President Trump: Part II

[newyorkguy]

I'm a little surprised by the lack of response to Bannon's security council coup. After all, he's the one that "corrected" Trump's immigration order so it applied to current green card holders. He's the known white nationalist, who just punted the Joint Chiefs of Staff off the council and gave himself a seat. He's quite possibly the one writing most of these executive orders, and he's busy burrowing deep into positions of power and getting rid of people who have the authority to stop him...

I agree, it's nightmarish. It's so scary that it's hard to even know where to start. Yesterday was a busy day for the Trumpmeister. He spent an hour talking to Vladimir Putin on the phone. Then he signed a presidential memo directing the Pentagon to submit a plan within 30 days to defeat the Islamic State. The Washington Post reported:

Counseling Trump in the effort will be Stephen K. Bannon, the White House chief strategist whose influence inside the administration is expanding far beyond politics. In a separate presidential memo, Trump reorganized the National Security Council to, along with other changes, give Bannon a regular seat on the principals committee — the meetings of the most senior national security officials, including the secretaries of defense and state.

That memo also states that the director of national intelligence and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff will sit on the principals committee only when the issues to be discussed pertain to their “responsibilities and expertise.” Link

It's no prank.

 

[Craig B]

Yep and Theresa May is on the hot seat, she needs a cushy trade deal with the USA post Brexit but she knows any harsh criticism of Trump will make that impossible. If it does go ahead the security costs will be horrendous. Can you imagine him meeting the Mayor of London, or the Duchess of Cambridge(Kate Middleton)?

I don't think Trump's team have quite grasped the protocol issues surrounding State visits. Rule no 1. You don't say in advance that you won't feel inclined to deign to talk to the Heir to the Throne.

From the Sunday Times

Members of Trump’s inner circle have warned officials and ministers that it would be counterproductive for Charles to “lecture” Trump on green issues and that he will “erupt” if pushed. They want the younger princes, William and Harry, to greet the president instead. Royal aides insist that he should meet Trump.​

Really? "Erupt" at the Prince during a state visit? Dear me. A president with such limited self control? I wonder if HM the Queen has signed the petition against the visit yet.

 

[sts60]

Oops, duplicate

 

[Andy_Ross]

Maybe meeting Queens, Princes, Presidents and Prime Ministers is making Trump realise what a pipsqueak he actually is. He can deal with a couple of young, Princes but meeting a Prince who is Heir to the Throne and his equal in age is intimidating especially in a real Royal Palace, not an overgrown flat in a tower block.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

It's not just the Daily Fail either. The Times of London is reporting that Theresa May's team says she held hands with Trump at Trump's request because he's afraid of stairs.

explains his fondness for escalators...

 

[Minoosh]

You're not looking at civil suits? or don't you think the civil suit charges of misrepresentation, defraudment, deception etc., are equivalent to "lying"

Good point. "Trump lied, lawsuit says" is fine. But it has to be Donald Trump as an individual actively lying, and in almost every instance someone in the old media would have to call Trump or his lawyers and answer point by point. The usual strategy is to say they've haven't read it and can't comment. Now Trump just seems to be blowing off any kind of response at all, including "no comment."

"Lie" is a much better headline word and I favor limiting polysyllabic Latinate constructions when possible. They are used precisely to obfuscate (like I just did). Stiffing contractors is not necessarily lying but it is failing to live up to your word.

I still would welcome clear, oriented images showing the Washington Mall comparisons. I'm too ignorant to be clearer. Are all the people necessarily on the Mall, or are some on adjacent surface streets, or on the sidewalk on the other side of the streets?

 

[phiwum]

Sorry about the snip.

I worked at a newspaper for 29 years and wrote and edited thousands of articles. I don't think I ever saw someone labeled a liar (by the newspaper itself). It was part of the "show, don't tell" esthetic. And I don't see, "The President maintains, however ..." as ceding anything to Trump. It's just allowing for a response from him, which is normal practice.

My approach would be to let him have his say, then surgically eviscerate his claim. I think there's a danger in calling him a liar. There's no need for the label, IMO. In fact I think the labeling undermines The Post (or CNN) credibility. IMO, people do not want news stories telling them what to think. But if you write straight headlines saying "Trump's estimate conflicts with that of (credible source). Play it absolutely straight. People will get it.

I appreciate your reluctance to use the word "liar" in an article, but I think you're wrong that people will get your suggestion.

Media: Trump's claim conflicts with X.

Trump: The media lies, X lies, believe me.

