"Tashfeen Malik, who with her husband carried out the massacre in San
Bernardino, Calif.,passed three background checksby American
immigration officials as she moved to the United States from Pakistan.None uncovered what Ms. Malik had made little effort to hide--that she
talked openly on social media about her views on violent jihad.
In
the aftermath of terrorist attacks in San Bernardino and Paris, this
screening process has been singled out as a major vulnerabilityin the
nation’s defense against terrorism....
Ms.
Malik faced three extensive national security and criminal background
screenings.
First, Homeland Security officials
checked her name against
American law enforcement and national security databases. Then, her visa
application went to the
State Department, which checked
her
fingerprints against other databases. Finally, after coming to the
United States and formally marrying Mr. Farook here, sheapplied for her
green card and received another round of criminal and security checks.
Ms.
Malik also had two in-person interviews, federal officials said, the
first by a consular officer in Pakistan, and the second by an
immigration officer in the United States when she applied for her green
card.
All
those reviews came back clear,and the F.B.I. has said it had no
incriminating information about Ms. Malik or Mr. Farook in its
databases.The State Department and the Department of Homeland Security
have said they followed all policies and procedures. The departments
declined to provide any documentation or specifics about the process,
saying they cannot discuss the case because of the continuing
investigation.
Meanwhile,
a debate is underway at United States Citizenship and Immigration
Services, the agency that approves visas and green cards,over whether
officers conducting interviews should be allowed to routinely use
material gathered from social media for interviewswhere they assess
whether foreigners are credible or pose any security risk. With that
issue unresolved, the agency has not regularly been using social media references,federal officials said."...
When news of the cut in communications emerged yesterday, friends and supporters of Assange immediately lept into action, with Kim Dotcom and Suzie Dawson organizing an online vigil under the banner of #ReconnectJulian.
Meanwhile, supporters on the ground in London gathered in front of the
embassy, live streaming as they stood in solidarity for hours, meters
from the confined Wikileaks Editor-In-Chief. The event stretched to over ten hours of continual live streaming. We
were so honored to be joined by the most incredible guests imaginable
all day long, in an awe-inspiring show of solidarity for a political
prisoner. Participants included a range of viewpoints from across the
political divide and included in no particular order: Kim Dotcom, Suzie
Dawson, this writer, Cassandra Fairbanks, Ray McGovern, members of the
Pirate Party, Emmy Butlin, John Kiriakou, Ron Placone, HA Goodman,
Caitlin Johnstone, Lee Camp, Tim Black and Trevor Fitzgibbons.
This author was utterly overwhelmed
at the radiating kindness shown by every single person who contributed
whether as a guest or behind the scenes, creating visuals, compiling
questions, monitoring the live chat, spreading the word on social media,
and more. The way in which Assange and Wikileaks consistently bring out
the best in people, participants and viewers alike, speaks to the
absolute integrity at the heart of the organization. During the entirety
of the stream the strength, mutual respect, and love of truth was
palpable.
The full ten-hour stream is available below:
Topics of discussion ranged from the reason for Ecuador’s decision to
cut off Julian Assange’s communication to the importance of Wikileaks
in the field of journalism and in protecting the public from the harmful
acts of their governments,and beyond. To accurately summarize the contributions of such a range of
incredibly gifted human beings over ten hours is impossible. Those who
had met Julian Assange in person spoke of their impressions of him as
incredibly intelligent, in good spirits, and as unbowed in the face of
the powers seeking to oppress him. They also spoke of his selflessness
in efforts to protect others, whether that be the Catalonian people,
Chelsea Manning, Edward Snowden, or thousands of other unknown sources
and journalists whose lives have been saved by the efforts of Assange
and Wikileaks.
Suzie Dawson emphasized that no journalistic organization has ever
gone to the lengths to protect sources than has Wikileaks.
Many of the
insights gained from Dawson’s recent masterpiece Being Julian Assange,
were unexpectedly timely and relevant to the recent events. It provided
an invaluable resource that the viewers could use to help others
understand the level of attacks that Assange and Wikileaks regularly
face.
John Kiriakou
added that theCIA and US intelligence agencies would be extremely
happy at the news that Assange had been isolated. He went on to say that
they most likely added pressure to Ecuador and Spain to punish Assange,
asthe United States intelligence community was tired of waiting to
prosecute the Wikileaks co-founder.
