… 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.
The still-pinned professionally produced political attack by @realDonaldTrump against @IlhanMN does more to insult America and spit on the memory of 9-11 than any comment by her. https://t.co/CW6OTY1fof #IStandWithIlhanOmar
It’s the terrorists — the forces of Osama bin Laden’s al-Qa’eda — who intended their 9-11 attacks as a weapon, as a means of dividing and weakening the US and its society, of fomenting a war between East and West, between Christian and Muslim.
It didn’t quite work. There was war, but it was — with the help of people like (yes) George W. Bush — not framed as a war between East and West, between Christian and Muslim, but against the specific factions, forces, and individuals ostensibly behind the attacks (with an opportunistic veering off into Iraq, but that’s another story).
The rise of Donald Trump and his nationalism, his continuous invective against the Other — the Muslims, the immigrants, the exploitative allies and trading partners, the city-folk, the gays, “socialists,” the transgender, the women, the non-white, the poor — has all too easily picked up that weapon of fear and resentment and ignorance and tribalism.
And now, with a Twitter attack not just in passing, but pinned to the top of his stream, Donald Trump has picked up that 9-11 weapon that Osama bin Laden laid out for him and is using it as a weapon against someone who represents everything he stands against: a Democratic woman of power who has been democratically elected to oppose his agenda.
In doing so, Donald discredits any reverence America still feels for 9-11. He turns it into a cudgel to use against his opponent. He politicizes it, hugs it to himself like he hugs the American flag, not because it really means anything to him, but because he can weaponize the gesture against others. He diminishes that attack’s significance far more than Omar’s in-passing reference to it in an address that wasn’t even about 9-11. He makes it all about him and his political position and his nationalistic movement.
And he does it at a moment when self-avowed fans of his are being arrested for making death threats against the person he’s continuing to so prominently attack.
Yeah, Donald, I can recognize the real enemy of America here.
The hijab can be a symbol of oppression or of freedom
The hijab — the scarf-neck-head covering worn by some Muslim women — is not actually dictated per se by the Koran, but is a traditional dress in some parts of the Muslim world that has been tied to religious and theocratic rulings. It’s controversial in a number of places as religious wear, and as Muslim religious wear, but also as a sign of oppression against women in the Muslim world (and, as such, often conflated with other and more restrictive garb to hide, mask, or enforce the modesty of women).
Ilhan Omar, in hijab
The first article below demonstrates, though, that it’s not a matter of either-or. Some Muslim women (such as Ilhan Omar) wear hijab as a sign of their religious devotion, and celebrate it as a personal freedom. Others, esp. those living in some Middle Eastern Muslim nations, have it forced on them by state law, and consider it as a constriction of freedom.
The conflict seems perfectly understandable to me, analogous to another example of religious identification. I know a number of Jewish people, especially women, who wear a Star of David as a necklace, as an expression of their religious belief. Nobody (aside from anti-Semites) thinks a thing of it, save perhaps observing how cool it is that someone can choose to wear the symbol openly and without government sanction.
But if you had a law (as in Nazi Germany) where Jews were forced to wear a Star of David on their clothing to identify them as Jews … that’s clearly oppressive.
From there, it seems straightforward to celebrate that Muslim women who choose to wear the hijab have the freedom to do so … but to condemn nations who mandate that all women do so (or even more).
The one man who seems to have any idea of what’s going on is planning on taking a break from explaining it.
If you think trying to stay on top of Brexit developments as an outsider is nigh-impossible, rest assured: people who are much more closely following the debacle are getting just as exhausted.
By day, Jon Worth works as a communications consultant for European politicians. By rest-of-his-day he makes Brexit flowcharts — 27 versions since January, to be exact.
Brexit has become a tangled, confusing web of decisions and possible outcomes that change almost daily. It is both the perfect candidate for diagramming what happens next and a Sisyphean task of trying to outline every possibility.
The diagrams are lovely, and even include probability factors where Worth can assign them.
For all that even political insiders are finding his flow charts useful, Worth has reached the end of his rope..
But he’s exhausted. After more than two dozen updates to his flowchart, he’ll take a break on April 12th, the deadline for Britain to leave if Parliament does not approve Prime Minister Theresa May’s deal — regardless of what is happening with Brexit. He says he can’t keep going at this pace.
Trump is cutting off aid to Central American countries whose residents are fleeing to the United States.
Donald is concerned you’ll forget which country he’s the boss of.
While a lot of people still think of Mexico related to illegal immigration to the US, it’s actually the nations of Central America that have seen the biggest upsurge over the last few decades. That’s because life in El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras is pretty damned awful — rampant poverty, crime, violence …
I mean, folk tramping hundreds of miles north to the US aren’t just doing it on a lark, or because they admire our cable TV. These are desperate people, driven by desperate situations, fleeing north to seek asylum from the hell-holes their countries have come.
So, of course, what is Trump’s response? How is he proposing to help the residents of these hemispheric neighbors, in countries that have been often ravaged by American diplomatic, commercial, and military actions over the past century-plus? How is he looking to provide the assistance to these nations so that people don’t feel the economic or even existential need to flee?
