The State Dept. has been directed to archive and delete all its social media content from prior to the Trump Regime taking power in January 2025. It will still be technically available to the public — but only with a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request.
I mean, we can’t have people knowing that the US once donated COVID vaccines to other countries now that the Trump Regime has dictated that’s a waste of money (and evil mainstream science to boot!). We can’t see records of the US offering condolences to other nations for losses in natural disasters or deaths of prominent individuals, not with the Regime redefining who’s a Good Guy and who’s a Bad Guy and that We Have Always Been At War With Eastasia. And certainly notes about cultural programming and exchanges between the US and other nations should be hidden from view, now that the Trump Regime has made it clear that only Pro-American Cultural Stuff (with lots of gilt!) is worth our paying attention to.
And certainly anything that smacks of “history of the past” must be torn down, hidden, and, maybe, someday, re-evaluated according to the Regime’s current standards, so as to avoid “a false reconstruction of American history.”
And surely we don’t need to worry about any of this, because the Regime assures us it is the most transparent and trustworthy government ever, and, if they have their way, no evidence will be available to disprove it.
It’s the shotgun approach to disheartening, disengaging, and deadening the electorate.
There is a technique exercised by folk trying to deflect criticism, or confuse potential critics, or shift attention from particular wrongdoings, or even just turn off people so much they stop paying attention because it’s so bewildering, or so maddening, or so apparently-unstoppable.
It’s a technique that, knowingly or not, the Trump Regime is practicing in spades.
Day to day, it’s nigh-impossible to focus on the latest shenanigans from Trump and/or his coterie of lickspittles and proto-fascists. It’s shock-and-awe, news cycle style, where bright lights and loud noises are going off in too many directions, and changing from day to day, so that what seemed awful yesterday is forgotten tomorrow.
Just a few instances, from the relatively small to the profoundly dangerous.
National Park Service Incites Anger By Quietly Removing Banned Signs From Civil War Site
The NPS Has Removed Climate Change Signs From A Civil War Landmark
Trump’s ostrich-head-in-the-sand approach to climate change has the NPS removing signs from the Ft Sumter site warning that rising sea levels could destroy the location. Can’t have people thinking all those re-opened coal plants might do any harm, can we?
New York school violated civil rights law by changing name from ‘Thunderbirds’ to ‘T-Birds,’ US says
BOHEMIA, N.Y. (AP) — A New York school district is “erasing its Native American heritage” and violating civil rightBOHEMIA, N.Y. (AP) — A New York school district is “erasing its Native American heritage” and violating civil rights law by changing its team name from the “Thunderbirds” to the “T-Birds,” federal education officials say.s law by changing its team name from the “Thunderbirds” to the “T-Birds,” federal education officials say.
The long effort to get schools to stop frivolously using Native American symbols or stereotypes is now being actively opposed by the Trump Regime as somehow violating Native American rights. Bring back the “Redskins,” I guess.
UK PM, others outraged at Trump's comments downplaying NATO allies' role during Afghanistan war
Prince Harry and the British Prime Minister slammed Trump over his comments.
Donald seems to get particular joy in insulting people who don’t kowtow to him properly. What better way than offending our allies and their war dead, after they joined with the US post-911 in the only Article 5 action NATO has ever taken.
He backed off today, at least regarding UK troops. It’s unclear if he simply wants to further fragment NATO unity, or because he wants to keep the UK cooperating on trade deals.
DOJ sought to probe Renee Good for criminal liability, even after her death
A judge refused an FBI warrant that proposed investigating dead Minnesota mom for suspected assault on an officer.
First the Trump Regime yoinked investigation around Good’s killing to the FBI. Then they dropped it, trying instead to investigate Good (who is dead) as being criminally liable. That led to still more DoJ / FBI folk resigning in protest.
But, hey, who cares, since the DoJ leadership has declared, by fiat, that Good was absolutely guilty (ignore any other interpretations of the videos taken of her shooting), and so why bother with investigating the death? That would be a waste of good whitewash, by God!
Meanwhile, the latest DHS shooting (of Alex Pretti) won’t even go to the FBI — the DHS (which did the shooting) will investigate the matter itself. Gee, wonder how that will turn out?
And that’s all just a fraction of what the Regime has done in the last day or two. Who knows what they’ll do tomorrow to distract from those misdeeds, malpractice, and crimes?
And so it goes.
Oh, by the way, Donald, where are those remaining Epstein Files?
Watching a toddler throw a tantrum is sometimes amusing, often aggravating. When the toddler controls a massive military, it becomes terrifying
Another day, another example of Donald Trump shrieking his displeasure for not being given things he thinks should be his.
“I deserve the Nobel Peace Prize!” he cries out. “You Norwegians are all poopy-heads!”
“I deserve Greenland!” he screams. “You Danes are all poopy-heads!”
Never mind in all this that (a) the nation of Norway doesn’t give out the Nobel Prizes, or that (b) Norway and Denmark are long-term allies of the US, or that (c) the population of Greenland does not want to be owned by Donald Trump.
Nope. Donald wants it. Therefore Donald should have it. Therefore anyone stopping him from having what he wants should be shouted at, bullied, threatened, and punished.
(Note that giving Donald what he wants is no guarantee that won’t happen either. His quid pro quo log has a very short expiry date.)
Today’s installment:
Trump links Greenland threat to Nobel Peace Prize snub, EU prepares to retaliate
U.S. President Donald Trump has linked his drive to take control of Greenland to his failure to win the Nobel Peace Prize, saying he no longer thought "purely of Peace" as the row over the island threatened to reignite a trade war with Europe.