Kiriakou
referenced the likelihood that secret charges await Assange in the
United States, specifying that such charges would likely be filed in the
Eastern District Court of Virginia, which he said is known as “the
Espionage court.” Kiriakou explained that this was because no national
security defendant had ever won a case there, and that it is the home of
the Central Intelligence Agency. He said: “[Assange] couldn’t possibly
get a fair trial in the Eastern District of Virginia.” Independent journalist Tim Black
expressed his support for Assange and Wikileaks, and astutely observed:
“This is not a eulogy, and [Assange] will be fighting like hell!” He
described the process of slowly finding truth-telling voices amongst
corporate narratives, which then naturally translates to becoming a truth teller
for others, helping the public see outside legacy media manipulation.
His characterization echoed Ray McGovern’s sentiments, when he called
Wikileaks and Assange an example by which we should model our
journalistic endeavors.
Trevor Fitzgibbons also gave his insight on Assange, his sense of
humor and sense of caring for and doing good in the world, praising
Assange’s courage as truly contagious. Meanwhile, Ron Placone
pointed out the vague nature of Ecuador’s alleged agreement with
Assange not to interfere in its relationship with other states,
characterizing the current silencing of Assange as punishing a
journalist for doing journalistic work. He said that Assange: “Is one of
the biggest scapegoats, right now.”
Placone also mentioned the harsh media treatment directed towards
Wikileaks supporters like Randy Credico, especially in comparison with
the “softball interviews” given to oligarchs and warmongers.This was a
topic also discussed by Ray McGovern, who described his experience of
being shut out by legacy media and even well-known ‘alternative’ news
outlets and pundits, including Democracy Now and Amy Goodman.
One important takeaway from #ReconnectJulian, for all involved, was
the invaluable resource Wikileaks is for all independent and
anti-establishment journalists. While legacy press largely neglected
coverage of the stream, the #ReconnectJulian event nevertheless reached
tens of millions of twitter impressions organically over the course of
the day. In effect, the event represented the success of independent
media in becoming the replacement of legacy press coverage on the
censorship of Assange. Based on the resounding success
of #ReconnectJulian, it appears that the public considers
pro-Wikileaks, anti-corporate voices as a more reliable source of
information than legacy outlets.
This was epitomized early in the progress of #ReconnectJulian, when
Kim Dotcom correctly surmised that the reason for Ecuador’s decision to
cut Assange’s contact with the outside world likely stemmed from
pressure by Spain in the wake of Assange’s consistent advocacy for the
right to self determination for Catalonians. Meanwhile,The Guardian
published a report that incorrectly framed the events in relation to
Russia. Dotcom’s suspicions were soon confirmed as correct by both Wikileaks and the Ecuadorian government, though the two parties disagreed as to any agreement allegedly made by Assange limiting his speech. It appears that the crux of the issue relates to a Tweet posted
by Assange in response to the arrest of Catalan President Carles
Puigdemont in Germany at the behest of Spain. He drew a factual
comparison between these recent events and the arrest of LluÃs Companys,
President of Catalonia in the 1940’s, who Assange accurately noted was
arrested by the Gestapo – also at the request of Spain. Assange has been
a consistent pillar of support for the Catalonian people, with his most
recent statements
on the matter specifying that he is not for Catalonian independence,
but instead supports their right to self determination as a people:
....... Suze
also read a message from Christine Assange, Julian Assange’s mother,
who said: “This is Julian Assange’s generation’s struggle. This event
and the hashtag has been a roaring success.” Suzie related that
Christine was very proud of the vigil and all of the participants.
Lee Camp
joined us and expressed his support for #ReconnectJulian, directing
praise for Assange and Wikileaks for not only directly influencing media
through the publication of documents, but also crediting them with
helping to inspire the Arab Spring and Occupy Wallstreet movements. He
said: “The ripples of what you have created are immense, and I don’t
think anyone’s tried to calculate the impact you’ve had on the world,
and that’s why we need you to keep fighting, for transparency, and a
world that is not owned by a tiny elite. You are an important part in
it.” Caitlin Johnstone
said during the stream: “To be stuck in that embassy anyway and then
cut off from the outside world must be devastating… I feel his personal
pain, but I think this is really weird. Probably predictable that
Ecuador would take issue with things said about the Spanish government,
but I hope this goes in reverse for them, that everyone tweets the tweet
that they wanted him to take down… that we realize what they are doing
to this man. It is just wrong. I thank anyone who is going to bat for
Julian because you are on the right side of history… We will make sure
that we will remember those who stand up for him.” She also referred to
Assange as a “Monk of government transparency,” in light of the degree
to which he had given up his life for the cause.
