TGIF, Donald.
On the bright side, you seem to have stopped talking about Charlottesville. On the down side, it’s because you’ve pivoted to other destructive zaniness.
[Being a look at the @RealDonaldTrump Twitter account, with a glance at the @POTUS account, grouped for your topical pleasure.]
===
So the big news the last 24 hours was a major terror attack in Barcelona, and subsequent counter-terrorism activities there. Which apparently was a tremendous relief to you, as it gave you something to Stand Tall and In Charge about, rather than the continuous hole digging of the past week.
The United States condemns the terror attack in Barcelona, Spain, and will do whatever is necessary to help. Be tough & strong, we love you!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 17, 2017
See? That’s how a presidential tweet is done. Compassion, firmness, targeting the behavior being condemned, offering to help. I knew you had it in you, Donald!
Now, if you can just avoid saying something too stu…
Study what General Pershing of the United States did to terrorists when caught. There was no more Radical Islamic Terror for 35 years!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 17, 2017
Sigh.
So this isn’t the first time you’ve brought up this story, Donald. And every time you bring it up, people correct you to note that it’s simply not true, or certainly not part of the historical record.
Which is really funny, given that you’ve been trying to convince us this past week that you are very careful about gathering all the facts because you don’t want to say anything that others will later point out as wrong.
While there’s some evidence that commanders in the US Army fighting the Moro insurgency in the Philippines did occasionally use bury pig carcasses with the bodies of dead insurgents, there’s no evidence that Pershing himself did such a thing (though he was aware of it), let alone using magically blood-cursed bullets himself in executions to deter them.
In fact, his stint as military governor was as much about “winning hearts and minds” as about terrorizing the terrorists (who may not have been particularly deterred by such tactics anyway). Pershing negotiated with the Moros, he got the leader of the Ottoman Muslims to reach out to them to ask for peace, he drank tea with them, and he convinced them that, unlike the Spanish, he wasn’t there to push them off their land, just to quell the violence.
Historians have also pointed out that the Moro Wars didn’t actually stop under Pershing’s tenure, and even when hostilities scaled back, violence did continue.
And even that, Donald, ignores your historically bizarre conflation of the Moro conflicts with the outside colonizers of the Philippines (first the Spanish, then the US) with modern terrorist conflict in the Middle East. Suggesting that the Philippine Muslims of turn of the 20th Century had anything particular in common, as motivations, with ISIL or al-Qa’eda, a century later and thousands of miles away is just goofy.
So, to summarize, Donald. (1) There’s no record of anyone using bullets dipped in pig’s blood, (2) there’s no indication that Pershing did anything even resembling that, (3) nobody magically stopped “Radical Islamic Terror for 35 years” (or 25 years, the last time you told the yarn), and (4) the Moros were not ISIL or al-Qa’eda.
Aside from that, you got pretty much everything correct, Donald. I mean, at least the spelling and margins.
Of course, all this ignores your thesis that the only way to discourage terrorists is to be more brutal than they are. Suggesting that summary shooting of prisoners, not to mention humiliating them religiously, is a valuable tactic that the Spanish government should consider, is not only the attitude that got us Abu Ghraib (which ultimately did far more harm to the US than to the Iraqi insurgents), but simply isn’t in keeping with national or international law or the Military Code of Conduct. It’s a war crime.
For the President of the United States to make such a suggestion shows a fundamental unfitness to be the Commander in Chief. You might want to consider that, Donald.
(Interesting side note: Pershing, one of the great US military commanders, was commonly known as “Black Jack” — but that reference was a softening of the epithet “Nigger Jack”, given to him as a West Point instructor by students who disliked him and because he had held a command in the 10th Cavalry Regiment, a “Buffalo Soldier” African-American unit. Now _that’s_ trivia worth repeating, Donald.)
Then, this morning:
Homeland Security and law enforcement are on alert & closely watching for any sign of trouble. Our borders are far tougher than ever before!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 18, 2017
[Retweeted on @POTUS]
While I realize that DHS would and should be more vigilant after such an attack … it seems a bit odd, Donald, that you had to emphasize that. Are you trying to be reassuring, or are you trying to take on the mantle of National Protector?
The Obstructionist Democrats make Security for our country very difficult. They use the courts and associated delay at all times. Must stop!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 18, 2017
So are there any particular issues that have arisen cause by “Obstructionist Democrats” that have led to loss of life — or, heck, even possible loss of life — since you took office? Or are you just doing that fear-mongering thing?
Radical Islamic Terrorism must be stopped by whatever means necessary! The courts must give us back our protective rights. Have to be tough!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 18, 2017
[Retweeted on @POTUS]
Um … which “protective rights” are those, Donald?
And this is most likely just being rhetorical, Donald, right? I mean, “any means necessary” is kind of a broad way to phrase things, esp. after your bullshit tweet about John Pershing. What means are you talking about to “stop terrorism” (which, like “stopping crime,” seems a bit quixotic a goal)? And what means are off the table?
I mean, are we stepping back, for some reason, to the “and kill their wives and children, too” rhetoric you were playing with during the election campaign? What US (or International) laws are you proposing be set aside? What limits on brutality, inhumanity, and destruction are allowable, Donald?
Heading to Camp David for major meeting on National Security, the Border and the Military (which we are rapidly building to strongest ever).
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 18, 2017
Hyperbole much?
And Camp David? I thought you hated that place, Donald? What, all the banquet rooms at Bedminster already booked?
Of course, a lot of this is simple theatrical posturing on your part, Donald. I mean, you’ve taken a hell of a (largely self-inflicted) shellacking the past week, so it’s not at all surprising that you’d launch into an effort to do the thing that garners you most support: Talk Tough on Terrorism. That’ll bring those mean GOP politicians back into line, right? That’ll distract from your bungling of the Charlottesville situation and all the other problems and scandals circling the White House.
I don’t think it will work, Donald, but I have little doubt it will make things worse.
And because, even in the midst of a National Security Crisis, you can always be distracted by someone saying flattering things about you, you retweeted a couple of messages from radio pundit Hugh Hewitt …
#NeverTrumpers elite MSMers and virtue signalers are persuading themselves that @realDonaldTrump supporters are deserting. They are not. 1.
— Hugh Hewitt (@hughhewitt) August 18, 2017
Virtue signallers, Hugh? Condemning Nazis is now virtue signalling? Yeesh.
I spoke to a group of influential CA GOPers tonight, long time activists, bundlers, influencers. Support for @realDonaldTrump has increased
— Hugh Hewitt (@hughhewitt) August 18, 2017
Hear that, Donald! Your support in California is increasing! Awesome! Now if you can just pick up a few million more votes there, you just might be able to win the state!
Your Social Media Minion also tweeted …
… a retweet of VP Pence condemning the Barcelona attack [on @POTUS].
… about elevating the status of the US Cyber Command to Unified Combatant Command.