Thank you @realDonaldTrump pic.twitter.com/0H4Nr6sFdT
— Cassandra Fairbanks (@CassandraRules) June 21, 2019
Next, he calls off the ICE raids...
If this is some trick strategy, he can't keep repeating it — saying I'm going to do X, no, I called it off — can he?
IN THE COMMENTS: David Begley says:
He’s unpredictable. Tomorrow he might nuke Iran. The mullahs need to think about that.I react:
Playing "unpredictable" can itself become predictable. That's my point.
Once you see it as a game, it will be perceived as disrespectful and unserious.
In my view, he's crossed the line already. Question how many times he needs to do this pattern before you find it disrespectful and unserious.
Posts
563 comments:
1 – 200 of 563 Newer› Newest»Pelosi asked him to delay it so they could work on immigration reform.
If nothing happens in two weeks, Trump does it anyway and he has another example they’re not serious.
What’s the downside?
If he keeps doing it he does look dumb, like the way Democrats look with impeachment...and the way Republicans look with the prosecustion ot the criminal Deep Staters.
He’s unpredictable. Tomorrow he might nuke Iran. The mullahs need to think about that.
Until it’s on paper and signed into law, he’s always looking for a better deal.
The elites have been much more comfortable holding the upper hand and not creating binding agreements.
It’s how they’ve been governing for several decades.
The game has changed and they’re still figuring it out.
Proves he's not dogmatic enough to be president!
He calls it off when he gets something for it.
Trump could call off shooting someone in the middle of 5th Avenue...
"He’s unpredictable. Tomorrow he might nuke Iran. The mullahs need to think about that."
Playing "unpredictable" can itself become predictable. That's my point.
Once you see it as a game, it will be perceived as disrespectful and unserious.
In my view, he's crossed the line already. Question how many times he needs to do this pattern before you find it disrespectful and unserious.
"We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving ..." -- Barack Hussein Obama
Was that any better than what Trump is doing? The Obama administration DID bomb other countries, and now those countries have turned into shit.
If he doesn't get anything, he does it.
rhhardin
good call.
The hard liner is a softy.
The effectiveness relies a lot on the media going crazy - they can't resist the crisis news because of ratings. So there's a crisis, somebody gives him something, and he postpones whatever it is.
The question is not "When does he over-use the tactic?"
The question is "When does he LOSE using the tactic?" So far, so good, by and large.
Now it will be the Democrats' fault for not negotiating in good faith.
"Question how many times he needs to do this pattern before you find it disrespectful and unserious."
If there is progress on the issues in question, when previously there has been none/very little, then he can keep doing it.
No borders. No walls. No America at all.
--The Democrats' true position.
Fuck them all to Hell.
He's leveraging the levers of power.
Question how many times he needs to do this pattern before you find it disrespectful and unserious.
Just who did he DISRESPECT by giving Pelosi two weeks to work on the nation’s immigration problems?
How is allowing a delay to work on the fundamental issues being UNSERIOUS about stopping illegal immigration?
I didn't want Trump to bomb Iran so I just thought that was a stand alone good decision.
As far as the ICE raids, not sure what Trump could get in exchange for not deporting illegals who have had due process. Wall funding? Other steps to prevent more people coming in? A change in the laws about refugee status?
That might be a good deal. I doubt Trump wants mass to implement mass deportation. What he wants is control of the border. But I doubt R's or D's in Congress will give him anything meaningful along those lines. They hope to run out the clock on him and do nothing.
Anyway, the two developments are not related except they may both be examples of Trump's carrot and stick deal making style.
Trump sycophants don't care. They are willing to let him do whatever he wants as long as it makes their political opponents angry, that is their desired end-state not some policy point.
How many months did they investigate Benghazi? How many times did the house try to get rid of ACA in attempts they knew would go nowhere?
This tactic works fine for the low information voter.
Question how many times the media needs to get outraged because Trump is about to do something, then slams him for not doing it, before you find them disrespectful and unserious.
Disrespectful to whom?
One answer is that Trump is disrespecting his chain of command. The time and money that his people put into preparing for the raids, the reassignment of resources, the shuffling of other priorities, managing communications -- all put on ice.
At the managerial level, the people carrying out the raids had to assemble teams, explain the mission, resolve schedules, organize logistics, communicate with non-administration partners, anticipate casualties.
At the individual level, there are certainly many who had to travel from home, work overtime, cancel vacation plans, shelve other important projects. Now what? Do they stay at a constant state of readiness? For how long?
There is a cost to this in moral, effectiveness, and retention.
The war with Iran turns into peace with Iran and we complain that we are frustrated. Funny thing is that the Norks and the Shia Muslim State called Iran are both threatening war with the USA and crazy Trump is threatening peace deals. That’s like calling off the raisin d’etre for the CIA and all of the bribes collected by the corrupt Congress.
One answer is that Trump is disrespecting his chain of command.
Been there, done that. You’re there to complete the larger mission.
Deterrence is often a major component of doing the job.
The Democrats are not going to do anything meaningful on immigration, and neither is Trump. He has been a complete failure on this issue.
If he meant it, he would have started the deportations; THAT would have put pressure on the Democrats.
These people have been ordered deported, why didn't we start sending them back two years ago? Trump is a failure - proposed new tag.
Trump might eventually have to carry out a few threats in order to be taken seriously.
Bluffing? Been happening forever. I don't see this as a bluff. Sometimes it sounds like a bluff, but your opponent (Pelosi) folds because they themself were the one with a pair of twos. The hand is still in play. President Trump had a much better hand. He was not ordering deportation. Judges ordered deportation. President Trump has instructed his people to execute the Judges orders. Pelosi was forced to explain how refusing the orders of a judge was a bad thing.
Turns out Trump is yanked by the same worries as every other president. Casualties. Optics.
Here's what happened.
LINK TEXT
Henry: "At the individual level, there are certainly many who had to travel from home, work overtime, cancel vacation plans, shelve other important projects. Now what? Do they stay at a constant state of readiness? For how long?"
This is just plain dumb.
The entirety of the forces involved are in their "forward" combat readiness roles and are on call for any contingency.
("forward" in quotes because some forward rapid response on-call forces include those who are in their rotation but deploy in mission specific ways from the states)
And if you dont think the combat and prep training for those forces that are currently "in the barrell" included potentially dozens of various Iran focused operations then you have exposed your utter ignorance in how the military operates.
"disrespectful"
and gauche!
Mark, I think there are at least 2 distinct types of Trump supporter: the type you reference, who may indeed be most interested in a "burn it all down" administration, and the rest of us, who are in fact interested in the policies and results on the ground. Many of us in this second group, I think, were (and some are) reluctant Trump supporters because he comes off as a loose cannon so often. But those results on the ground have been surprisingly positive and have converted me from reluctant to pretty enthusiastic.