HA Goodman
also spoke out in support of Assange and added that he had noticed
throughout the day that a number of talking heads with large platforms
had stayed silent in the face of Assange being silenced, despite their
social media reach. HA expressed his disgust at such cowardice in the
face of human suffering. Emmy Butlin
joined the panel, describing the courage and persistence of those who
regularly express solidarity with Assange by standing watch on his
behalf at the embassy for long hours, every week, for years. She spoke
about witnessing policing at the embassy first-hand, as well as the
“tremendous support” from the public, whose positivity she characterized
as extremely encouraging and something that keeps her going....
Cassandra Fairbanks
informed the panelists that she had visited Assange last Thursday and
that at that time he was in good spirits, and as sharp-witted as ever.
She characterized his intelligence as intimidating, saying that she was
simply in awe to meet him. Both Emmy and Cassandra spoke of Assange
“presenting himself as he is,” an incredible statement in contrast with
the often two-faced figures that fill the legacy media sphere.
Ray McGovern, a veteran CIA analyst and prominent member of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity
(VIPS) joined the panel and spoke about his friendship with Julian
Assange being initially sparked by Wikileaks’ publication of documents
on Afghanistan. McGovern spoke of Assange and Wikileaks providing a
pattern by which we can model our journalistic efforts. Ray told us that
his five hours on the streamed vigil were the: “… Most pleasant five
hours I’ve spent in a long long time, and I admire what you’re doing.”
As Kim Dotcom
and others have noted, Ecuador’s treatment of its own citizen, Julian
Assange, at the behest of Lenin Moreno and under pressure from the
Spanish government also represents a clear breach of article 16.2 of the
Ecuadorian Constitution.
Shortly after ending the live stream, this author received a request to appear on Sky News Australia to speak with Ross Cameron of Outsiders
about the success of the #ReconnectJulian live stream, and the current
situation Julian Assange is facing. It was an honor to represent the
collective effort of so many, and Ross Cameron was a pleasure to speak
with. The interview remains the only establishment media coverage of the vigil at the time of writing.
@DisobedientNews Editor and Chief @ElizabethleaVos: When news came out of Ecuador shutting off @JulianAssange's internet access, a vigil was put together to rise above political difference and to support a truth teller.
It remains to be seen as to how long Ecuador will shut Assange off
from the outside world via internet connection, phone calls, and visits.
One thing is certain: those who support Wikileaks and Assange will not
stop fighting until his human and journalistic right to speech and press
is restored, and until he is able to leave the Ecuadorian embassy in
safety.
Obama's plea to
British voters ahead of a June referendum on membership of the European
Unionwas welcomed by Prime Minister David Cameron and other supporters
of the EU, but denounced by those campaigning to leave as meddling in
British affairs."...(UK voters ultimately defied Obama and passed Brexit on June 23, 2016. NY Times failed to compare Obama's
interference to 9/11 or bombing of Pearl Harbor though the Brexit outcome toppled a government, causing resignation of UK PM David Cameron: 6/24/16, "David Cameron resigns after UK votes to leave European Union," UK Guardian, Heather Stewart, Rowena Mason, Rajeev Syal).
....................
"The UK government’s presentation on the Salisbury incident, which was repeatedlycited in recent days as an “ultimate proof” of Russia’s involvement into Skripal’s assassination attempt, was made public earlier today.
First. Novichok is a group of agents developed only by Russia and not declared under the CWC” –a false statement. Novichok was originally
developed in the USSR (Nukus Lab, today in Uzbekistan, site completely
decommissioned according to the US-Uzbekistan agreement by 2002). One of
its key developers, Vil Mirzayanov,
defected to the United States in 1990s, its chemical formula and
technology were openly published in a number of chemical journals
outside Russia. Former top-ranking British foreign service officer Craig Murray specifically noted this point on March 17:
"I have now been sent the vital information that in late 2016,
Iranian scientists set out to study whether novichoks really could be
produced from commercially available ingredients. Iran succeededin synthesising a number of novichoks. Iran did this in full
cooperation with the OPCW and immediately reported the results to the
OPCW so they could be added to the chemical weapons database.
