Clapper, Not McMaster

This was a truly awful answer by National Security Adviser McMaster on Sunday's "Meet the Press." Chuck Todd, transitioning into a somewhat related question without asking a follow-up, apparently didn't think so, perhaps because Lieutenant HR General McMaster, General Mattis, and General Kelly look good to a media which has unoficially anointed them (pattern anyone?) the three Wise Men. The Chuckster asked

There's been a lot of confusion. Has the president drawn a red line? Is it a threat from Kim Jong Un? Is it a missile test to Guam? Can you explain how his words should be interpreted here? Particularly cause he seemed to say, the last one, even a threat was going to get a response. What's the red line here?

In the first three of his seven-sentence response, McMaster stated

The president doesn't draw red lines. What he does is he asks us to make sure that we have viable options for him. Options that combine diplomatic, economic, and military capabilities. And so that's what we've done. 

The President first drew a red line when on August 8 he blustered "North Korea best not make any more threats to the United States. They will be met with fire, fury, and frankly power, the likes of which this world has never seen before." A spokesperson for Pyongyang then announced "The KPA Strategic Force is now carefully examining the operational plan for making an enveloping fire at the areas around Guam with medium-to-long-range strategic ballistic rocket Hwasong-12 in order to contain the U.S. major military bases on Guam including the Anderson Air Force Base."

Details were to follow, hastened perhaps by Trump's warning two days later that "sound and fury" might not have been "tough enough." We soon learned "The Hwasong-12 rockets to be launched by the KPA [Korean People's Army]) will cross the sky above Shimane, Hiroshima and Koichi Prefectures of Japan,"

McMaster won't acknowledge even that Donald Trump has issued a red line, let alone that he has backed down- twice- when challenged..  It's a red line even if you do not call it a "red line." The following four sentences of McMaster's response, though more honest, should be discouraging:

What's critical here, I think, is the president, through his engagement with world leaders, with our allies, our great allies Japan and South Korea, but also now with China, have recognized really three fundamental things. The first is this isn't just a US problem, this is a world problem. The second is that China has real influence to be able to cope with this. And the third and this is what's most important, that the goal, the common goal that we have to pursue is denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.

While McMaster was shilling for Trump, Obama Director of National Intelligence James Clapper on CNN's "State of the Union" offered a more sober take.  Asked (at 3:00 of the video below) about the view of Senator Lindsey Graham and Homeland Security head Tom Bossert that a nuclearized North Korea is unacceptable, Clapper stated

Well, yes, ideally I love a denuclearized North Korea but as I learned when I went there and had some pretty intense dialogue with them that is a nonstarter with them. That is their ticket to survival and I don't see any way they're going to give it up.

So, I think our process, our thought process here ought to be on accepting it and trying to cap it or control it. But I think a denuclearized North Korea I would love to see it, but I don't think it's in the cards.






FA full loaf is not in the cards for the USA, which the federal government in previous administrations should have realized. Here, the perfect is likely the enemy of the good. The USA can start a catastrophic war or, more likely, bluff and bluster- as Trump has done- and continue to have our bluff called.  While it's probable that McMaster's idealistic notion of a neutered North Korea will not come about, it's certain that he knows a red line is a red line even if it's not called a red line.





Share |

Strategic In Denial

Donald Trump knows what he's doing.

Former New Hampshire Republican senator Gordon Humphrey, who believes President Trump should be removed from office pursuant to the 25th Amendment, has written to U.S. Representative Annie Shuster, arguing "Donald Trump is impaired by a seriously sick psyche.  His sick mind and reckless conduct could consume the lives of millions. The threat of nuclear war is steeply on the rise.” He added "Donald Trump is impaired by a seriously sick psyche. His sick mind and reckless conduct could consume the lives of millions. The threat of nuclear war is steeply on the rise.”

But Donald Trump is not sick, merely consumed by the two loves of his life, his business interests and himself, probably in that order.