I still don't trust the guy. I'm still not convinced that he isn't a more or less benign sociopath - the kind that can be satisfied with money, power, and admiration - though his family seems like evidence to the contrary. (And he be far from the first president or presidential aspirant I've thought that of.) But if he's willing to govern on the center right as he's been doing, I'll vote for him again.
I suppose it will be considered very mean if they went ahead with the ICE raids anyway after having called them off.
And the military DOES NOT get paid overtime.It is a 24\7\365+ job.
"There is a cost to this in morale, effectiveness, and retention."
The folks who think government workers are lazy and overpaid minions of the deep state are not too concerned about this.
The real news is Pelosi blinked.
All the Trump talk is to shift the narrative.
What do you call the media yelling "ICE is coming! ICE is coming! Quick! Hide!" at full volume?
What do you call whoever leaked it to them?
Don't know what you're fussing about. In both cases, it seems that his threat brought results - the other side asked for some kind of parley. That's good. If the parley doesn't work out, it was just a delay, they can go ahead in two weeks.
Shake the box.
What Kevin said at 6:59 am, AND what Hagar said at 7:54!!!
One answer is that Trump is disrespecting his chain of command. The time and money that his people put into preparing for the raids, the reassignment of resources, the shuffling of other priorities, managing communications -- all put on ice.
Except we've been told that the military chain of command were the ones who persuaded him to cancel the attack on Iran.
We do not know enough to evaluate whether it’s playing a game or not.
Don’t kid yourself that the government owes the general public full transparency on military and geopolitical matters. We do _not_ want that, in fact.
Mark: "The folks who think government workers are lazy and overpaid minions of the deep state are not too concerned about this."
Nice try.
These are military members and civilian employees in the DOD, most of whom are vets and know the drill.
Stop pretending that we are talking about bureacrats at the other agencies and stop trying to transfer credit for what military members do to the other govt slugs whose most diffucult decision during this period is where to have lunch each day.
And by the way Mark, the vast majority of those military members know full well that you and the dems hate them (you can only be called the Gestapo so many times before you get the hint). And the vast majority of them will be voting for Trump.
Again.
Trump sycophants don't care. They are willing to let him do whatever he wants as long as it makes their political opponents angry, that is their desired end-state not some policy point.
Trump has done this many times.
We remember the famous televised meeting with the Dems where he appeared to renounce his hard-line immigration stance to give the other side the opportunity to come up with legislation which he vowed to sign [I'll sign whatever they put before me].
The base went berserk; even Limbaugh thought we'd been sold down the river.
But when the Democrats failed to address the Dreamers in their proposals, Trump resumed his plans.
This is another example of his trying to appeal to the moderates by showing he will consider the other side's concerns.
High stakes game of chicken on all sides.
On deportations, Trump doesn't give up much to put Pelosi in a box. Everyone of the Democrat candidates for President will continue to go far left. Trump doesn't need to win this battle right now, he just needs to show what will happen if a Democrat becomes President and blame the lack of compromise on Democrats.
On Iran, I have to think Trump's move was part of a larger plan. Bombing a few Iranian facilities was the expected response. Trump doesn't do the expected.
Its clear Mark thinks history started this morning.
When it comes to Presidents doing whatever they want, get back to us when Trump "legislates" new laws all by himself, like the Dream Act.
Well said, Drago @ 8:04 AM
One of the most interesting things in my view of this Presidency is watching politicians and the sycophants who cover them for the press reacting to the moves of someone who is decidely not a politician.
I think a Business Correspondent who switches to covering Politics for Trump is needed somewhere to provide the necessary translation for Political Reporters who are hopelessly at Sea here.
@Gahrie -- I worded my comment to apply to both cases, which was probably a mistake. I think the morale case applies most strongly to ICE, which has long had problems with morale, retention, and recruitment.
And this is just rudimentary management practice. Operating in emergency mode isn't effective long term.
Seems akin to the Mexico tariff of a couple weeks ago. He delayed implementation, Mexico came to the table and we got what look like good results. (need time to know for certain)
He puts Pelosi under the gun of mass deportation, she cries uncle, he say's "here's 2 weeks, do something"
If she can't/won't/doesn't, we are in the same position as friday Morning.
Seems a good play to me.
John Henry
Keep in mind, the entire left/libs/LLR's were all set and primed with their talking points attacking Trump AFTER the expected strikes and many of them posted these comments...only to have to eat their words.
There us also disturbing video of Schumer and Pelosi dancing and "celebrating" in the White House driveway after their White House briefing....when they thought the attack was imminent.
All right after John Kerry spent time speaking with and advising the Mullahs.
And the media had their stories already written: Trump the warmonger; Trump likes bombing brown people; Trump is a militaristic idiot.....
And then it didnt happen, so Mark and other lefty chuckleheads are reduced to complaining about govt personnel having to put off vacations (false) and I guess the horror of rescheduling shopping trips and movie outings.
Too funny.
"Question how many times he needs to do this pattern before you find it disrespectful and unserious."
Not a question that would give me any information or insight that matters to me. What's actually going on re Iran or controlling illegal immigration?
As Dad29 pointed out, it works for its intended purpose, or it doesn't. It may just be fluff being put out for the press, with no real effect on outcomes. It matters (to me) only if its being perceived as "disrespectful and unserious" by relevant parties interferes with an outcome I want. (Irrelevant parties re the rhetoric under discussion include myself and retired law professors.)
We can get "respectful and serious" public speech out the wazoo and still be moving toward disastrous wars while continuing to do nothing meaningful about immigration.
Actually, not quite in the same position. If Congress does nothing, that strengthens PDJT.
John Henry
In my view, he's crossed the line already. Question how many times he needs to do this pattern before you find it disrespectful and unserious.
Congratulations Ann, after only two and a half years of his presidency (and another year and a half of campaigning), you are finally figuring it out.
At least you can boast you are quicker on the uptake than most of the dolts who regularly post here. And your husband!
MadisonMan: "I think a Business Correspondent who switches to covering Politics for Trump is needed somewhere to provide the necessary translation for Political Reporters who are hopelessly at Sea here"
Great observation.
Could not agree more.
Get someone who is experienced in M&A and hostile takeovers.
Trump is again doing the old Br'er Rabbit and the Tar Baby trick.
By giving the Democrats a temporary delay in immediate deportations of people who have been already slated for deportation but are still defying the orders, he has placed the DIMS in a box.
In exchange the Democrats have been given some MORE time to try to come up with a bill/law/anything to make some progress on the illegal alien invasion.
Trump knows that they won't and can't do anything and will just continue to bloviate. At the end of the delay, when there is no progress and the people will see that the Dems are just hot gas with no intention EVER of seriously trying to fix or stop the invasion.....
Trump can then proceed with what he wanted to do anyway. Followed up with a big fat "I told you so."