This makes complete nonsense of the Theresa May’s “of a type
developed by Russia” line, used to parliament and the UN Security
Council.This explains why Porton Down has refused to cave in to
governmental pressure to say the nerve agent was Russian. If Iran can make a novichok, so can a significant number of states.
Second.“We are without doubt that Russia is
responsible. No country bar Russia has combined capability, intent and
motive. There is no plausible alternative explanation”"
– an outstanding example of self-hypnosis.None of the previous items could even remotely lead to this
conclusion. The prominent British academician from the University of
Kent Prof. Richard Sakwa has elaborated on this on March 23 the following way:
"Rather than just the two possibilities outlined by Theresa May,
in fact there are at least six, possibly seven.The first is that this
was a state-sponsored, and possibly Putin-ordered, killing… This
version simply does not make sense, and until concrete evidence emerges,
it should be discounted…
The second version is rather more plausible, that the authorities
had lost control of its stocks of chemical weapons. In the early 1990s
Russian facilities were notoriously lax, but since the 2000s strict
control over stocks were re-imposed, until their final destruction in
2017. It is quite possible that some person or persons unknown secreted
material, and then conducted some sort of vigilante operation…
The third version is the exact opposite: some sort of anti-Putin action by those trying to force his policy choices…
The fourth version is similar, but this time the anti-Putinists
are not home-grown but outsiders. Here the list of people who would
allegedly benefit by discrediting Russia is a long one. If Novichok or
its formula has proliferated, then it would not be that hard to organise
some sort of false flag operation. The list of countries mentioned in
social media in this respect is a long one.
Obviously, Ukraine comes top
of the list, not only because of motivation, but also because of
possible access to the material, as a post-Soviet state with historical
links to the Russian chemical weapons programme. Israel has a large
chemical weapon inventory and is not a party to the OPCW; but it has no
motivation for such an attack (unless some inadvertent leak occurred
here). Another version is that the UK itself provoked the incident, as a
way of elevating its status as a country ‘punching above its weight’.
The British chemical weapons establishment, Porton Down, is only 12
kilometres from Salisbury. While superficially plausible, there is
absolutely no evidence that this is a credible version, and should be
discounted.
The fifth version is a rather more elaborate development of the previous point. There is circumstantial evidence, a version outlined by the Daily Telegraph,
that Skripal may have had a hand in devising Christopher Steele’s
‘Trump Dossier’.The British agent who originally recruited Skripal,
Pablo Miller, lives in Salisbury, and also has connections with Orbis
International, Steele’s agency in London. In this version, Skripal is
still working in one way or another with MI6, and fed stories to Steele,
who then intervenes massively in US politics, effectively preventing
the much-desired rapprochement between Trump and Putin. Deep anger at
the malevolent results of the Steele and British intervention in
international politics and US domestic affairs prompts a revenge
killing, with the demonstration effect achieved by using such a bizarre
assassination weapon.
The sixth version is the involvement of certain criminal
elements, who for reasons best known to themselves were smuggling the
material, and released it by accident. In this version, the Skripals are
the accidental and not intended victims.
There are various elaborations
of this version, including the activities of anti-Putin mobsters. One
may add a seventh version here, in which Islamic State or some other
Islamist group seeks to provoke turmoil in Europe."
Do you wish to know our refutations of any other
substantial “hard evidence” against Russia in the UK paper? Sorry, but
that is all. The primitive information warriors in what used to be the
heart of a brilliant empire, today are incapable of designing an even
slightly plausible (they love this word, right?) document on a
super-politicized case.
What follows is even more depressing. Slide 3 is dedicated to some sort of anatomy lesson:
Slide 4 seemingly represents a real “honey trap”. Just look at it:
The authors of this “report” mixed up a very strange cocktail of
multitype allegations,none of which have ever been proven or recognized
by any responsible entity (like legal courtor dedicated official
international organization). Of course we are not committed to argue on
every cell, but taking e.g.
“August 2008 Invasion of Georgia” we actually can’t understand whythe EU-acknowledged Saakashvili’s aggression against South Ossetia is exposed here as an example of “Russian malign activity”…
Have you totally lost your minds, ladies and gentlemen from the Downing Street?"
Comment: Among the entirety of Steele
"unsubstantiated memos" used by the US government to obtain FISA Court
search warrants against Americans, this one, implicating Democrat party
operatives, hasn't been mentioned to date.