Yes, see, for Donald, “peace” is only valuable if it gets him what he thinks he deserves. Like, say, a Nobel Peace Prize. If Norway doesn’t give him one, then obviously there’s no point in being “peaceful.”
(Again, the Norwegian government doesn’t give out the Nobel Peace Prize. But Donald, being Donald, assumes that if they really wanted to play ball with him, the Norwegian government would lean on the Nobel Committee to do so, or threaten their funding, or pass a law requiring they give him one, etc. Because that’s what government is for.)
He also demands Mommy give him cake whenever he wants.
Not that Donald has been “peaceful” during his reign. Venezuela certainly doesn’t think so. Iran certainly doesn’t think so. Any of the number of places we’ve bombed or droned don’t think so.
But Donald thinks so because, in his mind (as whispered to him by folk like Stephen Miller), if there was a possibility of a war and he said that he didn’t want it to happen, then if it didn’t happen it didn’t happen because of him. Thus his ever-changing, usually-but-not-always-growing tallies of wars he’s “stopped.” It’s magical thinking in its most twisted fashion.
The result, according to his text to Norway’s PM:
Considering your Country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped 8 Wars PLUS, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of Peace, although it will always be predominant, but can now think about what is good and proper for the United States of America.
Aside from the ridiculous claim that he “thinks purely of Peace,” the idea that not getting a Nobel Peace Prize means he should stop doing so demonstrates how trivial his commitment to “Peace” was.
Oh, and by the way, until Europe forces Denmark to hand over Greenland to him, he’ll keep imposing more and bigger tariffs. Because that’s how you’d expect a toddler to react. “Gimme what I want, or you’ll be sorry!”
When bullying is presented as, not just okay, but a moral imperative.
Something that started as a “ha ha, doesn’t he say the darnedest things?” moment years ago — the idea of the US taking over Greenland — is becoming more and more a sign of how out-of-control and downright un-American Donald Trump and his coterie of yes-men and evil genius-wannabes have become.
Let’s start here:
Trump says he may punish countries with tariffs if they don’t back US controlling Greenland
resident Donald Trump suggested Friday that he may punish countries with tariffs if they don’t back the U.S. controlling Greenland, a message that came as a bipartisan Congressional delegation sought to lower tensions in the Danish capital.
Trump is a bully. If he has power over you, he will wield it. If he thinks bribes will work, he’ll offer them. If he thinks threats will work, he’ll instantly pivot and issue them. There is no principle involved, except for force.
Here we see the next step. First he muses out loud about what shiny thing he’d like to have. Then he says he hopes someone will give it to him. Then he starts issuing threats.
Trump loves tariffs (so far — there’s a vague chance that SCOTUS might actually grow a pair and say that his arbitrary imposition of them is illegal, but we’ll see). The (appear, to him) to give him money, and it lets him punish people by taking their money, so it’s a win-win for him.
There’s a significant escalation, of course, between tariffs as a means of balancing asserted economic imbalances, and tariffs as a coercion to back his latest whims.
Trump doesn’t care. Either he’ll get what he wants (support for absconding with Greenland), or he’ll get (as he sees it) a bunch more money, punish those who didn’t say nice things about his policy, and still move forward to abscond with Greenland.
If he can do it, he will. If he can’t — well, who’s ever to say he can’t?
Which brings us next to this little gem.
Miller amid Greenland push: Nations not entitled to territories ‘they cannot defend’
White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller on Friday doubled down on the Trump administration’s argument that acquiring Greenland is “essential” for U.S. national security.
Stephen Miller is sort of the eminence grise of the Trump Regime — or maybe its toxic dump, always lurking in the background and leaching poisons into the surrounding land and water. Trump listens to what he has to say to an appalling degree.
He practices this expression in the mirror, I suspect.
In this case, he clearly expounds on his guiding principle which lines up perfectly with his boss: If we can take it, we will take it, and, in fact, we should take it. Or, framed another way, Might Makes Right.
Now, I am not so naive as to think that this attitude is not unique to Miller, or to this moment in American history. The US has always had voices whispering, “Take it! Do it! You’re powerful! You’re proud! It should be yours! Take it!”
But, at the very least, Miller, and Trump, and the rest of the gang of imperialists, have shifted to saying the quiet part out loud. If we want it, we can take it. If we can take it, we should take it.
He added that because Denmark “cannot defend” Greenland, citing weaknesses in their military and economy, that it should not have claims to the land. “To control a territory, you have to be able to defend a territory, improve a territory, inhabit a territory,” Miller said. “Denmark has failed at every single one of these tests.”
If a land is not covered with mines and factories and highways, clearly it’s being neglected, and therefore should be taken.
If a land is not bristling with fortresses and air bases, clearly it’s not being defended, and therefore should be taken.
(Never mind that Greenland has existed in its current state for many, many decades, and during much warmer conflict between the US and the Soviet Union, and yet was never invaded by the Russians, nor annexed by the US. We had more military bases there — but, remarkably, that’s not currently seen as an option now.)
The president’s political adviser claimed the U.S. was already on the hook to spend “hundreds of billions of dollars” to defend Denmark as a NATO ally. “It’s a raw deal, it’s an unfair deal, and most importantly, it’s unfair to the American taxpayer, who has subsidized all of Europe’s defense for generations now,” he told “Hannity.”
If we do something for them, they are morally obligated to give us stuff. Which is a remarkable moral stance as well.
But this is how the US government — at least the Unitary Executive — works. Kindness, compassion, even fairness — those are for wusses. Only force — threatened, then used — garners respect and obedience and profit. Why should respect and obedience and profit be given? Because we say so.
Bullying is not an uncommon human trait, sadly enough. The difference here is that the bullies themselves are asserting it as a moral imperative. They have (as they have demonstrated clearly over the last decade-plus) no shame. They will baldly point the gun, say hand me your wallet, take it, and laugh.