The people see the UN-seriousness of the Democrats and Trump looks like the adult in the room who has to finally get something done.
There's a difference between saying, "I'm going to do this, now I'm doing that - fake out!" and saying, "If conditions remain the same, I'm going to do this" and then not doing that when the conditions change. It's a lever he uses to get the other party in a negotiation unstuck from whatever tight place they've chosen.
I'm with Althouse on this one. Deportation raids should be happening everyday, not some phony announced "event" that gets called off. Can the Democrats give him something that makes the illegals already slated for deportation not "deportable"? That doesn't sound like winning to me. They'll still be deportable, so deport them by the thousands already and send a message. The message I'm getting is that you're doing next to nothing and any Democrat headfake tricks you into doing even less while the illegals take notice and avoid capture.
Trump is all about manipulating you people. He gets you all liquored up on the prospect of violence and cruelty to weak brown people. While you're still full of Dutch courage, he pulls back to avoid the political disaster of actually implementing your phony tough cuck pipe dreams.
Why do we know so much about the time line and particulars of his decision making?
If we only knew the final decision we wouldn't call it 'Calling off', we'd just call it 'his decision'.
Every other person ever acts the same way.
Field Marshall and Noted Bundy Case Kuar Freder: "At least you can boast you are quicker on the uptake than most of the dolts who regularly post here. And your husband!"
Apparently Freder missed this upthread:
Dad29 said...
The question is not "When does he over-use the tactic?"
The question is "When does he LOSE using the tactic?" So far, so good, by and large."
This, in a nutshell, is the lefties/LLR's real comcern/complaint.
They desperately want Trump to change his tactics...because Trump is succeeding by and large.
In other words, the dems want to pull another HWBush "read my lips" reversal so they can bludgeon him with it.
But Trump is no HW Bush who was so moronuc that he actually believed the dems when they gave him assurances they would stand with him on the dem policy of raising taxes.
Spoiler: they didnt.
Duh.
So much for the savvy of 'experienced" LLR's.
@Drago -- So people in the military like getting jerked around by people in suits? Stiff upper lip? That's the mission?
Your earlier comment about state-of-readiness was good and pointed, but there is cost to ramping up an operation and calling it off.
Gahrie's comment that the military leaders were for cancelling the raid exposes a faultline. Did the military leadership want the raid in the first place? If Trump overrules his military leadership, one day, then listens to them the next, is that respectful?
Not clear if this is related to the drone shootdown.
Sounds like it was already in the works:
WASHINGTON (AP) — U.S. military cyber forces launched a strike against Iranian military computer systems on Thursday as President Donald Trump backed away from plans for a more conventional military strike in response to Iran’s downing of a U.S. surveillance drone, U.S. officials said Saturday.
https://apnews.com/f01492c3dbd14856bce41d776248921f
John Henry
The president has excellent insticts. This is hard diplomacy and negotiations in action. So many options, short of taking our country to war. Again. This is not over, but the American president was smart to think of innocent loss of life. These actions, ironically, are the ones President Obama was elected to take: he went with appeasing/ paying off Iran, and overthrowing Libya at huge cost of life...
But you too get a vote. Vote against Trump if you feel disrespected and wanted to see those innocents killed so you can thump your chest with American pride once again, and have your tax dollars pay to help Israel remain the only nuclear power in the region, for now.
Freder: Congratulations Ann, after only two and a half years of his presidency (and another year and a half of campaigning), you are finally figuring it out.
Figuring what out?
Can't see anything "serious" being addressed, let alone figured out, in this call and response between you and Althouse.
(Though I guess the same can be said of my bothering to address a Freder comment.)
All Freder has is to call people “dolts.” It’s kind of sad, really. It would be nice to have better trolls.
MadisonMan: "I think a Business Correspondent who switches to covering Politics for Trump is needed somewhere to provide the necessary translation for Political Reporters who are hopelessly at Sea here"
Excellent observation. They are speaking different languages, or dancing a different dance.
Trump is negotiating as a hard nosed New York businessman, or really any business person, would. He is used to negotiating with the Mob, the Unions and corrupt city bureaucrats. (Actually all the same but I digress)
The "dance" may be not as choreographed and elegant as that of the career politician. The "dance" of the business negotiator is far different from the "minuet" done by the political class. Form doesn't matter. Results do.
BTW: The Chinese, Mexicans, Saudis and others understand Trump. They have a similar dance.
The question is not “When does he over-use the tactic?”
The question is “When does he LOSE using the tactic?” So far, so good, by and large.
When does Lucy lose using her tactic? At least according to Charles Schultz, NEVER.
We do not need to make illegal entrants comfortable.
If the commentariat really wanted to hurt Trump, they would say that he's soft.
"Unpredictable" plays to his strength. His supporters view it as a plus.
You could say that the daily news is Trump's Rorschach; it shows us how he thinks and we have to figure out how his head works from that.
But the opinion pages are a Rorschach for Trump's opponents; talk that he's going to start nuking countries, or that he's "building an autocracy," or that he won't leave office when his term is over tells us more about how Trump's critics minds work than about how Trump thinks or reacts or expresses himself.
The ICE raid issues are not over.
Trump permitted Pelosi a temporary reprieve -- now it is her turn to "give" on the issue of keeping asylum seekers in Mexico.
Limited blogger: "Why do we know so much about the time line and particulars of his decision making?
If we only knew the final decision we wouldn't call it 'Calling off', we'd just
call it 'his decision'."
As with the lefty AWOL lies regarding GWBush and his Air National Guard stint, the dems are counting on the fact that most have no understanding of how joint military Crisis Action Planning is conducted nor how contingencies and specific Courses of Action are developed followed by National Command Authority decision making occurs at each stage.
Intelligence estimates are constantly updated and changing up to the final minute.
All this talk about how Trump must have known earlier in the day isnt relevant.
What is relevant are the specific conditions that exist at the final moment and for that final moment all forces need to be deployed and good to go in case the "flag goes up".
See: Eisenhower and Normandy.
Duh.
Bad move. This is the issue that got him elected and will be a decider in 2020.
Henry: "@Drago -- So people in the military like getting jerked around by people in suits? Stiff upper lip? That's the mission?"
You cant be this stupid...or maybe you just can.
You know what people in the military call crisis action and response?
Another day at the office.
They know the drill.
They know that civilian leadership moving them to a point of imminent attack is often a necessary tactic in negotiations and posturing.
The military members know this very very well.
it will be perceived as disrespectful and unserious
What's wrong with that?
People could then become bored!?
Isn't that what AA want?
Henry: "If Trump overrules his military leadership, one day, then listens to them the next, is that respectful?"
LOLOLOL
Hopelessly stupid.
Lincoln : McClellan
Truman : MacArthur
RHHardin is right. MadisonMan is also right. And Ann is wrong in concluding Trump has already crossed the line.
