blog.
"Enviro nuts are not good for economic health."
What you know about the environment, can fit on a postage stamp. What you know about the economy can be stated in one word: nothing. What you know about medicine, you've long forgotten. You're such a paragon of good health, it's scary. No, you're scary.
Real power is...‘Fear.’
I bet FDR would agree with this. LBJ certainly would.....
Today it is the basis for all Leftist thought and action. Fear what the Republicans will do to you if you vote for them, and fear what we and our minions will do to you if you oppose us.
it's weird that when trump says something that is patently obvious, the anti-trumpers act like he just said something bizarre. I guess it ties into the whole "if any other President did this..."
It's like they're terrified of him; It's like he has Real Power over them
Big Paulie, or Tony Soprano?
The neuroscience backs up Trump in a way. But it depends on what he means by fear. We could take it to mean the worst version of fear. But that's not the only way to take it.
I've never met an effective leader who didn't create some measure of fear. The worst leaders made people fear for their safety or the safety of their jobs. That's sometimes necessary but should only be used in the most dire circumstances.
The most effective leaders I've seen inspire both a respect and also a fear of letting the leader or their teammates down - or both a desire to achieve a goal and the fear of not achieving it. All accountability comes from both a promotion (or achievement) motivation as well as a prevention (or fear) motivation. People tend to be more sensitive to one motivational type than another. I'm more to the promotion side. An accountant might tend to the prevention side. But our brains have both motivational centers. However, we have about 10 times the neurons dedicated to threats and fear. That's to keep us alive.
Trump understands this very well. In fact, he framed his entire campaign around both motivating messages. Make America Great Again was build around the promotion idea of getting the economic engine started. But it was also built on the fear that someone was coming to take your job either over an unsecured border or via a bad trade deal. And he motivated a lot of people with that simple, 4 word message repeated over and over again.
But, how can that be - he's an undisciplined idiot?!
I guess this month the left wing propaganda machine message is Evil Genius. Next month it will be back to Idiot.
Oderint dum metuant.
Woodward had to butter up a new generation of sources, unless he's just making it up.
When Hillary said, "We came, we saw, he died," she meant it in a fun way.
Is there going to be a foreword from William Casey?
There is "fear" by threatening ... weapons of statist ideology.
There's fear by own delusional projection ... Which is almost needed for psychological fuel and therapists who validate it.
Iran is afraid to talk to Trump. The United States is "totally unreliable."
Good. I want them to lie awake at night wondering if Trump will do something crazy when they piss him off.
Leaders of other countries played this game with Obama and he never seemed to get it - nobody messes with the crazy guy.
They let you grab the country.
That's Shakespearean.
The United States is “totally unreliable."
Well, if they had read our Constitution, they would know that the deal they made with the little prince was only just that, a deal with the little prince. But he did come through with the gold bars. It’s a point of honor that ransoms are paid in gold in many parts of Islam.
When Hillary said, “We came, we saw, he died," she meant it in a fun way.
You mean Sidney Blumenthal, paid employee of the Clinton Foundation, who put the words in her mouth, meant it in a fun way. His plan to escalate the civil war in Syria worked out great too, didn’t it?
You know, There were two possible courses in that area. If he wanted to get involved in the civil war in Syria, for some reason, Obama should have left the troops in Iraq in order to contain the conflict the flames of which he and Hillary were fanning by arming a side. Or, he could have STAYED THE FUCK OUT OF that civil war, let Assad finish off the rebels and re-assert control over Syria, leaving the region stable enough to pull the troops out of Iraq.
But the brilliant military strategist Obama chose the third course! Escalate the civil war in Syria while leaving a power vacuum in neighboring Iraq by pulling our troops. It was just unfathomable bad luck that ISIL happened. A one in a million shot. We can’t blame Obama!
And I know that Bush fucked up big time by invading Iraq, but is Iraq giving us any trouble these days? They seem like a normal Middle Eastern country now, muddling along, with problems, but the state that ruled by fear and terrorized its own populace, and started wars with its neighbors, seems to be gone.
Iran is afraid to talk to Trump. The United States is "totally unreliable."
Well what did they expect from "the Great Satan"?
Woodward's concern for the dispositions of those working in The White House is so genuine and admirable.
"Costa asked Trump whether he agreed with a statement by then-President Barack Obama, who had said in an Atlantic magazine interview that 'real power means you can get what you want without having to exert violence.'”
Of course, Obama was lying: America exerts violence all the time to get what it wants, and always has, either through economic pressures or through outright military force, or both. The Nobel Peace Prize laureate even bragged about what a good killer he was. What a douche bag.
"Iran is afraid to talk to Trump. The United States is 'totally unreliable.'"
Is that "fear," or clear understanding that America is a bad actor and Trump untrustworthy?
"But the brilliant military strategist Obama chose the third course! Escalate the civil war in Syria while leaving a power vacuum in neighboring Iraq by pulling our troops. It was just unfathomable bad luck that ISIL happened. A one in a million shot. We can’t blame Obama!"
Sure we can...for continuing the policies of his predecessor.
