8/12/17, "DC hasn’t come to grips with Trump’s presidency," Michael Goodwin, NY Post, columnist
"From warnings of “fire and fury” to declarations of “locked and loaded,” President Trump is dealing with the North Korean crisis his way. Naturally, heads are exploding all over Washington.
You can’t change the way things are done, the chin-strokers and
gatekeepers shout hysterically! You have to follow the road most
Nearly seven months into Trump’s term, it’s not just the irredeemable
haters who can’t accept the outcome of the election.
otherwise-sensible people refuse to come to grips with the meaning of
Voters wanted change, but Washington doesn’t. And that clash of wants defines the endless war over the Trump presidency.
Now that clash revolves around the potential for an actual war, a
nuclear one at that. Because the results would be catastrophic, it is
worth recalling how we got to this moment of brinksmanship.
If you listen only to Trump’s critics, Kim Jong-un wasn’t bothering
anybody until the president started making trouble. Democratic Rep.
Keith Ellison of Minnesota actually charged that Kim is “acting more
responsible” than Trump, a claim reinforced by the left-wing media echo
Perhaps Ellison, who is No. 2 at the Democratic National Committee,
missed some of Kim’s threats and their significance now that he has
nukes and intercontinental ballistic missiles capable of reaching the US
“If the American imperialists provoke us a bit, we will not hesitate
to slap them with a pre-emptive nuclear strike,” Kim has said.
After successfully testing an ICBM last July 4th, Kim said it was a “gift” to the “American bastards” and promised many more gifts. Other provocations include a state video showing North Korean nuclear
missiles blowing up Washington, DC, and threats against South Korea and
Japan. The latest was a vow to attack Guam.
Given Kim’s warnings and his arsenal, the really odd thing isn’t that
Trump is asserting American military supremacy and the willingness to
use it if necessary. It’s that his predecessors didn’t. The three previous presidents over a combined 24 years — Bill
Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama — all followed near-identical
paths, and all failed to stop the North Korean nuclear program.
All three used diplomacy as a euphemism for kicking the can down the
road. And they kicked it all the way to Trump’s desk, with Obama, on his
way out the door, reportedly telling Trump that Kim had nukes.
Thanks for nothing, pal.
Yet instead of recognizing those decades of failure for what they are
and conceding that the situation has changed because the current Kim
has weapons of mass destruction and the ability to strike American
cities, the establishment is horrified that Trump would dare take a
Lost in the manufactured outrage over his comments is that Trump offered to meet Kim,
and pushed China to rein in its client state. And that aides continue
to conduct back-channel negotiations and talk of wanting to avoid war.
To concede those facts would muddy their jihad against the president.
Yet there is actually something worse than the assaults on Trump: It
is the ultimate position of the other side. It was belatedly confessed
by Susan Rice last week.
“History shows that we can, if we must, tolerate nuclear weapons in
North Korea — the same way we tolerated the far greater threat of
thousands of Soviet nuclear weapons during the Cold War,” Rice, Obama’s
national security adviser, wrote in a New York Times op-ed.
Forget the false equivalency she establishes between the Soviets then
and North Korea now. The bombshell is that Rice says it is OK for a
madman to have nukes.
While it’s surprising she would admit such idiocy, the idea that she
believes it isn’t exactly a shock. After all, that was the suspected
bottom line of the Obama administration’s policies toward the nuclear
programs of both North Korea and Iran.
Publicly, it opposed those programs, but privately, it obviously
prepared to accept them. Now North Korea has achieved its nuclear and
missile breakout, and Iran will, too, thanks to the running room it got
under the cover of Obama’s flawed pact.
All the sophistry in the world can’t obscure the result: To wit, the
winner of the Nobel Peace Prize left the globe a far more dangerous
place because of his leading-from-behind fecklessness.
One of Obama’s legacies is that he didn’t stop the nuclear
proliferation to two pariah states that both swear to eliminate America.
And now, Rice, who calls Trump’s words “unprecedented and especially
dangerous,” says he should get in line and play the same game as her
A popular definition of insanity comes to mind — “doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results.”
The entire episode is another example of the crisis of our democracy that led to Trump's victory. Is our sprawling government capable of
reforming itself and confronting the urgent problems of national
security and the economy?
Or is it so hopelessly hidebound and our politics so polarized that
we can do nothing except tear ourselves apart — even as our adversaries
vow to smash America into the dustbin of history?"
don't accept that Trump won because they don't have to--they recently
nullified the election. Both parties in congress voted near unanimous
approval of Russian sanctions as punishment for Russia allegedly
interfering in the Nov. 2016 election (evidence of which has never been
provided). Congress also wrote rules preventing Trump from developing
better relations with Russia on which he campaigned and which his voters
wanted. This means the US government has been overthrown and Americans
are slaves. It also provides proof if needed that so-called "gridlock"
doesn't exist, both "parties" are on the same side. We may have
elections, but they're like elections in Communist countries. You can
rubber stamp them or not. The Deep State desperately wants war with
Russia--paid for by US taxpayers. Both parties, Democrat and Republican, are prepared to watch the United States burn to the ground.
Sunday, August 13, 2017
Otherwise sensible people refuse to accept the meaning of Trump's victory. Trump is president because voters wanted change and neither political party was offering it. The Washington DC bureaucracy wants no change and isn't interested in what voters want-Michael Goodwin, NY Post
Posted by susan at 5:13 AM