The Iran "flipflop" was at worst part of an internal decision-making process where there is always back and forth until the final decision is implemented. Plus there are reports that the U.S. instead cyber-attacked Iran's missile sites and now Trump is saying he will increase sanctions on Iran. I much prefer Trump's process to Bush 43's "orderliness", which sent 5,800 Americans to their death searching for WMDs that were never found and may never have existed.
Re the immigration raids, I suspect there is a backstory but at worst Trump has elevated ICE deportations to a top story for the next few weeks - a great negative message to those considering migrating to the U.S. Plus I believe Trump is likely to reauthorize the mass raids if Chuck and Nancy don't deliver.
Has Trump crossed the line? No. Everyone now knows that once Trump makes an announcement they can either try to head it off by negotiating with Trump and, if they don't, Trump will hit them with something. Trump was waiting for Iran to offer him something. They didn't. Hence cyberattacks and sanctions. Chuck and Nancy await a similar fate.
They know that civilian leadership moving them to a point of imminent attack is often a necessary tactic in negotiations and posturing.
And sometimes they think it's bullshit and follow orders anyway.
Trump is only disrespectful when he overrules Sean Hannady
Someone leaked the upcoming ICE raids to the press. Word is,it was the acting director.
Losing the element of surprise, Trump agrees to a delay that allows the democrats to showcase their unwillingness to give an inch.
Savvy...
Howard so wants to participate. He just doesnt know how.
For how many years has Congress been disrespectful and unserious on immigration? How long has it taken people to figure this out?
Another take:
his week's big leak about a major Immigration and Customs Enforcement operation was orchestrated by acting Homeland Security Secretary Kevin McAleenan in an effort to sabotage the raids before they were scheduled to take place, according to three current and two former senior administration officials.
In a move he said was to placate Democrats, President Trump announced on Saturday that the nationwide immigration enforcement operation planned to start Sunday — aimed at migrant families who illegally remain in the country despite being denied asylum — was called off to give lawmakers two weeks to work on a plan to fix legal “loopholes” he said have enticed migrants to come to the U.S.
WASHINGTON examiner
John Henry
I saw the headline at Drudge and sort of thought the same about using the same trick. Then I thought about how it could be spun.
Trump's a CEO. The problem with big government is that it is slow to respond to fast changing circumstances. Trump is showing he can make government quick and flexible, such that it can respond quickly to new information.
Of course, the counter has already been used, "shouldn't the information have already been available, and Trump acted before studying it?"
Lincoln: Butler
Lincoln: Pople
There's a strong historical case that Lincoln's messing about with the leadership of the Army of the Potomac did actively hurt its operations. Between politically-appointed officers and politically-driven missions I'm not sure that example suggests what you think it does.
Henry: "And sometimes they think it's bullshit and follow orders anyway."
LOL
Are you a child?
I guarantee you the guys and gals at the tip of the spear WANT to go.
So what?
Breaking911
@Breaking911
BREAKING: 5 current and former senior administration officials say they believe DHS Secretary Kevin McAleenan leaked ICE raids to the media in order to sabotage the operation -
Only a "dolt" would think that this blog, including most of the commenters, has been uniformly uncritical of Trump.
Teacher: Class - who can explain what is dry run? Raise your hand!
Hmm. Do I see AA with raised! hand
Henry: "There's a strong historical case that Lincoln's messing about with the leadership of the Army of the Potomac did actively hurt its operations."
LOL
What "operations"?? (McClellan)
That dude woulnt advance unless he had a zilliin-man advantage. You cant win if you dont take the initiative.
Stop pretending you know anything at all about any of this.
McClellan was a failure.
MacArthur tried to act as CinC.
They were both wrong and after many back and forths were relieved.
As it should be.
Why should Trump treat the Democrats with respect?
They certainly do not treat him and his office with respect!
“Howard so wants to participate. He just doesnt know how”
So fucking true.
Althouse reacts:
"Playing "unpredictable" can itself become predictable. That's my point.
Once you see it as a game, it will be perceived as disrespectful and unserious.
In my view, he's crossed the line already. Question how many times he needs to do this pattern before you find it disrespectful and unserious."
Agreed.
Henry is desperately seeking the one talking point that will prove OrangeManBad in this circumstance.
He's failing.
Not LLR Chuck-failing though...yet.
When somebody wins a war, or an election, or whatever, nitpicking is pointless. Lincoln won the war, maybe victory was inevitable, maybe it wasn’t, but we do know that he won. Just like Trump defeated Hillary. You can tell me, as a certain commenter often brays, that anybody on the R side could have beaten her, but the proof is in the pudding, as the saying goes.
Q. Question how many times he needs to do this pattern before you find it disrespectful and unserious."
A. As many times as necessary to show that the Ds are extremely disrespectful and unserious.
"Question how many times he needs to do this pattern before you find it disrespectful and unserious."
I think he’s running a one man show and that puts him at a disadvantage. He can’t call up his friends at the NYT and deniably run an idea up the flagpole the way a Democrat can. Also the personnel office slow walks or blocks Trump loyal potential employees at the WH, leaving him with a lot of disloyal people working every day to undermine the election.
Besides, giving the Dems two weeks to come up with something seems pretty reasonable to me.
You know, the dolts on this thread today could simply google Joint Military Crisis Action Planning or something close to see what the precise process looks like.
Althouse is wrong.
Henry is wrong.
Freder is a liar, per usual.
And Howard is....uh...present...sort of.
Si our hostess and a cadre of lefty commenters would prefer a military strike on Iran and the deportation of maybe a million illegals than to have disrectful direction changes. Once again the hatred of Trump is over style with quibbles over policy really screeches about style.
It's neither disrespectful -- I'm not even sure what that means in this context -- nor unserious. He outlines consequences Y for continuing to do or not do X, and if something shifts around X he reconsiders. It's not an empty threat, it's a delayed consequence.
These days I try not to engage with friends re: politics because too many of them can't consider issue-by-issue but only Trump=Bad, !Trump=Good. The other weekend, however, right after Trump's tariff threat yielded some change of posture from Mexico, we teetered on the brink of an argument. My point was simply that, like him or not, an aggressive posture and promise to escalate if they didn't change their lackadaisical approach, was enough to change their lackadaisical approach. He didn't "call off" the consequence, they changed the predicate that would have invoked the consequence within a certain time frame.
That's not back-tracking, that is honestly following through as intended. If you change your behavior, the consequence will not follow. Shifting the timeline is looking for a better deal - he would be better off if the open-borders advocates gave an inch - but if nothing shifts on changing border policies, he will invoke the massive deportation option in two weeks. What is unserious about that? Who is disrespected?
Maybe Trump is merely ...
Recognizing and Dismantling White Organizational Culture
"Participants in this workshop will:
Understand what is white United States-ian culture;
Understand the beliefs and values of white United State-ian culture;
Recognize characteristics of white United States-ian culture in
organizations;
Begin to explore the impact the culture has on professionals in the field;
and Learn antidotes[sic] to dismantling white organizational culture."