It certainly plays well with the The US is the greatest country on Earth, so we should be in charge crowd of jingoists that we always seem to be afflicted with — and who never question what “greatest” means beyond just “powerful”? The questions before us are, will everyone else actually recognize the dangers of the Regime’s actions and motivations … and will we actually get a chance to correct it?
The whole quixotic effort to annex Greenland is gonzo — but that doesn’t mean it won’t happen.
But two more thoughts about it.
First, and not at all surprisingly, Trump’s tactics here are not only alarming Americans, including what semi-responsible wing of the party is still in Congress, they are actively alienating the people of Greenland itself.
Trump wants Greenlanders to join the US. His comments are making that harder.
Even residents open to independence from Denmark have been put off by the president’s bullying tactics.
The problem is that, for all that Trump paints himself as “King of the Deal,” his impatience, ego, and cognitive decline whimsy make him both a terrible negotiator and insistent on being in the heart of the negotiations. Especially since a big motivation for this efforts is Trump’s own need to seem important and powerful, he can’t help but chime in every time the subject comes up, and do so in the most arrogant and offsetting way he can.
The only way Trump negotiates these days is through bullying. “You can have it the easy way or the hard way” style of threats. “It’s going to happen [whether you like it or not]” type of rhetoric. Which is effective (in the short term) if you can actually cow the people involved. But insult and threaten some people enough, and they become more implacable opponents.
The Master Negotiator and King of the Deal
Which doesn’t help the only other tactic he and his team have lit on: that the Greenlanders can be bought. There are proposals being floating that some sort of payment — one-time, or maybe annual — will be made to every Greenlander, as long as they agree to be owned by the US.
Not surprisingly, a lot of Greenlanders consider that insulting. Trump’s transactional nature always leads him to think that everyone has a price. The idea that people might resent that assumption is, to him, incomprehensible.
But that’s where Trump’s other major character flaw — magnified in his old age — comes up: his ego won’t let him back down unless he can do so without looking like the “loser.” He will go to any degree, twist any number of arms, make any level of promises, tantalize with any sort of profit, threaten any sort of dire result, to avoid looking like a “loser.” It’s the biggest, most abusive lesson his father taught him. Backing down, or even appearing to compromise, is for losers, and being a loser is the worst thing there is.
I mean, look at all those places named after someone OTHER than Trump! It’s insulting!
That’s where Trump runs into even deeper trouble regarding Greenland (and runs the US into trouble along with it). Having rattled sabers, explained Greenland’s immeasurable strategic importance, promised folk behind the scenes that they will have access to great natural resources, and been told about all the proposed 51-star US flags and statues that will be raised to him and how American school children will be taught about his achievement forever, and, heck, they’ll probably rename all those parts of Greenland which are named after old Danish kings for Trump instead … he can’t back down. He backed himself (and, so, the US) into a corner that has no exit but through: he needs to show his base, the nation, and the world that he won, and he can only do that by a deal or action that effectively takes over Greenland for the US.
So even though we have all sorts of treaty rights already to expand our military facilities there, and we can right now put a ring of US Navy ships in place that would cow any imaginary Chinese invasion … that’s no longer good enough. That would mean that something he has said will happen, must happen — the US owning Greenland — didn’t happen. And then people will laugh, and think he’s weak, and call him a loser, and he won’t be able to point to King Trump Land on the map or anything like that.
That’s the most imminent danger I see. That no matter how US public opinion (or Greenlandic public opinion, or Senatorial public opinion, or world public opinion) is against use of force here, the only opinion Donald really values — the frightened little boy in his head who is terrified of his father’s disapproval — is going to tell him he must do something Forceful and Strong and Powerful and Winning.
“President Trump has made it well known that acquiring Greenland is a national security priority of the U.S., and it’s vital to deter our adversaries in the Arctic region. The President and his team are discussing a range of options to pursue this important foreign policy goal,” Leavitt said.
[…] Trump has repeated his position that the U.S. “needs” Greenland, and his claim that the Arctic island is surrounded by Russian and Chinese ships (the Danish official said that contradicts the intelligence assessments of both the U.S. and Denmark).
They make it sound like China (!) is about to launch a military invasion of Greenland. Not that this sounds at all likely (China’s navy, let alone air force, have no way of projecting power in the North Atlantic, and if Russian ships are swarming around Greenland, that’s a direct threat to the US in and of itself that I would think we would be taking action on).
That the US already has bases in Greenland makes another country invading there even less likely. Especially since pre-existing agreements let the US pretty much do what it wants in building more such bases. We can already make it into a fortress against hypothetical intrusion.
Buy Greenland? Take It? Why? An Old Pact Already Gives Trump a Free Hand.
Analysts say the Cold War agreement allows the president to increase the American military presence almost at will.
The problem is, as soon as any of the Trump officials finish saying anything about the Chinese/Russian menace, they keep talking, with a focus about how climate change and the reduction of polar ice (which, apparently, is okay to talk about when it comes to taking over Greenland, but not when it comes to fossil fuel policy) will make Northwest Passage-style shipping across the top of the Americas more likely.
Analysis: Why Trump wants to take Greenland | CNN Politics
For Greenland’s Minerals, the Harsh Reality Behind the Glittering Promise
There is excitement about the potentially lucrative resources scattered around the island, especially the rare earths. But extreme weather, fired-up environmentalists and other factors have tempered hopes of a bonanza.
Which makes it sound like they really expect (or want us to think they expect) to be having to fight a naval war, within air base reach of the US, which is a bit bonkers.
More importantly, they go on about the vast mineral wealth of Greenland under the tundra — again, becoming more exposed by climate change (which we still don’t talk about, got it? except when we do …).