What we saw this year is that when the media speaks as you suggest, they merely allege a "conflict" without stating what they mean: Trump's claim is false. Supporters can see that conflict the same way creationists regard the creation vs. evolution debate.

When Trump comes back and says he's right, then I can dismiss the conflict as a mere difference of opinion and choose to believe the guy I support anyway. It's easy to avoid any serious dissonance in this way.

If the media says instead, "What Trump said is false," then I can still regard it as a mere conflict, but there's one less step removed.

I'm not saying this is an ideal solution, and there's much to be concerned about.

 

[newyorkguy]

In reading news reports I learned that the judicial orders issued last night blocking the U.S. government from deporting green card holders who were detained at airports only do that. Restrain the government from deporting them. The government does not and probably will not release them. Instead they'll probably be held in federal detention centers.

I think there may be a method to the madness. I think the Trump/Bannon team want to vividly demonstrate in a highly visible way, how unreasonable and harsh they are capable of being. It's a warning shot across the world's bow. In their fantasy world this will "teach" other nations that you don't mess with the U.S.

Reminds me of the Kissinger strategy of forty years ago of widespread and indiscriminate bombing in Southeast Asia. That was supposed to "convince" the North Vietnamese that they were dealing with bloodthirsty lunatics and they, the North Vietnamese, would be best off cutting a peace deal asap lest the new U.S. administration wreak more death and destruction across their region.

You'll recall how well that strategy worked.

 

[Minoosh]

Yes, and the GOP comeback is to detract from the lie by directing the focus to the disrespect being shown Trump calling lies, lies. They seek to change the story to the fact the word, 'lie' was not used with other politicians.

The news media might do better to either stay away from the word, lie, or, to point out Trump's alternate reality is the exception not the rule and his claims reach the level of 'lies'. I like the latter approach but perhaps the former is more acceptable to more people.

Media norms changed so suddenly late in my career that I'm something like an archaeologist. But I also see CNN rewrites throughout the day that gradually bring articles up to typical print practices.

 

[Minoosh]

I'm a little surprised by the lack of response to Bannon's security council coup. After all, he's the one that "corrected" Trump's immigration order so it applied to current green card holders. He's the known white nationalist, who just punted the Joint Chiefs of Staff off the council and gave himself a seat. He's quite possibly the one writing most of these executive orders, and he's busy burrowing deep into positions of power and getting rid of people who have the authority to stop him.

Doesn't this alarm you people just a bit, or are you too busy quibbling over something Clinton, Bush or Obama might or might not have done?

It is alarming but not unexpected. Perhaps the "Muslim ban" was an act of political arson intended to distract people from the security council thing. As far as I know, there is no public action that could have stopped the Bannon/Kushner thing, but it will become a much bigger deal (I'm not caught up on thread; maybe that's already happened but it would be unusual for a Sunday, especially with rival airport optics).

This Al-Jazeera opinion piece talks about the distraction angle.

 

[Stacko]

The Trump statement on Holocaust Remembrance Day seems really weird now as they continue to go "All Lives Matter" to defend it while simultaneously singling out Christian persecution in Middle East to exclusion of other groups.

 

[Molinaro]

Miller also noted on Saturday that Trump administration officials are discussing the possibility of asking foreign visitors to disclose all websites and social media sites they visit, and to share the contacts in their cell phones.

That will go over well. The US tourism industry just may take a hit in the coming years. And one thing is for sure, real terrorists would never lie about what websites they visited on the computers they left back in their home country. Genius plan!


Link to CNN article

 

[KDLarsen]

In reading news reports I learned that the judicial orders issued last night blocking the U.S. government from deporting green card holders who were detained at airports only do that. Restrain the government from deporting them. The government does not and probably will not release them. Instead they'll probably be held in federal detention centers.

I'll quote from ThinkProgress here:

The ruling also did not explicitly release individuals being detained at airports. But the judge seemed to indicate she expects them to be released.

“If someone is not being released, I guess I’ll just hear from you,” the judge said.

If that quote is correct, and I have no reason to doubt it, presumably they'll be back in court either today or tomorrow.

Meanwhile, various stories are starting to come out, of the kind of people being hit by this, such as a Clemson University professor currently stuck in Dubai.

 

[newyorkguy]

Most of the intelligence and security people I've seen interviewed think that Trump's action in detaining the following at U.S. points of entry:

• Syrian refugees indefinitely
• Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria and Yemen citizens for 90 days
• All refugees, regardless of citizenship, for 120 days.

not only will do nothing to improve U.S. security it may actually increase the risk. The intelligence people have said, Trump needs to identify the deficiencies in the current immigrant vetting process that usually takes more than a year and explain how his 'plan' will improve on it.