"The price[sic] of this workshop is valued at $120."
One thing that is definitely true: you can't predict what Trump will do next, and you can't tell what he really thinks. He appears to be almost purely transactional.
Is that a good thing for a POTUS to be? Probably not. While it keeps him in the news every minute of every day, it gives no cause for assurance to anyone. He is not building trust, he is dissipating it. The effect is cumulative.
He may well pay a big price for this down the road. He can and should do better.
On the other hand, at a party last night I asked a good friend, who is a centerist Democrat, who he thought the Dem nominee would be. He said Biden and Sanders were out of it already, so he didn't know. I suggested that we would have a rerun of 2016, with the part of Hillary Clinton played by Elizabeth Warren. He said that he wouldn't be able to sleep after that comment.
Althouse predicts Trump's unpredictability will become predictable.
I didn't see that coming.
That “United State-ian” thing is pure Gramsci, ask Mayor Pete, his proud papa was an evangelist of Gramsciism.
"The price[sic] of this workshop is valued at $120."
That reminds me of an advertisement I saw at a ski resort:
"Learn to ski from the Valley's best instructor. First lesson free."
I just hope that the CIA doesn’t assassinate Trump after he leaves office to keep him from writing his book.
Echoes of Obama’s “red line.”
Guy from Hoover on MTP, “He has made the unpredictable, predictable.”
Chuck should have Althouse on MTP. “She’s a blogger from Wisconsin. Rush Limbaugh and Ann Althouse share the same birthday. Limbaugh is also a regular reader.”
At best Ann overreacted.Not wise for a law professor.
We still don't know the complete story.
Never underestimate Trump.
>>rhhardin said...
He calls it off when he gets something for it.
If he doesn't get anything, he does it.<<
I'm late to the thread or that would have been my reply. Credit to RH, of course.
My comment is that RH's answer is so obvious that it is hard to believe that Althouse (tacitly) asked the question.
Blogger Howard said...
Trump is all about manipulating you people.
Howard, as usual, get it backwards. Trump manipulates all you haters, including weak dislikers like Ann.
Henry needs to read some Civil War history. Once Lincoln got competent generals, he left them alone. He even let Grant fire McClernand.
bleh: "Echoes of Obama’s “red line.”'
Except not even close. At all.
Otherwise you are spot on.
LOL
Obama: if Assad uses Chemical weapons thats a red line and we will attack!
Chem weapons used
Obama: Never mind.
Trump: we will be watching Iran
Iran shoots a drone
Trump: we are weighing options
Yep!! "Echoes"!!.....not.
LOL
It's pretty straight forward to me. Somebody leaks the raids - not good. Pelosi PLEADS for a delay so she can do something to "keep families together". Trump says "okay, you've got two weeks. Do it!" Pelosi fails or doesn't. If she fails ICE raids at some unknown time; Nancy has egg on her face because she failed and Trump wins once again. If Nancy actually serves up a bill Trump will sign Trump wins again.
Michael McNeil said...
When does Lucy lose using her tactic? At least according to Charles Schultz, NEVER.
Schultz had complete control over everything that happened in his comic strip, and politics isn't like that. Democrats thought that Reagan would be Goldwater and Republicans thought that Clinton would be McGovern or Mondale or Dukakis - easy to beat - but parties and politicians are capable of learning, changing and adapting. They are more Darwinian and cunning now than in the past. At some point, all political tactics wear out or no longer work in a changing environment. It's only a matter of when - though "when" may be a long time from now.
Todd didn’t interview Trump. He hectored and argued with him.
What a partisan hack.
The notion that Trump is better off acting unpredictable is false. Because so far, he's only been "unpredictable" in one direction: Announce a sweeping policy and then back off from it. Never the reverse.
He backed off his Muslim ban, he backed off his Iran military strike, and he backed off his ICE raids. That's not being unpredictable. That's perfectly predictable by now: Wait for Trump to face the nasty consequences of the policy and then he'll back off. North Korea has probably gotten the message: Trump will talk tough and then back off when he gets the estimated casualty figures.
If Trump were truly unpredictable, he could have said that he was NOT going to strike Iran and then go ahead and strike Iran anyway. Or he could have said that he was NOT going to order ICE raids and then order them anyway.
Bob Boyd said...
Althouse predicts Trump's unpredictability will become predictable.
I didn't see that coming.
I would have said that became fact after election day 2016: but the country was rejecting it .
Or put another way : when was Trump predictable?
He's sui generis.
Sinz52: "..Muslim ban,"
Fake news.
Agaun
As always.
True but you can do that only sometimes:
https://thehill.com/homenews/sunday-talk-shows/449903-pence-were-not-convinced-downing-of-drone-was-authorized-at-the
Some football offences have the philosophy that you run until they stop the run. This eats up the clock while tiring their defense and resting yours. It's boring and predictable. Never disrespectful. It's "stop me if you can". If the defense adjusts by bring more defenders to stop the run, that opens up the passing game. Predictable or not, it's Trump proven strategy. Counter it and some other weakness is exposed. Stop that, "you win, next game".
sinz52: "If Trump were truly unpredictable, he could have said that he was NOT going to strike Iran and then go ahead and strike Iran anyway. Or he could have said that he was NOT going to order ICE raids and then order them anyway."
LOL
None of that even makes sense.
Plus, these are not possible scenarios as Trump knows the obama holdovers in every dept will leak any upcoming operation in the hopes of hurting Trump.
. While it keeps him in the news every minute of every day, it gives no cause for assurance to anyone. He is not building trust, he is dissipating it. The effect is cumulative.
Is it your assertion that if Trump were totally predictable the media would quit attacking him every minute of every day?
I trust Trump to act in the best interests of the American people, and the nation as whole. A trust that was built, not given blindly on faith.
I assure you I have cause for assurance.
This is The Whole Advantage of Bombers vs. Missiles
You can flush your Bombers (out to different bases)
You can put your Bombers on the end of the runways on 15 minute alert
You can put your Bombers in the air
You can it off after each point of escalation if you achieve your objects
You can launch your missiles
The Chinese, Mexicans, Saudis and others understand Trump. They have a similar dance.
Good point that the political "intellectuals" seemed to have missed.
Some football offences have the philosophy that you run until they stop the run.
Our high school team, I didn’t play on it, but I was dating a girl in the marching band, our high school team went undefeated and had the cheer “Nickel, Dime, Nickel, Dime, that’ll do it every time!"
It looks like
TRUMP CALLS OFFICE RAIDS
Read this for a little more perspective as to the called off ICE raids...hint, the deep state was involved.
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/06/multiple_fingers_pointing_at_alleged_leaker_of_plans_for_ice_raids_today.html
gilbar: "This is The Whole Advantage of Bombers vs. Missiles"
This is the perfect analogy for this political scenario.