And at some point the discussion shifts from “We have to intervene to stop the Commies Russians & Chinese from taking over a valuable military location” to “Boy, is there a lot of money to be made in Greenland, we should go take it.”
Which makes it less about “national security” and more about “conquest” and “piracy” and “stealing.” The same tune playing loudly in the background as the Trump folk talk about, yeah, Maduro was an awful guy and a narco-criminal and Hey, isn’t it cool how much oil we can now take from Venezuela? Oil that belongs to the people there, except, no, it really belongs to us, because we’re running things.
Sure, sure, access to some of those minerals is of “strategic” economic importance. Wouldn’t want China to cut off our supplies of rare earths, etc. And that would be a lot more believable if we were talking about protecting Greenland for Greenlanders and simply putting in bases to make sure that the Chinese didn’t invade, and making investments in the country’s infrastructure under a profit-sharing arrangement that ostensibly benefits everyone, including the locals.
But when we say, “Cool! Mineral wealth for the US!” the whole thing sort of loses any moral high ground. Indeed, if the Chinese and Russians are, in fact, looking to take over the country and exploit it, it doesn’t sound that much different than what we’re going to do, except for the colors on the flag.
“We live in a world in which you can talk all you want about international niceties and everything else, but we live in a world, in the real world … that is governed by strength, that is governed by force, that is governed by power. These are the iron laws of the world that have existed since the beginning of time,” [Stephen] Miller told host Jake Tapper on CNN’s “The Lead” earlier this week.
The propaganda shop at State is working overtime these days.
Crikey.
I guess this is the (east-west) hemisphere we are in. But, no, it doesn’t belong to us. We have interests — political, economic, security — in what happens in this hemisphere, arguably more urgent than we do in what happens in, say, Africa, or South Asia, etc. (though the lesson of the last century, if anyone in the Regime is listening, is that pretending things over there don’t matter is more and more dangerous in our world).
But there are a bit over a billion people in North and South America, combined, of which the US makes up about a third of a billion. That means a whole lot of people in other countries, other nations, other sovereignties. They are of the US (as the Regime repeatedly points out in trying to throw them out). Asserting that, despite having no say in how the US runs, they are “ours” is building an imperial house of cards.
Can the US, militarily, dive into any other country in the hemisphere and take out (physically or metaphorically) the heads of each government? Probably.
Does might make right? Nope. And does the US have the power, and interest, and money, and will to treat the hemisphere as conquered realms. Nope.
Or, as another person put it as a new empire was being founded …
Hey, remember when George Lucas said that in Star Wars the Empire was the US and the Rebels were the Viet Cong, and a bunch of people lost their shit over how awful that was to say about the US?
Tell me that “Our Hemisphere” image doesn’t have serious Emperor Palpatine vibes.
Oh, dear Lord, please don’t let the Star Wars prequels be an insight into modern history …
And just in case you missed it, the “Our Hemisphere” and vacuous cry about “our security” being threatened isn’t just about Venezuela (or Cuba, or Mexico, or whatever other Latin American nation the Regime is threatening today). It’s clearly encompassing an actual territorial add to the Empire in Greenland.
That’s a post by the wife of top Presidential Voldemort, Stephen Miller
Never mind there is already a sovereign power there. Never mind that the people there seem to have no interest. The Dear Leader wants to Change The Map of the US as part of his “legacy,” by hook or by crook (or by CIA and helicopter gunships).
The real thing will have much more gilt on it.
Maybe he’ll have a steady program of ever-updating the new Trump Arch being built outside of (appropriately enough, since one can expect a lot of US military casualties out of all this) Arlington Cemetery — a different frieze for each conquest, something like that — some friezes of the Venezuela raid here, some etchings of Greenland, maybe future attacks on Mexico and Brazil, you know, good ol’ American things like that.
“Nice country you got there. Shame if you forced us to kidnap your head of state.”
So, from what I can tell, the Trump Regime has now put all the nations in the entire Western Hemisphere on notice that, if they don’t play ball nicely with the US (bending their economic, domestic, and foreign policies to what profits US companies and curries the President’s favor), the US reserves the right to exercise a “law enforcement action” and take out their top leadership (we’ll figure out some charges beforehand, though).
And if their successors don’t play ball and move in the “certain direction” we want, regardless of whether they’re dictators or democratically elected or personally selected by the US, we’ll take them out, too.
Trump Threatens Venezuela’s New Leader With a Fate Worse Than Maduro’s
The president told The Atlantic that Delcy Rodríguez needs to comply with U.S. wishes—or else.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio: Marco Rubio: US wants Venezuela to ‘move in certain direction’
In the NBC interview, Marco Rubio was repeatedly asked about Donald Trump’s claim that the US was aiming to “run” Venezuela, he avoided answering directly who was currently running the country.
Oh, and, Marco? A “law enforcement operation” doesn’t usually involve leaving boots on the ground, and threatening the folks not arrested with something “still worse” if they don’t truckle to the police department’s demands, and, oh, also open up their natural resources to the police department’s preferred vendors, and, also when it results in civilian casualties people get suspended and investigations take place.
Oh, I see, this line’s not about being truthful, that’s about coming up with an excuse for not seeking Congressional approval. All we’re doing is a “law enforcement operation,” not a war. Sure, Congress is supposed to be informed (if not approve) an actual war, but, well, even if carriers and jets and military personnel were all involved, it was only about arresting a Bad Guy (and his wife).
Of course, the Regime can pivot at an instant. If a plot of land we want to own / exploit / control doesn’t have a flourishing drug trade … no problem! We just invoke National Security as the catch-all phrase for The President can do what he wants, whenever he wants.