When the President responded to the planned mayhem in Charlottesville by remarking "We condemn in the strongest possible terms this egregious display of hatred, bigotry, and violence that's on many sides. On many sides." he was slapped around not only by Democrats such as Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi, but by several Republicans. Senator John McCain wrote "white supremacists and neo-Nazis are, by definition, opposed to American patriotism and the ideals that define us as apeople and make our nation special."

Senator Orrin Hatch tweeted "We should call evil by its name. My brother didn't give his life fighting Hitler for Nazi ideas to go unchallenged here at home." Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee commented "'white supremacy' crap is worst kind of racism- it's EVIL and perversion of God's truth to ever think our Creator values some above others." Senators Rubio of Florida and Gardner of Colorado also were sharply critical of the President.

Also recognizing, but praising Trump for, his bothsiderism, neo-Nazi founder Andrew Anglin of The Daily Stormer wrote

Trump's comments were good. He didn't attack us. He just said the nation should come together. Nothing specific against us.

He said that we need to study why people are so angry and implied that there was hate... on both sides!

So he implied the antifa are haters. There was no counter-signaling of us at all. Also refused to answer a question about White Nationalists supporting him.

No condemnation at all. When asked to condemn, he just walked out of the room. Really, really good.

Anglin signed off with "God bless him," a nice touch which Trump probably didn't understand.

Despite plaudits from Nazis, a presidential spokesperson issued Sunday a statement which claimed the President's condemnation  "includes white supremacists, KKK, neo-Nazis and all extremist groups."

Obviously, he's not sincere but that hasn't hurt him in the past. It does, however, give his GOP critics significant cover, the opportunity to claim that Trump learned from the episode, and isn't such a bad guy. He has grown!

Moreover, Trump has yet again reassured his popular base that he is with them and clarified (while not reversing)- his comments only because the big, bad liberal press made him do it. When Trump had to walk back a comment about Mexican immigrants being "rapists" and criminals, The Daily Stormer commented "Our Glorious Leader and ULTIMATE SAVIOR has gone full-wink-wink-wink to his most aggressive supporters."

Republicans in Congress now can pivot to "tax reform," the effort to cut taxes for millionaires and corporations. He may be a monster, but he's our monster, they know, and his legislative priorities are theirs.

Call him Trump, Mr. Trump, Donald, President, or the President. Better yet, call him Mr. Fox- as in crazy like one.










Share |

Off-Base About The Base

Please stop this. Stop this right now. I'm speaking both of President Trump and of the press understandably skeptical of his claims that he's becoming increasingly popular. In the latter category is Steven Shepard of Politico, who has reported

President Donald Trump says his base of support is “bigger and stronger than ever before.” But his claim is contradicted by a steady stream of recent polling showing that the share of Americans who approve of Trump’s job performance is shrinking, along with the share of Americans most enthusiastic about his presidency.

However you measure the president’s base, it has diminished, not increased, in the seven months he’s been in office.





No, it has not increased nor has it diminished.  From the Collins English Dictionary, we learn of the many uses of the term "base," including

-The base of something is its lowest edge or part.

-The base of an object that has several sections and that rests on a surface is the lower section of it.

-A base is a layer of something which will have another layer added to it.

-A company's client base or customer base is the group of regular clients or customers that the company gets most of its income from.

-The base of a substance such as paint or food is the main ingredient of it, to which other substances can be added.

The concept underlying these applications is that from which everything else arises. It is the strongest, and most enduring part, of the structure.

Donald Trump's base is the group of individuals which will stay with him no matter what.  It's the group which will defend him if Robert Mueller demonstrates that Trump knowingly colluded with the Kremlin and has committed serious financial crimes. They're the people who will still favor the President if he initiates a limited nuclear war in northeast Asia.

Estimates would vary greatly but it's assumed that while Trump has a low ceiling, he has a high base, which I'd estimate in the low 20s as a percentage of registered voters. But I may be well off-base.