The lefties/LLR's are in a bit of a bind today because their entire carefully crafted and prepared Trump Is A Warmonger Killer Of Brown People "Missile" was "fired" and cannot be recalled, so the those ill-aimed political weapons hit a target that wasnt there.....
....so now the lefties dont want to discuss their idiocy, they want to discuss the process.
Too funny.
Now the truth is coming out. Trump is constantly fighting the deep state.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-06-23/acting-dhs-chief-sabotaged-ice-raids-leaking-plan-washington-post
The left needs Trump to start attacking foes willy-nilly as it feeds their 25th amendment fever dreams.
And ultimately Trump always wins which is reassuring.
Trump zigs and zags just like The Atlantic Convoys being targeted by wolf packs of U-boats did not sail in a straight line either. Zig zags defeated enemy attacks while the Merchant ships traveled on to exactly where they were going.
Ann misses the point. What is predictable is that Trump is unpredictable when he says he will take military action. He may do it, he may decide not do it or he may delay it. This puts his adversary at a disadvantage and keeps him guessing. The reaction is not going to be "this guy is not a serious person and I disrespect him" but rather "I don't know what the hell this guy is going to do; it's time for serious negotiations".
Its all very curious isnt it?
1) John Kerry, whose State Dept was fully engaged in the hoax dossier ploy with Brennans CIA, providing intensive guidance to Irans govt for many months...
2) Iran is in big trouble economically and politically and needs Trump gone to get out from under sanctions (which are being tightened this week by Trump)
3) Iran "attacks" 2 oil tankers but not enough to sink the tankers or kill anyone
4) Iran targets a drone with no chance of killing any Americans while Americans are all over the straits abd vicinity
5) dems/LLR and the media have pre-written stories ready to go for a post-attack scenario labeling Trump an insane blood-thirsty warmonger.....
.....its all very "neat", wouldnt you say?
(eaglebeak)
The issue is not whether it becomes predictable--the issue is what effect it has in the context in which he's operating. If he says he's going to do something and then does it--which has happened countless times--is that also too predictable?
Second, unserious and disrespectful seems odd as a judgment; he's trying to get certain results from certain plays. How does one feel disrespected by that? I feel a lot more disrespected when some con man like Obama tells me this won't cost a penny and you can keep your doctor. Now THAT'S disrespectful.
In fact, that's a lie.
Everything Trump does is done for a purpose. He has a goal in mind. If his technique works, then it makes no sense to say he shouldn’t use it because it’s unserious.
Like they say in football, if you find a play that works, you keep using it. You don’t stop yourself, you make them stop you.
John Kerry is doubtless working with embedded members of the #RESIST movement today. If everything they were working on was so good for the US, why did they keep it all secret?
Perhaps after many months of John Kerry coordinating with and guiding the Iranians and advising the Iranians to simply "wait out Trump", the Iranian regime is worried they will not last that long and perhaps, just perhaps, the Iranians are looking for some sort of.....
.........(wait for it).....
....."insurance policy" that might help remove their "problem" earlier than that or at least create a real problem for Trump in 2020.
I think Trump has the Swamp thoroughly figured outbby now and even if Trump cant win every battle there he can certainly avoid some life-altering calamity decisions.
Question how many times he needs to do this pattern before you find it disrespectful and unserious.
According to the left and Hollywood, wasn't this the "MOST presidential thing" Trump could do?
Maybe Colbert King is right about Trump being wishy-washy? I used to read the Post daily and I'm pretty sure that's not true. Hmmm.
In my view, he's crossed the line already.
A useful data point.
You know, some might consider John Kerry's open collusion with the chief financier of terror in the world and Americas enemy...treason.
Wouldnt be the first time for him now would it?
"Is it your assertion that if Trump were totally predictable the media would quit attacking him every minute of every day?"
No. I don't think that there is anything Trump could do that keep the MSM/Dems from attacking him every minute of every day, nor do I think that Trump would want that. He likes the attention and controversy.
I am arguing that Trump would do better to pick his spots to engage in public marching and counter-marching. He needs to be consistent in pressing a few signature issues.
Why does he keep Acosta at the DOL? What is the status of the big, beautiful Wall being paid for by Mexico? What is going on at the border with Mexico? What progress is he making in dealing with the phony asylum seekers at the southern border? What is the plan for getting rid of the remnants of Obamacare and dealing with the fallout? How is the "jailbreak" program going? What ever happened to the move to investigate illegals voting in US elections? Who is next up as head of DHS? Why aren't we taxing remittances to Mexico?
The idiots in the MSM never get anything right when they try to explain it--they just reprint press releases from Democratic party sources and call it news. Trump could really blow the whole scam up if he were consistent and disciplined in his messaging, backed up with well done, fact-based position papers from his staff. He needs to build credibility for his policies. His behavior will always get him plenty of attention.
(eaglebeak)
Here's Thomas Lifson's theory from American Thinker
https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2019/06/trumps_ice_raid_deportation_gambit_a_trap_that_dems_have_fallen_into.html
Seems to conform more closely to Trump's SOP than the notion enunciated by Althouse
I guess the "Acting ICE Director" is not going to be there long.
Trump is still very alone with lots of career politicians assuming he will be gone and the graft will return.
That he gets anything done is amazing.
https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-06-22/trump-ordered-secret-cyber-attacks-iran-alternative-war-thursday-night
Maybe somebody presented him with a better option, an option that, if it worked, the Iranians would be forced to deny that they had been attacked?
I don’t think Trump walks on water, but I do give him the benefit of the doubt most of the time.
Couldn’t the US Attorney get a wiretap order on John Kerry for his Logan Act violations? Plenty of probable cause.
Sorry, the leaker was the acting DHS Director.
I think there might be an opening in Point Barrow for his next assignment,.
Amadeus: "Trump could really blow the whole scam up if he were consistent and disciplined in his messaging, backed up with well done, fact-based position papers from his staff."
There is ZERO chance any federal bureaucracy will produce position papaers that support ANY republican, much less Trump.
You know Amadeus, we are what? 2.5+ years into this. Dont you think its time for you to begin factoring in the impossibility for Trump to effectively staff federal agencies with likeminded people?
McConnell has made sure to slow walk potential Trump allies. Even when Trump gets a top person in, half the time it was on a Swampy recommendation. The other half the entire rest of the dept are Clintonites/obamaites.
Trump will need to win re-election to even begin effectively addressing the systemic pro-dem bureaucracy. He simply doesnt have the allies or bandwidth to fight ALL the battles.
It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows the great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat. . - Theodore Roosevelt
Could have come from Henry V.
Trump will need to win re-election to even begin effectively addressing the systemic pro-dem bureaucracy. He simply doesnt have the allies or bandwidth to fight ALL the battles.