So now the heads of Cuba and Columbia and Mexico are also on notice that the choppers might be coming for them next.
Marco Rubio says he believes Cuba is ‘in a lot of trouble’
The secretary of state’s latest remarks came after he told reporters that he’d be “concerned” if he were a government official in Havana.
Yeah. Invading Cuba has always ended well for the US.
People who were laughing about Trump trying to take over Greenland are not laughing now, since Trump has continued to bring up the subject …
In an interview with The Atlantic magazine published Sunday, Mr. Trump reiterated his wish to take over Greenland.
“We do need Greenland, absolutely. We need it for defense,” he told the magazine.
… as has Rubio, and, naturally, even Steven Miller (or his wife) have dropped “hints” that the US is quite interested in taking over the place.
For “national security,” of course. For “defense.” Which he can always use as an excuse to act unilaterally, without any of what passes for Congressional oversight these days.
Danish PM tells Trump to stop ‘threats’ against Greenland
Mette Frederiksen said the “US has no right to annex any of the three nations in the Danish kingdom”.
www.bbc.com/news/articles/c4g0zg974v1o
Also, lots of profitable minerals for Big Campaign Donors to extract. 🙄 The remarkable thing is that Trump isn’t even reticent about listing that as an opinion.
… it’s not the weakness that the GOP is nattering about
After decades of on-again, off-again muttering, Vladimir Putin has sent his Russia (and his Belarus) to invade his neighbor, Ukraine. There are a lot of internal reasons for him to be doing this — NATO expansion is not one of them, but his own sense of mortality and history more likely are — but the result is arguably the largest military operation on European soil since the end of WW2. And it’s a conflict that will not only mean blood and suffering in the Ukraine, but further weaken the bonds of the international order and trigger further wars, if not in Europe then elsewhere.
One of the most amazing elements of the whole tragic affair so far, though, has been this sort of thing:
Stay classy and patriotic, House GOP
I mean, clearly, the era of “partisanship stops at the water’s edge” is long over (if it ever really existed), but the Republican Party’s eagerness to score whatever political points they can, in any way, under any circumstances, has reached new depths.
(Not to mention nonsensical ones: how is the President, leaving the podium and exiting the room, after briefing the press, a sign of weakness? But, following the rules of the Big Lie, the GOP simply repeats its Trump-led mantra of “Sleepy Joe” and pretends it’s being witty.)
As the situation around Ukraine worsened, the GOP had a single message: that Vladimir Putin was moving in his perceived national self-interests (which Fox folk like Tucker Carlson say seem perfectly legit to them!) because Joe Biden’s “weakness” was taunting him on. Or, put another way: This never happened under Donald Trump’s presidency! Putin respected Trump’s strength and resolve, and would never have dared do such a thing! Biden’s weak! Trump is strong! [insert sounds of beating on chest here]
Trump strong! Trump smash!
Leave aside for a moment the lack of merits as to Putin’s casus belli here (which many in the GOP and GOP-adjacent seem to be flirting with simply accepting, out of some slavish devotion to Putin as a Strong Man who is anti-“woke” and pro-Christian and anti-LGBTQ and pro-“family” and therefore rings all those chimes for the far Right). Leave aside that, even if Joe Biden had literally invited Russia to invade Ukraine, invading another sovereign nation is Not Cool, and is still an action that Putin — who has previously invaded other parts of Ukraine, not to mention Georgia — still decided to do, on his own initiative. Leave aside a degree of American hypocrisy about sovereignty and flimsy justifications for invasion.
Did Joe Biden’s “weakness” contribute to Putin’s terrible (or, if you listen to Donald Trump, “clever”) decision to invade Ukraine?
Yes. But not the way yahoos like Trump and Cruz and Tucker will have you believe.
But Putin didn’t invade while Trump was Prez. That shows Putin doesn’t respect Biden!
Is it actually a bad thing that a murderous, anti-democracy autocrat, someone who beats, jails, assassinates, or disappears his opponents and critics while retaining supreme power for decades, on behalf of himself and his kleptocratic buddies, doesn’t respect the sort of person Joe Biden is?
That actually strikes me as a good thing.
Well, what I mean is that Putin respected Trump’s strength and resolve!
Hardly. Putin got nearly anything he wanted from Trump. Trump went along with the fait accompli of Crimea annexation. Trump did his darnedest to roll back those “worthless” sanctions that had been placed on Putin’s regime because of them. Trump weakened Ukraine’s defenses, removing a GOP plank to send arms to Ukraine, and then delaying and leveraging arms shipments to get the Ukraine government to politically damage Joe Biden (you might recall there was an impeachment about it and everything). Trump weakened NATO, trying to recast it as a transactional, mercenary arrangement, downplaying the value of that alliance and, in fact, of any alliances, and casting doubt that, if another NATO country were attacked, he’d actually fulfill US Article 5 obligations to step in. Trump showed over and over again, from Iraq to Syria to Afghanistan that he’d pull troops out of anywhere because he wasn’t interested in world order or commitments or principle, only in his own ego and what made him look good. Trump raised Putin’s image on the world stage, calling him strong and smart and ruthless and powerful. Meanwhile, at home, Trump divided America, taking partisan gaps and wrenching them further open with a crowbar.
Why on Earth would Vladimir Putin ever endanger that? After investing in monkeywrenching the 2016 presidential election and, to his great surprise, being rewarded with a Donald Trump winning the damned, thing, why would he ever do anything that might antagonize or weaken his greatest global ally, witting or unwitting?
BFFs
No, no, Putin knew Trump was strong and resolute and would strike out at anyone who crossed the US. He’d never admit it, but he feared Donald Trump.