While nostalgia was expected to bring in eyeballs, no one predicted such
a huge turnout on premiere night for the blue-collar family sitcom with
a Donald Trump-supporting protagonist, especially among the younger
demographic. But then, few predicted that Trump would become the
Republican nominee and would win the presidential election when he first
announced his candidacy.
Both Trump and Roseanne were able to tap intothe often overlooked and underserved working-class audience. Not surprisingly, the top TV markets where Roseanne
delivered its highest ratings were in states handily carried by Trump
in the election. No. 1 was Tulsa in Oklahoma, which Trump won with 65.3%
of the vote. It was followed by Cincinnati, Ohio and Kansas City,
Missouri. The only marquee city from a blue state in the Top 10 was
Chicago at No. 5 — the area where the series is set. ABC
focused some of its marketing efforts in the region with a preview of
the revival at the 54th Chicago International Film Festival.
The top market of the country, New York, was not in the Top 20; No. 2 Los Angeles was not in the Top 30. And yet, Roseanne
delivered the highest demo rating for any comedy telecast in 3 1/2
years, since the fall 2014 season premiere of TV’s biggest comedy series
of the past five years, The Big Bang Theory.
There no doubt was an element of nostalgia and curiosity about how
the characters from the original series have changed and about the new
generation of the Conners. But Roseanne went beyond that. Its
youngest 18-49 viewerswhen the series originally aired on ABC from
1988-97 are now at the very top or outside of that ad-friendly
demographic range, in which last night’s premiere posted a staggering
5.2 Live+same day rating with no lead-in. It came largely from new
viewers who were children or not even born during Roseanne‘s initial run.
Somehow Roseanne transcended age, recruiting droves of young
viewers for a show whose two leads, Roseanne Barr and John Goodman, are
both 65, well outside of the 18-49 demo. It tapped into the zeitgeist
of Middle America, tackling its economic problems — and political
leanings — head-on. There was curiosity how Roseanne would
address Trump, which the show did in the first episode. In an
encouraging sign, the novelty did not wear off, withthe second episode
rating even higher than the opener.
ABC did a major marketing campaign for Roseanne, including a
three-day stunt during SXSW in Austin that drew huge crowds, and a
tie-in with NASCAR, which is hugely popular in the flyover states.
ABC
And then there was Barr. Always a firebrand, she did not shy away from controversy,flipping off
Jimmy Kimmel and talking candidly about her political views while
promoting the show, generating a slew of provocative headlines in the
process.
The TV business always has been reactionary, so when something works,
others immediately look for ways to replicate it. ABC, NBC and CBS all
have classic sitcom revivals featuring the original casts on deck with Roseanne, Will & Grace and CBS’ upcoming Murphy Brown....
Meanwhile, if Roseanne continues to be a ratings juggernaut, ABC, which is close to renewing the revival for a second season, should look into bringing back its other big blue-collar sitcom hit of the 1990s, Home Improvement, which starred another open Trump sympathizer, Tim Allen.
ABC was strongly criticized by the right in May when it canceled Allen’s long-running sitcom Last Man Standing
despite its strong viewership. It was a rare broadcast comedy with a
central character who is a political conservative and devout Christian
adhering to traditional American values that appeals to viewers in the
Heartland.
(CNN) KAYE: What was your first impression of Stormy Daniels?
WOMAN #1: I felt sorry for her.
WOMAN #2: My heart hurts for her. WOMAN #3: This is a porn star! (chuckling) Why are we giving it any credibility?
WOMAN#4: Exactly.
WOMAN #2: I agree.
WOMAN #3: And the fact that she now wants to come out with a story because she’s afraid of (sic) her children?
WOMEN: (laughing)
WOMAN #3: My goodness! What did you tell the kiddos about your full-time job?
(CNN) KAYE: (dramatic read) These women all voted for Donald Trump — and
despite Stormy Daniels’ claims, they still don’t buy her story.Most in
this group believe God ordained Donald Trump to be president and stand
by him despite his imperfections.
WOMAN #5: I know that when I voted for him, I wasn’t voting for a choir boy.
WOMAN #6: He hasn’t changed as a person in order to become a president.
RUSH: This is not what they had in mind, obviously, at CNN--and I
think they were sort of gobsmacked by it. Remember the world they
construct for themselves: Everybody hates Trump. Responsible,
reasonable women, they hate Trump — and so they couldn’t find any here.