Failing to understand a politician's "base" is not mere semantics. It allows pundits and others to use the word freely without fear that they will be proven wrong. It offends clear thinking and prevents us from debating this bottom line: the percentage of people who are unpersuadable no matter the circumstances.

So of course Trump's base- which would vote for him if he were to shoot someone on 5th Avenue in NYC-  is neither shrinking nor expanding. And once we acknowledge that, we can consider whether that base is hardening or softening or has remained static.

As the President's words and actions increasingly make clear his unsuitabiity for the office he holds, the number of individuals who support him logically declines slightly. However, his base probably has hardened somewhat as his supporters perceive that he is enraging their enemies ever more.

We need to understand this distinction. As we move gradually toward the point at which impeachment must be considered, the difference between Trump's base and others sympathetic (but less so) to him may become critical.






Share |

Advocacy For Universal Medicare

Dana Milbank is not a shill for the Democratic National Committee nor even parial to the corporatist bent of the mainstream of the Party, which has nominated the likes of Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton for the office of the presidency. We know this in part because he refers not to "Bernie Bros" but to "Bernie Bros and sisters," choosing not to join in the criticism of  the bros for allegedly being racist and sexist.

Yet, Milbank argues

to force Democrats to take some kind of single-payer purity oath would set back the cause. Democrats need to pick up 24 seats to take control of the House, yet there are only 23 Republicans in districts won by Clinton — and only eight of those were won by President Barack Obama in 2012. There are a dozen Democrats in districts Trump won. In such swing districts, it would be suicidal to pledge support for something Republicans will brand as socialism.

It is debatable that Republicans would characterize the "Medicare for All" Democrats would advocate, as "socialism," even within those swing districts. However, the Democratic National Committee need not enforce a "purity test" on Democratic candidates there. It might be enough for the Party simply not to take an active role in quashing single-payer advocates, and let nature (or Democratic primary voters) take its course.

Fearing voters would in a general election turn against a Democrat advocating single-payer, Milbank writes

A Pew Research Center survey in June found that while a majority of Democrats (52 percent) favor single-payer health care, only 33 percent of the public does overall. A Kaiser Health Tracking poll in June had better results: 53 percent of the public favored single-payer coverage. But Kaiser found that opinions were “malleable,” and that if, for example, respondents heard single-payer coverage would increase taxes, a majority opposed it. 

The  first claim, though technically accurate, is a serious distortion of the poll results, as this reveals. Admittedly, Kaiser found supporters of single-payer malleable. But it observed also "when the plan is defined as one in which all Americans would get their insurance from a single government plan, support is similar when the plan was referred to as “Medicare-for-all” (57 percent in favor) as when it was referred to as “single payer” (53 percent)."

A Democratic supporter of Medicare for All would be wise to frame the issue "would you prefer your health care needs worked out between you and  your doctor or decided by the insurance company?" of do you want your doctor, as I support, or the insurance company to tell you what you need?"

But the tell in Milbank's argument concerns his misunderstanding of the tea party movement as he contends

It’s not just about breakfast confections. The Bernie crowd has begun accusing freshman Sen. Kamala D. Harris (Calif.), a rising Democratic star, of being beholden to corporate money. Also in California, Kimberly Ellis, who ran for state Democratic chairman with the support of Sanders and lost in a close race to a former Hillary Clinton delegate, is refusing to concede and threatening to sue. Ellis told Adam Nagourney of the New York Times that the “Democratic Party is in many ways right now where the Republican Party was when the tea party took over.”

And that’s a good thing? Republican fratricide, instigated by tea- party purity police, made Trump possible and left the GOP unable to govern. This is what Sanders’s people would emulate.

Yes, it is a good thing. The tea party legacy has left the Republican Party in control of 36 governships, 66 of 99 state legislative bodies, the United States House of Representatives, the United States Senate, the Presidency, and a fifth or sixth reliable vote on the Supreme Court.