If Putin feared Trump, it was to this degree: Trump is, even if you have him accurately pegged as an unprincipled narcissist, unpredictable and savage. Crossing him too publicly, in a way that offended his ego, affected his support, endangered his chance of being carved into Mount Rushmore, was to risk not only an ALL CAPS EARLY MORNING TWITTER SCREED!!!!!! but possibly something even more damaging.
Does anyone doubt that Trump would be willing to threaten — if not carry out — lobbing nukes if he took it into his head (and his sycophants suggested it was a good way to look strong)? A man who was so bound up in his pride that he was willing to sit by while a violent mob stormed the US Capitol on his behalf, and seriously considered deploying the military to overthrow the 2020 election?
Yeah, even a bad guy fears a crazy desperado with a gun. That’s still not a good thing.
But Biden is clearly weak. He didn’t prevent the invasion of Ukraine. Putin knew Sleepy Joe’s weakness would let him do whatever he wanted.
It’s worth noting that those who make this argument are extraordinarily vague about what should have been done to prevent Putin’s act of war. They simply wave their hand and say that it would never have happened under Trump, without even bothering to suggest what Trump would have done to stop it.
(They don’t have to because, of course, it’s not a rational argument.)
But there is one nugget of truth, at the last, in their accusation.
Joe Biden is weak.
Because America is weak.
Party over Nation
Joe Biden is hobbled by the profound partisan divisions in the US, divisions led by a GOP that is still dominated by Trump and Trumpism, and who are more interested in pulling down Joe Biden than in stopping Vladimir Putin. Putin knows this. Indeed, he’s actually done what he can to engineer the whole situation.
What are the chances that the US will stand firm and united in doing what it can to stop, mitigate, or punish Putin’s actions? Zero. Nobody is actually going to suggest sending in US troops. That leaves economic and political retribution, and the effect of that will take years, even assuming it is maintained for that long. And the GOP will be right there, unwilling to offer realistic solutions, just claiming that Biden “lost” Ukraine (or even that Russia was justified in their actions and that Biden was a loser anyway for not realizing that).
Putin, whatever his reasons for invading Ukraine, has to have seen this as the perfect moment, not because Joe Biden is a weak man, but because he oversees a government that is weakened by internal division, by an opposition party that sees Biden as their real target and Putin, if not an ally, then a tool to use against him. Which makes them tools in Putin’s hand for long-term success.
Beyond his wildest dreams
And if the GOP hamstring Biden from systemic, sustained action against Putin, and manage to put Trump (or whoever is the Trumpiest candidate they can agree upon) in the White House in three-plus years, will that person simply do what Trump did, shrug and work to lift any remaining sanctions? Write off NATO as a bad and expensive idea and let it shift for its own?
What will that weakness encourage Putin to do next? What will it encourage the rest of Europe to do to appease him?
What will it encourage China to do?
What will it encourage any nation around the world who see a richer, weaker neighbor, and knows we’re lurching backwards a century or more, to an era of “spheres of influence” and “might makes right.”
The GOP is correct in saying that Putin is emboldened by weakness.
But they’re the source of it. And the consequences will extend long beyond the Russian conquest of the Ukraine.
That’s the US telling Turkey, “Hey, you feel free to go in and attack the Kurds that we convinced to disarm because we would protect them while they helped us fight ISIS, but you guys have always (and not without some reason) considered them terrorists and know that the Kurds have aspired for an independent state for over a century, so, hey, it’s all yours, we’re out of here because nobody’s paying us to be here.”
In the face of people worried about the folk we took under our wing and promised to protect, Donald was right there with a more egomaniacal statement than is normal even for him.
As I have stated strongly before, and just to reiterate, if Turkey does anything that I, in my great and unmatched wisdom, consider to be off limits, I will totally destroy and obliterate the Economy of Turkey (I’ve done before!). They must, with Europe and others, watch over…
Humility has never been one of Donald Trump’s strong points. Though usually even he doesn’t end up writing like one of Kim Jong Un’s publicists.
It’s also a laughable way to try to disarm grave and bipartisan concerns (heck, even Lindsey and Mitch seeming peeved) about his throwing our Kurdish allies once more to the wolves.
(I can imagine the Senate GOP actually using this as a cover to convict on Trump if they need to, even if it’s not one of the Articles of Impeachment. I can also imagine them using it as a cover to say, “How dare you suggest I am a lackey of Donald Trump? Look, I expressed sincere reservations about his Syrian policy, even though I didn’t really do anything about it.”
I’m sure the Trump Tower Istanbul has nothing to do with Trump’s caving to Erdogan’s desires to wipe out the Kurdish areas in Syria. And I’m equally certain Trump’s threat to “totally destroy and obliterate the Economy of Turkey” is as empty as … well, when he … did it before? (When was that, precisely, and how long did it take Turkey to recover in the last three years?)
….the captured ISIS fighters and families. The U.S. has done far more than anyone could have ever expected, including the capture of 100% of the ISIS Caliphate. It is time now for others in the region, some of great wealth, to protect their own territory. THE USA IS GREAT!
Trump’s casual assertion that the US “captured 100% of the ISIS Caliphate” would probably irk some of those allies that assisted at great cost, like the Kurds, if they weren’t facing an attack from a Turkey that has longed to destroy their separatist aspirations.
(I’ve been reading a history of the post-WWI Paris Peace Talks, and it’s probably only one of those weird coincidences of history that it was a century ago this year that the West sold out the Kurds to the Turks, too.)
Finally, as Donald takes some well-deserved mockery for the ego, pomposity, and zaniness that is involved in referring to one’s “great and unmatched wisdom” ….