And don’t think they didn’t look hard. I’m just surprised they didn’t
hire an actor or make up one of their infobabe reporters to look frumpy
and stuff and to pretend to be somebody.
Here’s the next portion of the interview…
(CNN) KAYE: (dramatic voice) This group suggests the women coming forward
with tales of having had an affair with Trump are being targeted.
WOMAN #1: Someone is looking and shopping for these people to come
out of the woodwork because it is demeaning to our president.
(CNN) KAYE: And as some strongly suggested, all part of a media plot to bring down Donald Trump.
RUSH: Wow. So they tell the infobabe is the CNN (whose name is
Randi Kaye),“The more you try this, the more this garbage that you
dredge up, the more we’re gonna work for Trump and the harder we’re
gonna work for Trump.”This did not go down well with Randi Kaye. You
can hear her exasperation here.
RUSH: Ms. Kaye, if you don’t like any of this you better take it up
with Bill and Hillary Clinton, because they paved this road.
(chuckling) Trump didn’t build this. (laughing) The Clintons built
this! And you and the media? You built the road and you built the
escape hatch! Why, these women are saying exactly what you said about
Clinton. I think these women are so sophisticated....Here you have average Americans talking about
“the media narrative.”You know, that used to be a secret?
That used to be a secret aspect of the news. Doing the narrative,
establishing a narrative –creating it, maintaining it — that was what
journalists learned in J-school, that every story is a “narrative.” It’s not based on events. It’s the “narrative” that you have, and that
narrative depends or determines, you know, what you talk about and what
you don’t. You know, what you consider news and what isn’t. Now these
so-called bumpkin women from the middle of America are talking to the
media about their narrative and how it ain’t gonna fly.
And I guarantee you, that doesn’t sit well. You can hear the
exasperation of Randi Kaye’s voice. “I am asking you about a Stormy
Daniels interview on 60 Minutes! Period! That’s it!” She was near the
end of her tolerance for these women. These women had the gall to
properly define what Randi Kaye here was doing. “You’re trying to get
rid of my president.” “I’m asking you about Stormy Daniels! Period! That’s
it!” They didn’t get what they wanted, and Wolf Blitzer was not happy
when he saw Trump’s approval numbers." image above from RushLimbaugh.com
George Will is one of the country’s outstanding polemical writers,
but he should not be squandering that talent on mind-reading and
misrepresenting the president. John Bolton absolutely does not think and
will not be “suggesting that the United States should seriously
consider embarking on war crimes.” George has no standing to say that
“Trump has no convictions.”
Mr. Trump has drastically reduced illegal immigration, reformed and
reduced taxes, deregulated, stimulated economic growth, succeeded in
gaining China’s serious cooperation in dissuading North Korea from
gaining a nuclear first-strike capacity, and armed the Ukrainians with
anti-tank weapons and committed to providing Eastern Europe with
anti-missile defenses.
The president is working to reduce the U.S. trade deficit, has
assisted importantly in raising oil production by 5 million barrels a
day, and emancipated the American people from President Obama’s mad
promise (in the Paris climate agreement) to reduce American carbon use
by 26% in the next twelve years, while the world’s leading polluters,
China and India, pollute more, and Western Europe does nothing, though
with great unctuousness.
With a more suave individual enacting the same policies, George Will
would, on past form, be an appreciative supporter; it is dismaying that
such a substantive person and eminent commentator and old friend is
unable to distinguish often annoying (though usually rather entertaining
and even refreshing) Trump flimflam and posturing from the substance
accomplished by an administration that has, despite the continuing war
with most of the political class, had the most successful first year of
any newly elected administration since Eisenhower’s, if not Franklin D.
Roosevelt’s.
George Will presupposes that “this scatterbrain’s Swiss-cheese-style
tariffs are too sloppy to reflect forethought.” Mr. Will is not a trade
wonk and the whole point is to shrink the trade deficit. Steel and
aluminum were as good a place to start as any. Of course China will
compromise; the trade specialists will work out something so complicated
that no one can figure it out, but the result will be a sharp reduction
in the present imbalance in China’s favor, and some repatriation of
jobs to the U.S. At the least, George Will should give the president
some credit for opposing Chinese theft of American technology.