The United States is cutting off aid to the Northern Triangle, otherwise known as the Central American countries of El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras, the State Department told CNN Saturday, one day after President Donald Trump said they had “set up” migrant caravans for entry into the United States.
“We were paying them tremendous amounts of money. And we’re not paying them anymore. Because they haven’t done a thing for us. They set up these caravans,” Trump said Friday.
[…] According to the U.S. Global Leadership Coalition, comprised of retired diplomats, military leaders and members of Congress, aid programs in the three countries are working to address the “root causes of violence” in order to “promote opportunity and security for their citizens.” Officials would not say exactly how much money would be affected by the directive with some of it likely already spent. Between last year and this year, about $1.3 billion was allocated to the region with the vast majority of it going to those three countries, according to a study from the Congressional Research Service.
Because apparently foreign aid is “paying” people.
“They set up these caravans,” Trump said at an event in Canal Point, Florida, on Friday. “In many cases, they put their worst people in the caravan; they’re not going to put their best in. They get rid of their problems. And they march up here, and then they’re coming into their country; we’re not letting them in our country.”
It’s not even questioning whether the aid being given is being used effectively. Trump’s simply convinced (or wants to convince us) that we “paid them” but have been, instead betrayed, and that the folk fleeing to the US aren’t actually, um, fleeing people, but instead are part of an organized effort by these countries to send “their problem” people to the US.
"This is a DIRE NATIONAL EMERGENCY, so I'm going to threaten what I'll do… some time next week. Now I have to head off to Mar-a-Lago for the weekend." https://t.co/ie9POzttih
“This is a DIRE NATIONAL EMERGENCY, so I’m going to threaten what I’ll do… some time next week. Now I have to head off to Mar-a-Lago for the weekend.” https://t.co/ie9POzttih
Ilhan Omar criticized pressure to pledge loyalty to Israel. Mike Pence confirmed it.
This is what got Rep. Ilhan Omar in trouble:
At a recent event, Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.) said, in a reference to American Jewish supporters of Israel, “I want to talk about the political influence in this country that says that it is OK for people to push for allegiance to a foreign country.” When criticized by House Appropriations Committee Chairwoman Nita M. Lowey (D-N.Y.), who is Jewish, Omar wrote on Twitter, “I should not be expected to have allegiance/pledge support to a foreign country in order to serve my country in Congress.”
This is what Vice President Mike Pence said today at the annual conference of AIPAC, the America-Israel Political Affairs Committee, the preeminent American pro-Israeli lobbying group:
As I stand before you, eight Democrat candidates for president are actually boycotting this very conference. So let me be clear on this point, anyone who aspires to the highest office in the land should not be afraid to stand with the strongest supporters of Israel in America. It is wrong to boycott Israel, and it is wrong to boycott AIPAC.
and
Anyone who slanders those who support the historic alliance between the United States and Israel should never have a seat on the Foreign Affairs Committee of the United States House of Representatives.
I mean, call me silly, but I think Pence has just made Omar’s point.
Because clearly the only people critical of Israel are un-American crypto-Islamicists
Many folk have dogpiled on Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) over her criticisms of knee-jerk American political support for the Israeli government, which has been interpreted by some as anti-Semitism (even though some of the biggest knee-jerking comes from people other than Jewish-Americans).
So, of course, in a discussion fraught with questions of religious intolerance, hatred and fear of the Other, and the conundrum of what it means to be pro- or anti-American in support of another nation, let’s pivot to … bashing Muslims!
Fox News host Jeanine Pirro on Saturday questioned whether Rep. Ilhan Omar’s (D-Minn.) hijab is a symbol of loyalty to Sharia law, which she warned is “antithetical” to the U.S. Constitution. “Omar wears a hijab, which, according to the Quran 33:59, tells women to cover so they won’t get molested,” she said.
“Is her adherence to this Islamic doctrine indicative of her adherence to Sharia law, which in itself is antithetical to the United States Constitution?” she asked.
Because, of course, only those crazy, evil, un-American Muslim types would ever dream of women covering their heads, right?
Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. But every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head—it is the same as having her head shaved. For if a woman does not cover her head, she might as well have her hair cut off; but if it is a disgrace for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, then she should cover her head.
[…] Judge for yourselves: Is it proper for a woman to pray to God with her head uncovered? Does not the very nature of things teach you that if a man has long hair, it is a disgrace to him, but that if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For long hair is given to her as a covering. If anyone wants to be contentious about this, we have no other practice—nor do the churches of God.
But I mean, even so, that was centuries ago. In this modern era, in America, can you imagine people covering their heads for religious reasons? Only dangerous fanatics would do that!
Oh, but those folk aren’t covering up because of “Sharia Law,” which to Judge Jeanine clearly makes all the difference. “Sharia Law” is bad, so anyone who follows it is, well, obviously evil (and probably hates American and Israel).
Not, I suspect, that Judge Jeanine has any idea of what “Sharia Law” is, let alone having any coherent argument as to why it is “antithetical to the United States Constitution,” any more than any other personal religious code of conduct.
(Here arethreeresources that might be of help in understanding what Sharia is.)