I guarantee, sometime in the next 48 hours, Donald will claim he made the "great and unmatched wisdom" comment to enrage the Dems, and nobody will question whether a tweet (!) about genocide and economic warfare is an appropriate place for that kind of shit. https://t.co/E0rRPzWbiC
(Also waiting for the Trump fanatics to say, “Well, you know, he is pretty darned wise!”)
Meanwhile, the one thing Donald is probably not worried about:
Pat Robertson is "appalled" by Trump's decision to withdraw U.S. troops from northern Syria: "The President of the United States is in great danger of losing the mandate of Heaven if he permits this to happen." pic.twitter.com/YGeNYpbGrF
He’s not worried because Pat and his Christianist cronies have been more than happy to support Donald up to the gills, regardless of what he’s done, in order to get all the juicy anti-abortion, anti-gay, pro-religious-freedom-trumps-everything laws and regulations and Justice Dept., and they’re not about to actually turn on him now.
The Trump Administration’s “proof” about Iran attacking ships is far from convincing.
Despite Trump and his Administration baldly asserting that Iran is behind the tanker attacks in the Straits of Hormuz this week, there remain far more open, unconfirmed, and even weird questions about attacks and their aftermath. To name just a few …
Why would the Iranians attack a Japanese tanker while hosting the Prime Minister of Japan, who was there on a peace mission?
Why does the crew of the Japanese tanker say that the ship was hit by flying objects, not mines?
If you’re sneaking up to a ship to remove a limpet mine you put there which didn’t go off for some reason, do you have all your crew crowd around while you’re removing the unexploded mine?
If those were the Iranians doing that, why did the UN Navy just let them do so and and then sail off without, apparently, tracking where they went?
How do the Iranians benefit from all of this?
That last one is key in this. Cui bono?, “To whom the benefit?” is an old Roman legal maxim. When seeking suspects, figure out who gains an advantage, who has a motivation.
Analyzing motivations is by no means foolproof, of course, as it assumes a certain level of rationality, enlightened self-interest, command and control within all the parties involved, and that you have sufficient facts on hand. On the other hand, just making assumptions based on biases toward an end you are seeking is even more of a mook’s game.
So how does Iran benefit by attacking these ships, at this time?
One semi-rational suggestion I’ve read about this (beyond vague “They’re crazy religious fanatics, go figure?”) is that by causing oil prices to surge, Iran’s restricted oil exports are worth more. That seems a very high stakes way for a short term gain.
Another suggestion is that Iran is sending (while denying the attacks for international sensibilities) a veiled signal that it could cause significant economic damage, if it chose to, and if it is in fact attacked by the United States. The risk calculus there still seems dodgy, but the Iranians (among others) might not see it that way.
So, yes, these attacks certainly could be Iranian. That might even be the most likely answer. Or they could be by Iranian proxies, enough at arms length for plausible deniability.
Or, alternately, they could be Saudis or Emirate forces, looking to get the US to attack their regional enemy (and, hey, drive up oil prices, too!). For that matter, I have full faith in the Israelis being able to stage this, should they choose to see this as a way of taking down by proxy what they consider an existential enemy.
And that doesn’t even count the terrible possibility that it was actually perpetrated by US forces under a false flag.
Given US history, and our willingness to rush to war on mistaken or intentionally fabricated facts (the Maine, the Lusitania, the Gulf of Tonkin, the war in Iraq), and given the staggering cost in blood and money that war incurs, we should always question the proof provided as a casus belli, and call for it to be of the highest transparency possible. We need convincing evidence, presented by convincing representatives.
In this case the scanty proof (mostly assertions) given us by a US Administration whose leaders have made it clear they are itching for a reason to take down the Iranians, and whose penchant for dishonesty on matters small and great is staggering, is as yet unconvincing.
The Trump Administration wants Europe to spend more money on defense … but only if they are buying weapons from the US. Yeesh. https://t.co/Ijx53aijh7
Donald Trump has long lambasted our NATO allies for not spending more of their own money on defense, rather than letting the US do so. There’s some fairness in that, though it’s distorted by the degree to which the US has wanted to maintain bases in the NATO nations (in our own opposition to the Soviet Union, and then Russia), and the degree to which the US feels it needs to spend more money on defense than the next eight biggest spenders on the planet.
But, hey, the NATO nations have apparently been convinced that Donald might desert them if they don’t pay the US more (a model which doesn’t actually exist) or if they don’t boost their own spending (as, again to be fair, they have previously agreed to).
Except … they’re not doing it the way Donald wants.
The New York Times reported last week that Michael J. Murphy, a top official in the State Department’s Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs, “lectured” European Union ambassadors about their attempt to launch a new program that would exclude “third parties”—including the United States—from participating in cooperative military projects unless absolutely necessary.
Murphy was so angry about the issue, the Times reports, that he left no time in the session for discussion after his remarks. A “similar but less aggressive meeting” took place at the Pentagon, where discussion was allowed.
At his meeting with the ambassadors, Murphy accused the EU of “pursuing an industrial policy under the veneer of a security policy.”
We (the US) want them to spend more … but, apparently just as important, we want to profit from that spending. If they decide to boost their own military industry through defense spending (like we do in the US), well … that’s just … not … fair.
So, let’s summarize the messages that the Trump Administration is sending here to our European allies:
The US is spending more on defending our European allies than we think they are worth.
The US wants to make a lot more money off of our European allies.
I’m sure I read all about just that kind of tactic in How to Win Friends and Influence People.
We assume everyone groups colors the same way as we do. We assume wrongly.
In Japan, the “green lights” are colored … well, pretty much blue. The reason has to do with a challenge to the idea that language about so many things — in this case, color differentiation — is some sort of universal constant.