And one other thing it has done- left the GOP one Joe Manchin to Energy Secretary vote short of overturning the Affordable Care Act.

The Democratic Party didn't get here by advocating single-payer or even Medicare for All, which presumably would be a public-private mix approximating the current system for the elderly of Medicare plus the private Medicare Advantage. Insofar as health care has been an issue, Democrats have been routed by supporting an Affordable Care Act, whichis based on a proposal with a genesis in the conservative Heritage Foundation, later enacted in Massachusetts by GOP governor Mitt Romney.

It is a plan which was dubbed by Republicans- aware that President Obama was far less popular than polls indicated- as "Obamacare."  A program marginally better than the status quo empowered insurance companies to announce in October 2016- weeks before state and national elections- that their premiums would increase an average of 25% nationally.  (Happy Birthday, Hillary!)

The Republican "fraticide" cited by Milbank put the GOP within one vote of repealing Obamacare and replacing it with a health care program deeply unpopular with the American people. It would, further, be a mistake ever to count Mitch McConnell out, especially with speculation about Joe Manchin, whose seat would be filled by the Republican governor if Manchin leaves the Senate for the Department of Energy.

This "fraticide" has resulted in approval for the US Supreme Court of a far-right nominee. And were the same calamity to befall the Democratic Party, it would not yield as President a Democrat who has championed greed, racism, and sexual assault, publicly debated the size of his penis, claimed he was smarter than "the generals," boasted about his extreme wealth and intelligence, threatened to date his own daughter, and denied hero status to a prisoner of war because he was captured. Recall, too, that Donald Trump became president not by campaigning against left-wing Democrats but by running against a conventional, cautious, centrist Democrat, scourge of the "Bernie Bros,"  and  supporterof Barack Obama.

Significantly, Democrats now routinely acknowledge "we're not saingy Obamacare is perfect- it needs changes" because they realize the public realizes it is deeply flawed.  Reforming Obamacare is a marginal improvement upon the marginal improvement provided by the ACA.  Socialist Bernie Sanders isn't even advocating a pure single-payer system but instead "Medicare for All." With the popularity and proven effectiveness of our health services for the elderly, the least the Democratic Party should be able to do is to get behind a program calling for strengthening and extending Medicare.

Share |

Donald Trump, Having Fun

"At the time of Putin’s announcement" that the USA embassy in Russia must cut 755 employees, we read in Vox,

Andrew Weiss, the head of research on Russia and Eurasia at the Carnegie Endowment, tweeted that it represented a “Big escalation — and big dilemma for Trump. Will he roll over or retaliate?”

Trump has chosen the former, literally thanking the Russian president for expelling American diplomatic staff and dramatically cutting the US’s diplomatic presence in Russia — on the grounds that it supposedly would cut down the United States’ payroll.





Virtually every American president would either roll over or retaliate. However, Donald Trump is different and responded

I want to thank [Putin], because we’re trying to cut down on payroll. And as far as I’m concerned, I’m very thankful that he let go of a large number of people because now we have a smaller payroll. There’s no real reason for them to go back. So, I greatly appreciate the fact that they’ve been able to cut our payroll for the United States. We’ll save a lot of money.

This statement is both shabby and detestable.  On another level, however, it's very telling, coming from Donald J. Trump in the midst of an investigation into possible collusion between his presidential campaign and Russia.

"There are no atheists in foxholes," it is observed, yet Trump who said "I don't like to have to ask for forgiveness"  and condescendingly referred to "my little wine" and "my little cracker" of communion. Interviewed by longtime Christian right leader Cal Thomas, Trump strangely called Jesus Christ "somebody I can totally rely on in my own mind" while Christians insist they love the Father and the Son with mind, soul, and heart.

Either Donald Trump is the most ignorant believer or non-believer in America or he was sending Christians a message that he was not one of them and didn't care to be.  Moreover, five months earlier he had boasted "I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose any voters," thereby daring people to vote against him.