Yes, these are all second term projects. Moving agencies and departments out of DC is a start,
Henry doesn’t understand the purpose of having the biggest baddest possible military.
Henry likes to be contrarian just because.
My opinion, and yes I do understand it is suboptimal according to game theory, is that in foreign policy the USA should never bluff. Probably the initial threat was the error, but in any case a stumble by Trump.
The first Democratic debate is on June 26th and that national scenario has to be factored in as Trump deals with international scenarios. The Dems would want to be able to rage and say: Trump is in a war and Trump is deporting. Now Trump is negotiating with the mullahs and with Pelosi - as he did with Mexico - working for a deal for awhile. So the Dems have to take positions on the two issues before Trump takes his next step. So that is good.
I consider it possible that the Iran shoot-down and the tanker attacks were provocations timed to assist the Dem debate (John Kerry?); and the DHS Secretary's revelation of the oncoming raids was also intended to assist the Dems at the debate by causing the raid to fail since all the people on the list would have moved. The failure would make Trump look bad. But even if that's too conspiratorial, the fact remains that Trump looked ahead and stepped out of a trap and all the pre-prepared signs and talking points are useless and the Dems will be a clown show three days from now. With nothing interesting to say about Trump, they will have nothing to say.
And, if Trump gets nothing from the mullahs and Pelosi, he can go ahead knowing the Dem arguments as well as the international situation. That's what according to the book Cocktails from Hell, is needed for 21st century international success.
The Dem theme is: Make America Decline Again. The debates will be: A How to Guide for America Haters. And Trump will move in on them. HAHAHAHAHA - popcorn time.
So I don't see this as unreasonable.
My theory on Iran is that Trump is waiting for John Kerry to visit Iran before he attacks. Two birds with one stone...
Trump is disappointing on immigration again, nothing unusual there. The usual folks--Ann Coulter, Daniel Horowitz, Mickey Kaus, John Derbyshire, Center for Immigration Studies--have good reactions to his failure to begin deporting people who have had their day and court and have final deportation orders.
On Iran, the administration's maximum pressure campaign hitherto has failed and has done little except bring us to the brink of a war with Iran that the country appears to have little appetite for.
Ken B: "My opinion, and yes I do understand it is suboptimal according to game theory, is that in foreign policy the USA should never bluff."
We are already "winning" against the Mullahs (note I wrote "mullahs", not "Iran")
Its not a bluff if the mechanism that has led to our current advantage is being tightened.
Its quite the opposite really.
And make no mistake, Trumps willingness to ratchet up sanctions against Iran despite opposition to it by dems and Euro-weenies is not lost on Xi in China (forget about Kim in NK, he's just a Chinese lapdog).
mtrobertslaw said...
6/23/19, 9:53 AM
Althouse needs a Barrel.
Excellent analysis, wildswan.
Farmer: "On Iran, the administration's maximum pressure campaign hitherto has failed and has done little except bring us to the brink of a war with Iran that the country appears to have little appetite for."
Only completely wrong.
6/23/19, 7:14 AM
Blogger AllenS said...
"We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving ..." -- Barack Hussein Obama
Thanks for posting this.
I have a feeling that most of the folks that are clutching their pearls and running for the fainting couches over President Trump’s “unpredictability” had no problems with Obama’s feckless approach to foreign policy.
In my view, he's crossed the line already. Question how many times he needs to do this pattern before you find it disrespectful and unserious.
Take off your clothes, Ann.
A fig for your value judgments. I find you disrespectful and unserious. So what? The question is whether it has worked, is working, will work. The rest is mansplaining.
I totally agree with the decision not to attack Iran. The ICE raids I'm not so sure about although they would certainly cause controversy and disruption.
Politicians frequently "evolve" on many issues, maybe not this quickly in most cases, but if they arrive at a correct decision I don't see the problem.
Certain people will attack Trump no matter what he does so he probably doesn't really care about that any more.
Jamie I totally agree with your 7:47 comment.
RB: "I have a feeling that most of the folks that are clutching their pearls and running for the fainting couches over President Trump’s “unpredictability” had no problems with Obama’s feckless approach to foreign policy."
To the lefties/LLR's, obama was an Earthbound messiah/lightbringer/Sort Of A God who was failed by his people, us.
wildswan said
+1
That's great analysis.
You are ahead of CTH Sundance on this.
So we've all accepted that the president, on his authority alone, has the power to start wars with other countries?
"This system will not hurry us into war; it is calculated to guard against it. It will not be in the power of a single man, or a single body of men, to involve us in such distress; for the important power of declaring war is vested in the legislature at large"
-Remarks of James Wilson in the Pennsylvania Convention to Ratify the Constitution of the United States, 1787
> In my view, he's crossed the line already. Question how many times he needs to do this pattern before you find it disrespectful and unserious.
Ann Althouse, Art of the Deal, 2019 update
"I disrespect you---by NOT killing you".
mmmm...ok....
@Drago:
Only completely wrong.
Completely, huh? So the "maximum pressure" campaign has been a wild success? Please elaborate.
J. Farmer: "So we've all accepted that the president, on his authority alone, has the power to start wars with other countries?"
Its been happening since the beginning of the Republic.
Farmer: Completely, huh?"
Yes. You are completely wrong.
“In my view, he's crossed the line already. Question how many times he needs to do this pattern before you find it disrespectful and unserious.”
Well! Better late than never. He’s done this numerous times, why did it take some of you so long to see the pattern?
@Drago:
Its been happening since the beginning of the Republic.
So have laws that attempt to restrict free speech. Does that make free speech a useless concept? Do you believe that the President has the authority to start war on his own command? Did you think it was wrong for Obama to go to war with Libya without Congressional approval? I did.
Yes. You are completely wrong.
Yes, we've established that's your opinion. Now please explain to me the wild success of the maximum pressure campaign?
I agree that wildswan's analysis is probably correct.
Farmer is another enemy of the good by insisting on the perfect,
Its been happening since the beginning of the Republic.
well, since 1798 certainly
The Quasi-War (French: Quasi-guerre) was an undeclared war fought almost entirely at sea between the United States and France from 1798 to 1800, which broke out during the beginning of John Adams's presidency
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasi-War
So Nervous Nancy calls up and BEGS Trumpvto delay ICE raids? Andre looks BAD for that?
On earlier Cafe thread -
Clock=>> instrument for prediction "working" without pendulum but erroring.
government : clock :: elections : pendulum
@Michael K:
Farmer is another enemy of the good by insisting on the perfect,
Expecting the president to remove illegals who have had their day in court and already have final deportation orders is now "insisting on the perfect." The fact that Trump can rely on constituents like Michael K to bend themselves into pretzels defending his latest immigration sellout is not helpful. Trump's base needs to be putting pressure on him regarding immigration, not acting like a campaign spin doctor.
Drago said...
