How They Do It–'There’s no defending Trump’s North Korea performance'

ed note–several very important items surrounding Trump’s latest dealings with NK–

1. It was not quite a year ago at this time that the JMSM was in full-throat screech mode warning of an imminent, impending nuclear holocaust as a result of the increased tensions between Trump and KJU. Irrespective of where one went, the cacophony was the same–that a mad man had ascended the highest office in the land and was about to incinerate (or cause to be incinerated) all life on earth, and how he must be removed immediately lest ‘no flesh survive’.

Now, besides the fact that all those dire warnings having not come to fruition, as well there has been a complete reversal of predicted misfortune. On the surface, Trump has secured at least a tacit agreement with NK to de-nuclearise, and whether this actually takes place or not is irrelevant and immaterial to the discussion taking place here, which is the manner by which the ‘Deep State’ and its disinformation arm known as the Jewish mainstream media is now casting the entire event as a charade that should not be taken seriously.

Well, as the old saying goes concerning a broken clock being right at least twice a day, the JMSM is correct–it is a charade of sorts. All the increased tension between Trump and KJU was manufactured with the deliberate intention of scaring the B-Jeebus out of everyone so that when Trump came along as the knight in shining armor saving everyone from a dangerous, nuclear-armed NK, the explosive relief that would accompany such event would achieve ‘maximum yield’, no pun intended.

On another note, all can just imagine the orgiastic applause that would ensue if instead of Trump shaking hands with the leader of NK it were Obama or even–as unlikely as it sounds on the surface–a barely-literate, borderline mentally retarded George W. Bush.

But let’s just cut right to the chase on all of this and understand what all this kissey-face posturing between Trump and KJU is really all about–

Trump’s much discussed ‘peace deal’ between the Supremacist Jewish state and the Arabs, the one singular event that all by itself explains why from the very moment he announced his intention of attaining the presidency, there has been a full spectrum/left-right/liberal conservative campaign of opposition to him on the part of organized Jewish interests.

What Trump is doing here is exactly what he has done hundreds (thousands?) of times in all his big real estate deals of the past–securing the necessary ‘financing’ and support he needs for the project. By bringing together two sides who have been at war with each other for over half a century (just like the Jews and the Arabs, wow, what a coincidence) he is securing his bona fides as a broker in a real estate deal that everyone has said could never be made, and hence, why now there is this concerted effort on the part of the JMSM to underplay and under-emphasize the significance of what has just taken place between him and KJU.

washingtonpost.com

One of the costs of the Trump era is that all opinions become suspect because, even more than usual, everything is seen through the prism of whether you are for or against the president. Consequently, criticism of President Trump is regularly assumed by his supporters to be rooted in bad faith.

The retort to any judgment against his statements or his policies typically begins with “You wouldn’t say this . . .” and ends with “if Obama (or Bush or Clinton) were doing it.”

In the interest of candor, let’s acknowledge that many of us are automatically suspicious of everything Trump says because he not only is a documented liar but also came close to copping to the fact during a news conference in Singapore.

In explaining what he’d do if he proved to be mistaken about his big bet this week on the integrity of Kim Jong Un, Trump said: “I may stand before you in six months and say, ‘Hey, I was wrong.’”

Then he caught himself and added: “I don’t know that I’ll ever admit that, but I’ll find some kind of an excuse.”

This was our salesman-in-chief reveling in his skill at covering up and deceiving.

But charges of hypocrisy against those who question Trump extend to substantive matters as well. It’s thus important to take on two deeply flawed but predictable arguments that have been offered in defense of Trump’s lovefest with North Korea’s brutal dictator and the president’s approach to negotiation.

The first is that because the United States has sometimes allied (and frequently negotiated) with dictators, chastising Trump for ignoring North Korea’s loathsome human-rights record represents a double standard.

It’s true that human rights have often taken second place behind calculations about national security based on realpolitik . The United States, rightly, joined with Stalin to defeat Hitler because, between the two murderous regimes, Hitler’s posed the imminent danger. During the Cold War, the United States at times supported the installation of right-wing dictatorships to foil the communists or to protect American businesses.

But our wrongful indifference to human rights in the past should not be used as an excuse to justify apologias for dictatorships in our time. Moreover, previous American presidents (including Barack Obama, both George H.W. and George W. Bush, and Bill Clinton) have managed to negotiate with unsavory adversaries without pretending they were embodiments of George Washington or Nelson Mandela.

Trump did not simply overlook the astonishing brutality of North Korea’s regime. He heaped praise on Kim as someone “very open,” “very honorable,” “very smart,” “very worthy” and “very talented” who “wants to do the right thing.”

Most appallingly, Trump, fresh off nasty rebukes of the leader of friendly and democratic Canada, told ABC’s George Stephanopoulos of Kim: “His country does love him. His people, you see the fervor.” Yes, fear of a gulag can produce a lot of “fervor.”

Sorry, Trump defenders, but this is obscene.

The second canard is that those who once expressed alarm over Trump’s loose talk about nuclear war have no right to critique his diplomacy. Never mind that he made real concessions to North Korea — beginning with the legitimacy that the Singapore extravaganza conferred on Kim and Trump’s decision to call off joint military exercises with South Korea — without winning anything concrete in return.

Trump himself tweeted out this line of thinking, asserting that “pundits & talking heads” who were “begging for conciliation and peace” were now saying “you shouldn’t meet, do not meet!”

But as usual, Trump was distorting what his critics were saying. True, we wondered why he gave Kim the meeting without extracting anything of substance in advance. Yet his harshest detractors were among those pleased that Trump was talking rather than brandishing “fire and fury.” This just goes to show how low he has set the bar.

And Mr. President, that flimsy piece of paper you signed guaranteed absolutely nothing and contained far weaker promises than those wrung out of North Korea by earlier administrations — promises, by the way, that the “very honorable” regime broke.

On MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” on Wednesday, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) summarized the case against Trump nicely: “We’re not against diplomacy. We’re just against bad diplomacy, and this was really bad diplomacy.”

And deluded diplomacy as well. Consider that upon returning home, Trump tweeted that “There is no longer a Nuclear Threat from North Korea.”

When the most optimistic scenario is that the president doesn’t really believe what he’s tweeting, we have ample reason to doubt his competence and his motivation. And, fortunately, we’re not required to demonstrate our “fervor.”