It didn't work, but that was not for lack of trying.  Now people everywhere are wondering whether he was aware of likely collusion between his campaign and the Kremlin to bring Hillary down. In the midst of an investigation which may conclude that he was aware his campaign was conspiring with an adversary against a general election opponent, Donald Trump thanks Vladimir Putin for expelling American diplomats and spies.

Donald Trump is the child-President. And like a child trying to determine how far he can push his mother, Donald Trump is pushing the voters to determine how far he can go in making his outrageousness obvious to everyone.  Having figuratively slapped evangelical Christians (who eventually rewarded him with their support) and voters in general (you people would vote for a cold-blooded murderer if he hates your enemies enough), he now is sufficiently audacious (in Barack Obama's terminology) to lay it out out for all to see.

Nodding and winking toward the Russian president, Trump is saying to his domestic audience "I owe Putin. I'm involved. How simple do I have to make it for you people?"

Share |

One-Dimensional Checkers

As we have learned in the last few days, dealing with an impulisve egomaniac with a limited view of the rest of the globe can be very distrubing.

But enough about Donald J. Trump; let us consider Kim Jong-un. U.S. intelligence officials earlier this week confirmed a report, which North Korea first reported in early March, that it had miniaturized a nuclear warhead that can fit inside a missile. President Trump threated Pyongyang with an (apparently) nuclear attack if Kim were to speak again, after which the Korean President threatened to hit the island nation of Guam, whose residents are American citizens and in which lie a USA naval base and air base. Pyongyang now has threatened Guam again.

Trump then retweeted a Fox News story revealing classified information. Coincidentally or not 

A North Korean plan to fire four missiles near the US Pacific territory of Guam will be ready for Kim Jong Un's consideration in days, state media has reported, as an unprecedented exchange of military threats between Washington and Pyongyang intensifies.

The intermediate-range missiles would be fired east and over Japan before landing around 30 to 40 kilometers (18 to 25 miles) off the coast of the tiny island if the plan is implemented, according to state-run KCNA. Guam is more than 3,000 kilometers from North Korea. 

In an op-ed in Thursday's New York Times, former national security adviser Susan Rice wrote

Mr. Trump is issuing an empty threat of nuclear war, which will further erode American credibility and deterrence, or he actually intends war next time Mr. Kim behaves provocatively. The first scenario is folly, but a United States decision to start a pre-emptive war on the Korean Peninsula, in the absence of an imminent threat, would be lunacy.

Folly is more likely. Recall, as The Washington Post has done for us

Initially, Trump appeared to think he could outsource the problem to China, a strategy deemed simplistic and naive by foreign policy experts who say Beijing has limited influence with the North and strategic interests that diverge from the United States’.

Leading up to a summit in early April with Chinese President Xi Jinping at Mar-a-Lago, his resort in Palm Beach, Fla., Trump bashed Beijing as not doing enough to rein in Kim’s government. But after his conversations with Xi, “I realized it’s not so easy,” Trump told the Wall Street Journal. “I felt pretty strongly that they had a tremendous power over North Korea. But it’s not what you would think.”

Later that month, Trump continued to try to enlist regional partners in phone calls to Southeast Asian leaders.

In a conversation with Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte, Trump called Kim “a madman with nuclear weapons,” and he asked Duterte whether Kim was “stable or not stable,” according to a transcript obtained by The Washington Post.

The United States has “a lot of firepower over there,” Trump boasted, including two nuclear submarines ordered to the region by the Pentagon.

But three days later, Trump told Bloomberg News that he would be “honored” to meet Kim “under the right circumstances,” opening the possibility of bilateral or multilateral talks. No sitting U.S. president has met with a North Korean leader.

In another interview with CBS News, Trump called Kim “a pretty smart cookie” and expressed admiration for the North Korean leader’s having assumed power “at a very young age” after the death of his father, Kim Jong Il.