But I don't think Trump/Bannon will pay any attention to that. It's all domestic politics. It's politics by meme. Keep 'em the hell out! That's what the people who voted for Trump wanted to see happen, or a good percentage of them, and that's what the Trumpmeister is delivering. It doesn't matter whether it's good policy or will achieve the goal of making the U.S. safer from a terrorist attack. It'll trend really really well on social media.

 

[Civet]

not only will do nothing to improve U.S. security it may actually increase the risk.

What's the argument for that last bit? I can understand thinking the policy ineffective, but how could it increase the risk?

 

[Molinaro]

What's the argument for that last bit? I can understand thinking the policy ineffective, but how could it increase the risk?

By providing direct evidence to the Jihadist recruiters that the US wants to wage war on the Muslim world.

 

[Minoosh]

...this astonishing interview apparently reveals how the memo was written.

To me this didn't sound like Giuliani wrote the executive order, but instead drafted a strategy for making this not about religion. For one thing, Giuliani could not offer any defense of leaving Pakistan off the list. "It's not the old Saudi Arabia" was his defense of Saudi Arabia but he said he would have to know more about Pakistan.

This is Steve Bannon, I believe. In fact the "mistake" about the green cards itself could be a plant.

This New Yorker article is a good read on how plants and leaks are used strategically by the government. There are wheels within wheels. For example, the government can screw something up on purpose in order to look candid and responsible when they admit the problem and fix it.

The woman interviewing him (I'm not up on Fox News personnel) at least pointed out that the San Bernardino terrorist attack was done by a Pakistani woman who came through Saudi Arabia. Then she laughingly allowed Giuliani to dodge the question.

We are being manipulated in so many ways. I suspect very little can be taken at face value.

 

[Bob001]

.....
I still would welcome clear, oriented images showing the Washington Mall comparisons. I'm too ignorant to be clearer. Are all the people necessarily on the Mall, or are some on adjacent surface streets, or on the sidewalk on the other side of the streets?

The podium for the inaugural ceremony is directly in front of the west side of the Capitol. Anybody attending would try to get within sight of the podium, even blocks away. The Mall is enclosed by the Smithsonian museums. "Adjacent surface streets" would have no view at all.

The pictures that have been published are about as clear as they could be. The only difference is that for 2016 the Park Service covered the grass to protect it.
http://wtop.com/inauguration/2017/01/trumps-inauguration-crowds-compare-photos/slide/1/
(That sliding bar is really clever.)

Interestingly, some of the pictures the Trumpsters tweeted to "support" their claims weren't even taken in Washington and weren't of the Inaugural.
http://www.snopes.com/twitter-images-inauguration/

 

[Minoosh]

I'm not saying this is an ideal solution, and there's much to be concerned about.

Maybe we could revert to rhyming slang and call out Rump as a dreadful friar.

My mode was always restraint, and the blogging environment distressed me. Then something on a blog gets copied somewhere else and pretty soon you're fighting through blogs trying to figure out whose facts to believe.

This is embarrassing, but I don't know how to subscribe to an AP feed. I would prefer AP to CNN, but I prefer CNN to MSNBC or Fox. So I triangulate: CNN, BBC, Al Jazeera. For print: The Economist and The New Yorker (though I do believe there is bias).

ETA: AP/Reuters feeds VERY expensive.

 

[newyorkguy]

What's the argument for that last bit? I can understand thinking the policy ineffective, but how could it increase the risk?

This is from the PBS interview I watched Friday night:

DANIEL BENJAMIN, Former State Department Coordinator for Counterterrorism:
"No, I don’t think it will do anything to make us safer. Since 9/11, there hasn’t been a single case of a terrorist coming in from outside the country to carry out an attack. And so it’s really hard to believe that this executive order is going to improve on the very, very good job that our immigration system does right now.

That system has been improved dramatically since 9/11. Applicants for visas or to immigrate here are screened many times against many databases with all kinds of information that might tell us something about them, and I don’t think that this is going to in any way help. And, if anything, it will send the wrong signal and might undermine our security by further disturbing Muslim communities here at home about their feeling and increase their feeling of isolation and embattlement." Link

Others have said that it will give ISIS (and similar terrorist groups) a propaganda victory in their effort to portray the U.S. as being essentially anti-Muslim. That following up by staging a terrorist attack may be irresistible. The action will undoubtedly provoke anger among Muslims living in the U.S. and may motivate a lone wolf attack. It's the lone wolf attack I fear most.