Of course, if someone is concerned about Rep. Omar and her “loyalty” to Sharia Law, maybe someone should ask her. Or, given the breadth and vagueness of what Sharia actually is, ask her about particular beliefs. Or even, if you want to be really lazy, compare popular conceptions about what Sharia means to her public policy statements.
Pirro argued that Omar’s alleged “anti-Israel sentiment” did not come from the Democratic Party. “Your party is not anti-Israel. She is,” Pirro said. “So if it’s not rooted in the party, where is she getting it from?”
Wait, wait, let me guess your answer, Jeanine! Could it be she gets it from Evil Muslim Sharia Law Secret Spy Anti-America radio broadcasts? Am I close? Because that’s the thing you seem to be implying.
It’s also interesting looking at an underlying argument here:
Suggesting Jewish-Americans have a divided loyalty against the US in their support of Israel is pernicious and anti-Semitic.*
Suggesting Musim-Americans have a divided loyalty against the US in their hatred of Israel is … well, the kind of rabble-rousing thing you can hear about on Fox News.
(* Omar didn’t actually say that, but she’s being characterized as having done so.)
The idea that the way to combat anti-Semitism is to drum up suspicion of Muslims as somehow being un-American is … well, frankly, it’s philosophically incoherent, as it evokes the same sort of paranoia about the Other that is exemplified in anti-Semitism itself. I’m not particularly surprised to find it coming from a talking head on Fox News, but it’s worth calling out even when it shows up there.
I’ve read Rep. Omar’s recent comments about the influence of the pro-Israel lobby in American politics and honestly, they only way they can be considered anti-Semitic is if you consider any criticism of the government of Israel or American foreign policy toward it to be, per se, anti-Semitic.
Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-MN
“But she’s talking about money! And everyone knows the libel against Jews as fat-cat wealthy people!” And, yes, those are pernicious and anti-Semitic stereotypes (ironically garbled from anti-Semitic prejudice that allowed European Jews to lend money at interest, then socially punished them for it).
But the money flowing into pro-Israeli lobbying coffers and political action committees isn’t just from American Jews. Political and financial support for Israel comes from a substantial chunk of the Christian Right (some of whom see an Israeli state as necessary for the End Times). Other non-Jewish Americans see Israel as a stalwart ally (which could be debated, though in Middle Eastern terms they’re probably better than a lot of the alternatives), or as a representative democracy in region full of autocrats (which makes unwillingness to criticize the actions of that democracy all the more odd), or believe in a Zionist goal of a Jewish homeland given the historically terrible and devastating history of European Jewry that culminated in the Holocaust.
So equating criticism of money spent on behalf of Israeli interests through PACs and lobbying with criticism of wealthy Jews is kind of a stretch, unless you make it a whole lot clearer that’s what you’re doing.
I don’t see any of that in Rep. Omar’s statements.
“But now she’s talking about allegiance, and we all know about the pernicious accusation that Jews have a divided loyalty between the nation and other Jews.” I’m well familiar with that, including the analogous anti-Catholic prejudice that we seem to have gotten over as a nation. And, again, we see the twisted history of a persecuted community ghettoized and forced to band together against prejudice becoming, itself, taken as a “divided loyalty.”
But, again, Rep. Omar didn’t say that Jews were pushing for (or held) an allegiance to a foreign power. She was clearly noting that there are a lot of politicians who are so knee-jerk pro-Israel that, regardless of whether it is in American interests or not, they will support Israeli government actions. As might be demonstrated by, well, anyone criticizing Israeli state actions drawing criticism as being anti-Semitic and anti-American and pernicious and deserving of rebuke and punishment.
Sort of like what’s happening to Rep. Omar.
One might expect it in politicians and pundits framing everything about Israel as a false dichotomy — you either steadfastly stand behind the Israeli state, no matter what it does, no matter what level of apartheid it enforces, no matter how it deals in bad faith with the Palestinians, no matter how it drags down American relations with other states in the region — or you’re un-American, you’re anti-democracy, you want Israel destroyed, and you’re an anti-Semite.
Which does, in fact, seem to be the reaction going on. Which makes suggestions that some folk seem have as much allegiance to Israel as to America a rhetorically uncomfortable but not altogether unjust.
All of which is a ridiculous position to take. We criticize our own government for its actions … why can we not criticize Israel’s government? We can say that Trump, or Obama, or Bush, or Clinton are dumb or corrupt or destructive or whatever … why can we not criticize Benjamin Netanyahu as vigorously? We can say that the US is doing something wrong … why can we not say that Israel is doing something wrong. We can critique our government’s actions without suggesting that America should be destroyed … why is criticism of Israeli government policy made out to be a desire to see Israel destroyed.
It’s altogether possible that someone doesn’t think that Israel isn’t acting wrongly in its relations with its neighbors and with the Palestinian Arabs. Fine. But we should be able to have that debate without recourse either to (a) blaming it on the Jews or (b) being accused of blaming it on the Jews.
But if critical suggestions that a wide array of American supporters (not just Jewish ones) and politicians (ditto) seem to have knee-jerk support for anything that the Israeli government does draw fire as being inherently anti-Semitic … well, I think it merely confirms the suggestions being made.