Different languages refer to colors very differently. For instance, some languages, like Russian and Japanese, have different words for light blue and dark blue, treating them as two distinct colors. And some languages lump colors English speakers see as distinct together under the same umbrella, using the same word for green and blue, for instance. Again, Japanese is one of those languages. While there are now separate terms for blue and green, in Old Japanese, the word ao was used for both colors—what English-speaking scholars label grue.
The result? Though Japan adheres to international standards for green traffic signals, they use a very bluish shade of green in the signals themselves, to align with their own linguistic heritage.
Maybe Donald thought he was putting his name on a school paper.
This is a joint D-Day proclamation by the world leaders who were present at the 75th anniversary commemoration of the event.
And, yes, that’s Donald’s signature, way at the top.
Who signs a document, all by itself, at the very top, when everyone else is signing it, together, at the bottom the way one does? Why would he do that?
I can think of only three reasons.
He was the last to sign and there was no room left at the bottom. This seems unlikely. I cannot imagine Trump allowing himself to be the last to sign the document after all those other people. He’d elbow his way to the front. He’d pitch a fit because, as the President of the United States, reasons, reasons, reasons.
But even if he was the last to sign … there was plenty of room in the margins, as at least two other signatories demonstrated.
As President of the United States, he decided his name needed to be in top. Preferably in lights. I’m surprised he didn’t ask for another, brighter color pen, plus a highlighter to draw a circle around his Most Important Signature.
People who are suffering from cognitive problems sometimes have problems figuring out where they are supposed to sign something. Especially when there’s not a big line with an X in front of it.
Of course, I also don’t believe that Donald agrees with half the sentiments in that proclamation, assuming he even read it. “Democracy, tolerance, and the rule of law”? “Shared values”? “Work together as allies and friends”? “Work constructively as friends and allies to find common ground where we have differences of opinion”? “Work together to resolve international tensions peacefully”? Does any of that sound like Donald Trump or what passes for his foreign international economic policy?
I suppose we’re lucky he decided to sign it at all.
Team Trump’s actions toward the PRC are becoming more aggressive.
Mike Pompeo’s blistering condemnation of China’s past actions on this 30th anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre[1] — and China’s double-barreled retort — highlight a steadily deteriorating relationship between the US and China. It’s occasionally belied by the “Xi is my bestest friend (after Kim!)” rhetoric from the President but, coupled with the escalating trade war and tensions in the South China Sea, it’s more than a little ominous.
With this President, though, one always has to wonder. Would these storm clouds disappear if China satisfied Trump on something flashy, like trade? Or, conversely, is it setting up Trump to be the Great Hero against the Chinese Menace (since support for his escalating tariffs and and their economic disruption is tepid at best)?
In other words, how much of this is driven by authentic resistance to actual deplorable behavior by China — on human rights, on maritime law, on economic issues — and how much is a convenient excuse to beat the war drums (against yet another nation) so as to rally the country just in time for a presidential election …?
We will, doubtless, find out in the coming several months.
Donald thinks E-Verify might be too hard for everyone to use.
Pity the poor construction companycountry club ownerhotel operatorfarmer who isn’t able to hire undocumented workers. Because, you know, it’s hard.
Speaking on Fox News, here’s what Our President had to say about the E-Verify system, used to help validate SSN and other job applicant information to ensure that the person in question is in the country legally:
I used it when I built the hotel down the road on Pennsylvania Avenue. I use a very strong E-Verify system. And we would go through 28 people — 29, 30 people — before we found one that qualified. So it’s a very tough thing to ask a farmer to go through that. So in a certain way, I speak against myself, but you also have to have a world of some practicality.
Donald Trump campaigned on how hordes of illegals were storming across the border to, depending on the speech, (a) kill and rape and sell drugs, (b) lounge about and get free stuff, or (c) steal all our jobs. And he’s been beating that drum pretty much every day since taking office.
But here he is, admitting that there are American employers who maybe have a need to hire undocumented workers — as it’s been documented that his hotels and golf resorts repeatedly did, prior to starting this year to use E-Verify.
And given how American farmers are suddenly realizing that “Tariff Man” isn’t doing them any great favors (as opposed to the farmers of Russia who are offering the take up the slack with China), it’s maybe no surprise that he’s suddenly showing sympathy toward how the government makes their lives so “very tough.”
And as for all those immigrants that he they might need to hire — well, they’re still all rapists / mooches / enemies of the working man, depending on which speech you’re listening to. Except, perhaps, when they’re being hired by certain construction companiescountry club ownershotel operatorsfarmers.
Trump is apparently insisting the Irish PM pay court to him at Trump's Irish golf course, or else he'll skip the visit. Rudeness, vanity, greed, arrogance, and presumption, all in one package. https://t.co/iX6Vkw6sg4
Trump is apparently insisting the Irish PM pay court to him at Trump’s Irish golf course, or else he’ll skip the visit. Rudeness, vanity, greed, arrogance, and presumption, all in one package. https://t.co/iX6Vkw6sg4
China is in a campaign to literally tear down the cultural heritage of the Uighurs
China's in the US news largely over tariffs and trade wars that Trump is bombasting us into. But China's guilty of more profound crimes than currency manipulation or refusing to cater to the US President's publicity needs. https://t.co/v4XlP1P4hD
China’s in the US news largely over tariffs and trade wars that Trump is bombasting us into. But China’s guilty of more profound crimes than currency manipulation or refusing to cater to the US President’s publicity needs. https://t.co/v4XlP1P4hD
Not that US hands (or other nations, for that matter) have been clean in the past when it’s come to indigenous populations who “need” to be managed, pushed out of the way, or made more like “us”. But China’s doing it right now, in front of everyone’s eyes, and most of the concern is focused instead on trade and tariffs.