“What is alarming to allies and probably confusing to China is that the statements are all over the map,” Rhodes said. “One day we’re conciliatory; the next day we’re threatening ‘fire and fury.’ ”

"Fury" may be the operative term inasmuch as the President of the United States of America exemplifies sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Trump depends on mainland China; then he's disillusioned.  He condemns Kim Jong-un; then he would be honored to meet the Korean leader, who is "a pretty smart cookie" and, better yet, an authoritarian.

Kim now has called Trump's bluff, afterward ramping up his rhetoric.  Leon Panetta asks "The question is: Does (Trump) get so frustrated with the North Korean leader — who’s yelling every other day — that he feels that somehow the North Korean leader is attacking his manhood?”

Yes, because that's  how the highly insecure Trump always feels when he's questioned.  Panetta asks “And (Trump) this is a guy who, if he feels that, does he decide, 'OK, enough is enough?'"

Kim Jong-un presumably has observed that the President is all talk, no action. He may not realize there is a limit to how much he can threaten the USA, even with President Con Man.  At that point, Mr. Kim may strike and Donald Trump, fearing his manhood as never before, might go full lunatic.











Share |

Out-Bluffed

John McCain is very generous.   Tuesday, President Trump threatened

North Korea best not make any more threats to the United States. They will be met with fire and fury lie the world has never seen. He has been very threatening beyond a normal statement as as I said, they will be met with fire and fury and, frankly, power the likes of which this world has never seen before. Thank you.







Arizona senator realizes Donald Trump is the person least familiar with intense psychiatric care to know anything about "normal."  And so 

“The great leaders I’ve seen don’t threaten unless they’re ready to act and I’m not sure President Trump is ready to act,” he said.

McCain said he did not know if Trump’s threat was serious and may have just been showmanship.

“It’s not terrible in what he said,” the senator said. “It’s the classic Trump in that he overstates things.”

Overstating things might describe the words of a Christmas-and-Easter churchgoer who claims to be "very religious" or "faith-based."  It is quite another thing to threaten to respond to an unprovoked attack with a nuclear attack which would kill more than the roughly quarter of a million people whose death was caused by the atomic bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

And unprovoked it would be, if the President's words are to be believed- which, admittedly, they shouldn't be because it's Donald Trump.  Generously, McCain did not address Trump's words as warning Pyongyang not to act rashly but not to "make any more threats."  Mere words, according to the President, would be  sufficient.  A bit later

North Korea said Wednesday it was considering using intermediate-range ballistic missiles near Guam, the U.S. territory that is home to strategic military installations, dramatically raising tensions with the United States.

The country’s military said it was “carefully examining the operational plan for making an enveloping fire at the areas around Guam with medium-to-long-range strategic ballistic rocket Hwasong-12,” according to a statement carried by the the state-run Korean Central News Agency (KCNA). The news agency reported that Kim Jong Un was reviewing the plan. Yonhap, the South Korean news agency, reported that a separate North Korean statement vowed an all-out war if the U.S. launched a “preventive war” against the North.

The threat came hours after President Trump vowed to respond with “fire and fury” if North Korea threatens the United States, comments that were made in apparent response to a Defense Intelligence Agency assessment that North Korea might already possess a miniaturized nuclear warhead that it could place inside an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of reaching the U.S.

Before Kim's threat to Guam, South Carolina's Lindsey Graham had stated "President Trump has basically drawn a red line saying that he’ll never allow North Korea to have an ICBM missile that can hit America, with a nuclear weapon on top. He’s not going to contain the threat. He’s going to stop the threat."  He should have stuck with McCain's script.

The President's spokesperson later today will deny it, but Kim Jong Un has crossed that red line. He has called Donald Trump's bluff.  Fortunately, being a con man rather than a crazy man, all talk, no action Donald will back down and the nation will for the time being be spared another war.

Share |