J. Farmer: "So we've all accepted that the president, on his authority alone, has the power to start wars with other countries?"
Its been happening since the beginning of the Republic.
***************
Evidence, please.
You can make a case that it's happened since WWII, but how about something going back to the "beginning of the Republic"?
Th POTUS does not have to get Congress's permission to respond to an invasion or attack. Cough...cough...9/11.
Further, acting under a Treaty obligation (Korea, Vietnam) isn't "starting" a war unilaterally, because the Senate has already ratified the Treaty in question.
“The fact that Trump can rely on constituents like Michael K to bend themselves into pretzels defending his latest immigration sellout is not helpful.”
This bending of oneself into a pretzel to rationalize Trump’s unserious and chaotic style and “policies” ( LOL) is a trait of Trump Cultists.
well, since 1798 certainly
The Quasi-War (French: Quasi-guerre) was an undeclared war fought almost entirely at sea between the United States and France from 1798 to 1800, which broke out during the beginning of John Adams's presidency
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quasi-War
"Very early in American history, even in the informal and sporadic war at sea with France (the Quasi-War) in the last few years of the 18th century, the Congress was in the driver’s seat in conducting the war and President John Adams complied with its desires."
-Presidential War Is Unconstitutional
Nobody at 10:16: Thank you for the beautiful quotation from a TR speech. And to paraphrase Shaw, "Those who can, do. Those who can't, become critics".
Inga: "This bending of oneself into a pretzel to rationalize Trump’s unserious and chaotic style and “policies” ( LOL) is a trait of Trump Cultists."
Inga still believes the debunked and disavowed Hoax Collusion dossier is 100% correct.
She still believes that.
Passionately.
Discuss.
@Mike (MJB Wolf):
So Nervous Nancy calls up and BEGS Trumpvto delay ICE raids? Andre looks BAD for that?
For saying yes, he absolutely looks ridiculous. What again is the strategy? I won't enforce current asylum laws until Congress creates some new ones?
Calling off retaliation on Iran was a great way to gather intelligence on the attack plans of the MSM.
Farmer: "Presidential War Is Unconstitutional"
And yet it has happened will continue to happen.
@mockturtle:
Nobody at 10:16: Thank you for the beautiful quotation from a TR speech. And to paraphrase Shaw, "Those who can, do. Those who can't, become critics".
Beautifully rendered by Theodore Rex but ultimately meaningless. So unless we've run for national office, we can't criticize Trump's handling of the job? Unless we make a movie, we can't criticize a movie? Unless we write a novel, we can't say that one is good and one is bad? What precisely does Mr. Roosevelt want critics to do? Shut up?
Farmer: "What again is the strategy?"
The outcomes from a particular strategy are not always apparent in the middle of the confict.
It is better to judge a strategy by its end results and not by ones own relative understanding of the strategy when the results are not yet clear.
@Drago:
And yet it has happened will continue to happen.
So do theft and murder. Those aren't reasons for stopping enforcement of the laws against those things.
The Quasi-War (French: Quasi-guerre)
And what was the "casus belli"?
https://www.thoughtco.com/the-quasi-war-americas-first-conflict-2361170
While largely a commercial agreement, the French viewed the [Jay Treaty between Britain and the US]}as a violation of the 1778 Treaty of Alliance with the American colonists. This feeling was enhanced by the perception that the United States was favoring Britain, despite having declared neutrality in the ongoing conflict between the two nations.*** Shortly after the Jay Treaty took effect, the French began seizing American ships trading with Britain and, in 1796, refused to accept the new US minister in Paris.***
And per Wikipedia:
"The Quasi-War was an undeclared war fought almost entirely at sea between the United States and France from 1798 to 1800. After the toppling of the French crown during the French Revolutionary Wars, the United States refused to continue repaying its debt to France on the grounds that it had been owed to a previous regime.*** French outrage led to a series of attacks on U.S. shipping, ultimately leading to retaliation from the U.S."***
So...who started that quasi-War? The POTUS?
Presidential War Is Unconstitutional
Maybe so, but then it isn't a "war" until you say it is.
Farmer: "Beautifully rendered by Theodore Rex but ultimately meaningless."
Everything you have ever written is not just ultimately meaningless, its also meaningless in real time.
Farmer: "So do theft and murder. Those aren't reasons for stopping enforcement of the laws against those things."
Go ahead. Enforce it.
Blogger Michael said...
Si our hostess and a cadre of lefty commenters would prefer a military strike on Iran and the deportation of maybe a million illegals than to have disrectful direction changes.
President Trump is living rent-free in their heads.
One really has to look at what Trump does as a negotiation. Everything is in motion. What does Trump lose by calling off what was supposed to be a surprise ICE raid,? Probably avoids a lot of violence and bad press coverage. In the meanwhile he has Pelosi essentially begging him for time to get something done. He says sure, you got two weeks. That is what is known as calling her bluff. In a labor negotiation it would have been " sure we'll delay the strike a couple of weeks if you are willing to give us something in return". After two weeks management better have something or it's "hit the bricks" time. The burden is on management (Pelosi in this case), the egg will be on her face.
The problem with immigration is "the law". Trump does not write the law and unlike some other presidents we have had he is fairly careful about following the law. That Congress fails to act is not Trump's fault. I ask Farmer to tell me what else Trump could be doing within the law that he hasn't done to deal with the immigration issues.
The Iran situation is another negotiating situation that everyone wants solved right now in one bold stroke. During Viet Nam that was the " Nuke it and pave" it strategy. I know Farmer believes that if we had waited ten years the Iranians would have had an epiphany and become peace loving world citizens, either that or he figured he'd be dead and it would be someone else's problem. There are others who believe that the Iranians had no intention of waiting 10 years and have been continuing to pursue nuclear capability and, maybe more important, delivery capability under the cover of Obama's agreement. I vote with those who are convinced that Iran was cheating all along and which put them in position to continue to advance their nuclear development right now as they have just announced.
What exactly is the "brink of war" and who, exactly, has been making armed moves in that direction. Trump has laid out the conditions for Iran to become a peaceful member of the "international community". Iran's answer is armed aggression. We are self-sufficient in oil and gas. Who will be the victims of Iran's armed aggression in the Hormuz Straits? Will those victims favor Iran or the US in a drawn out confrontation? Will Iran be able to strengthen its position by continued aggression against those countries? Doubtful. If those countries find other sources for their petroleum needs which are fairly urgent and ongoing, what happens to the Iranian regime. If they can continue to suppress their own people then we just keep them embargoed and hope for the best while minimizing the damage to the US. In the meanwhile we have no boots on the ground, we have little economic exposure to Iran, we have a predominant military position in the Med , no casualty lists and can continue tightening the screws on Iran. Not a bad place to be. Better certainly than invading Tehran.
I will not be surprised , however, if we launch some kind of reprisal in the near future.
Post a Comment