The takeaway from the initiative to reduce the trade gap with China
is that the administration is confident that the North Korea arrangement
is already practically in place. President Trump said to the New York
Times at the time of his visit to China several months ago that he had
indeed deferred taking action with China on the trade front because of
the need for China’s entire cooperation to deter Pyongyang from nuclear
military deployment by a method short of precise American attack on its
military targets.
Mr.Trump’s assertion to the Chinese and North Koreans that if North
Korea did not desist, the United States would eliminate the North Korean
nuclear program militarily, should promote an agreement a little like
that over missiles in Cuba in 1962: no nuclear weapons in either Korea, a
divided peninsula, and no attempt at regime change. Both sides would
get what they originally wanted.
The Iran agreement was insane: It gave Iran ten years to become a
nuclear power, if it chooses to honor the porous and ineffectual
monitoring program the treaty provides. But the agreement covers only
fissile material, not the Iranian missile program or Iran’s development
of a nuclear warhead compact enough to be delivered by a missile, and
both of these activities are proceeding apace.
To combat this, the method is essentially the same formula that has
been employed with North Korea, though without a Chinese analogue:
draconian sanctions and explicit threats that, if a reasonable agreement
that no such nuclear military capability will be sought is not
concluded, there will be U.S. military interdiction of it. Once the
Iranians realize the administration is serious, they will act
rationally. The portrayal of this policy as the aspiration to commit
“war crimes” is shameful and outrageous.
Neither Messrs. Will nor Haass shows the least recognition of the
fact that Donald Trump is the only possible savior of the nuclear
non-proliferation system. It must be said for the Iranians that at least
they correctly identified the hypocrisy of the existing
non-proliferation regime: a club that others could join if they didn’t
seem likely to be irresponsible, although all were piously urged to
abstain and leave a monopoly of ultimate military power in the hands of
the incumbent cartel-members, who haven’t really done anything to
fulfill their promise to disarm (nor should they, as the whole concept
is insane).
The five founders of the United Nations achieved nuclear military
status; then India had to do so as China had, Pakistan because of India,
and Israel was a special case. South Africa renounced its status when
the apartheid system was dismantled. Ukraine renounced the nuclear
capability it inherited from the Soviet Union and all major powers
guaranteed its borders, a promise Putin’s Russia has flagrantly
violated, and President Trump is the only head of a guarantor country
who has done anything about it."...
The whiplash between George W. Bush’s almost mindless promotion of
democracy (even to setting up a prefabricated failed state in Iraq and supporting anti-democratic parties in democratic elections, as in Gaza,
Lebanon, and Egypt) and the feckless pacifism and appeasement of the
Obama administration certainly shook the confidence of the world —
whether friend or foe — in the United States.
Richard Haass purports to believe that declining to ratify the Paris
climate accord and to join the Trans-Pacific Partnership, and seeking to
renegotiate the $70 billion trade deficit with Mexico and drastically
amend the Iran nuclear arrangements, are evidence of Mr. Trump’s
scuttling of America’s preeminent and indispensable role in the
promotion of democracy and the free market, which goes back to
Roosevelt’s Quarantine speech in Chicago in 1937.
This is bunk; Mr. Trump is returning to that policy. Richard also
decries that “the U.S. is experiencing unprecedented attacks from its
own president on the country’s media, courts, and law-enforcement
institutions,”and relates this to the rise of “authoritarianism” in
such places as Turkey, Russia, and China, and to Britain’s Brexit vote.
Mr. Trump isn’t the problem, but among the symptoms of the problem
are that the director and deputy director of the FBI have been fired for
cause as the Bureau virtually became the dirty-tricks arm of the
Democratic National Committee, and that, as the Center for Media Studies
and Pew Research have both recorded, 90% of national-press comment on
Mr. Trump is hostile. Mr. Trump may have aggravated some of the current
nastiness, buthis chief offense has been breaking ranks with the
bipartisan coalitionthat produced the only period of absolute and
relative decline in American history. If Mr. Trump succeeds, the abrasions he sometimes causes will be
worth enduring. I commend to my hand-wringing friends the wisdom of dual
citizen (Australian and American) Nicole Kidman, who advised her
Hollywood peers to have some respect for the elected president and some
understanding that if he does well, the country does well. These are
almost the only sensible words that have been heard from Hollywood since
Ronald Reagan left there for Washington in 1980 (to have dinner at
George Will’s house)."