"And I know that Bush fucked up big time by invading Iraq, but is Iraq giving us any trouble these days?""
Were they giving us any trouble before our illegal invasion?
Sure we can...for continuing the policies of his predecessor.
Except Obama did it after a tidal wave of and election that mostly was about rejecting the policies he continued.
"Except Obama did it after a tidal wave of and election that mostly was about rejecting the policies he continued."
Yes! All the more reason to detest him for lying to and betraying his supporters...most of whom didn't object to him being Bush redux with regard to our campaign of murder in the Middle East, or who blamed it on the Republicans. Nope. It was on Obama the war criminal.
And if he were truly continuing the policies of Bush, he would have left troops in Iraq before taking on Assad. No, he was fecklessly playing games, putting weapons into the hands of rebels, probably getting many of them, Iran Contra style, from Libya. Giving Islamists Stinger style missiles, ,one of which is known to have taken down one of our own helicopters in Afhghanistan.
He was elected not to do stuff like that. You should give Trump another look. I don’t hear the war drums anymore, now that he is president. Maybe you ask too much of a president. Maybe keeping us out of foreign wars is the best we can hope for.
I think of farming. The image of a harrow tractored through the White House halls has a horror movie aspect. Like The Shining, but with a harrow instead of a big wheel.
Harrow has a useful definition: "an implement consisting of a heavy frame set with teeth or tines that is dragged over plowed land to break up clods, remove weeds, and cover seed."
What is the Trump presidency but "a heavy frame set with teeth or tines that is dragged over plowed land to break up clods"?
And if he were truly continuing the policies of Bush, he would have left troops in Iraq before taking on Assad.
Bush negotiated the withdrawal of U.S. troops in Iraq in 2011. Obama tried to negotiate an extension, but couldn't come to an agreement with the Iraqis, (as they wanted all US troops in Iraq to be subject to Iraq's laws if they violated the law).
actually no, cookie:
http://www.floppingaces.net/2015/05/19/the-truth-about-the-status-of-forces-agreement/
of course, bob woodward missed the surge, in state of denial, an ironic title, and he had to make up for it in the next book, but at least they won't be calling him senile, like they did when he pointed out Obama was behind the sequester,
"Speak softly and carry a big stick." Now that T. Roosevelt is long-dead, can we admit that it must have been absolutely terrifying to have worked for him?
I was hoping Woodward would take on the Russia collusion issue instead, though he doesn't have the legal chops probably.
Usually I don't read books by TV guys but I just finished the Russia Hoax by Gregg Jarrett and it's pretty damning. It's basically a brief.
I'd like to see something as well done from the other side.
@narciso:
How does this contradict what I have said? The Iraqis and Obama were in tentative negotiations for our troops to stay, but we would not agree to a condition the Iraqis wanted to make US military personnel subject to being arrested and tried by the Iraqis for any crimes they committed while in country. That seems perfectly reasonable to me that our soldiers violating the law in another country should be subject to their legal sanctions.
Of course, the problem would not even exist if Bush had never illegally invaded Iraq on the basis of lies.
Oh, that "trying to stay relevant" act. Not gonna fly, Bob.
You can't blame Obama for the failures in Iraq and Syria. He only knew what he read in the papers.
He was a willing tool of the Deep State. He danced to their tune.
The Deep State was the Organ Grinder and Obama was their Monkey.
Yawn.
Next.
Is that "fear," or clear understanding that America is a bad actor and Trump untrustworthy? - Cook
Taking the side of the mullahs is never a good look.
Were they giving us any trouble before our illegal invasion? - Cook
Come on.
Countless violations of the cease-fire they signed in 1991. Shooting at our planes enforcing the UN's no-fly zone. $25k to families of suicide bombers. A constant threat to the entire region.
Take the side of Saddam Hussein is never a good look.
"Countless violations of the cease-fire they signed in 1991. Shooting at our planes enforcing the UN's no-fly zone. $25k to families of suicide bombers. A constant threat to the entire region.
Colin Powell on Hussein, in February 2001:
"We had a good discussion, the Foreign Minister and I and the President and I, had a good discussion about the nature of the sanctions -- the fact that the sanctions exist -- not for the purpose of hurting the Iraqi people, but for the purpose of keeping in check Saddam Hussein's ambitions toward developing weapons of mass destruction. We should constantly be reviewing our policies, constantly be looking at those sanctions to make sure that they are directed toward that purpose. That purpose is every bit as important now as it was ten years ago when we began it. And frankly they have worked. He has not developed any significant capability with respect to weapons of mass destruction. He is unable to project conventional power against his neighbors. So in effect, our policies have strengthened the security of the neighbors of Iraq...."
Hussein posed no threat to his neighbors, much less to the U.S. The rest is insignificant. We could (and should) have easily ignored Hussein with no worries.
But...our attack on Iraq was not in service to any perceived or claimed "defense of Iraq's neighbors" or "self-defense of the U.S." necessity, but to increasing US dominance in the region, and, of course, Iraq's oil fields.
Post a Comment