The Briefing Room
General Category => Editorial/Opinion/Blogs => Topic started by: txradioguy on June 12, 2018, 03:23:32 pm
-
On Monday evening, President Trump met with North Korean dictator Kim Jung Un, the tyrannical overlord of a slave state with 25 million prisoners and a gulag system containing hundreds of thousands of human beings, a radical threat to world peace who has tested nuclear weapons and long-range missiles. Trump gave Kim the thumbs up; the American flag, the symbol of freedom in the world, was placed alongside the flag of North Korea, the closest thing to the Nazi swastika in the world today. Then President Trump praised Kim fulsomely, using verbiage to describe him that he would never use about our G-7 allies.
And the right celebrated.
There’s nothing to celebrate yet. Nothing. Here’s why.
1. Trump Got No Serious Concessions From Kim. According to Trump, Kim said he’ll denuclearize. Sure he will. Just as the Kim family has promised verbally to denuclearize for decades. The actual signed agreement between the United States and North Korea is pathetically weak. As Heritage Foundation research fellow for Northeast Asia Bruce Klingner states:
This is very disappointing. Each of the four main points was in previous documents with NK, some in a stronger, more encompassing way. The denuke bullet is weaker than the Six Party Talks language. And no mention of CVID, verification, human rights.
— Bruce Klingner (@BruceKlingner) June 12, 2018
Here’s what the document itself says:
President Donald J Trump of the United States of America and Chairman Kim Jong Un of the State Affairs Commission of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) held first historic summit in Singapore on June 12, 2018.
President Trump and Chairman Kim Jong Un conducted a comprehensive in-depth and sincere exchange of opinions on the issues related to the establishment of new US-DPRK relations and the building of a lasting and robust peace regime on the Korean Peninsula. President Trump committed to provide security guarantees to the DPRK, and Chairman Kim Jong Un reaffirmed his firm and unwavering commitment to complete denuclearization of the Korean peninsula.
Convinced that the establishment of new US-DPRK relations will contribute to the peace and prosperity of the Korean peninsula and of the world, and recognizing that mutual confidence building can promote the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, President Trump and Chairman Kim Jong Un state the following:
The United States and the DPRK commit to establish new US-DPRK relations in accordance with the desire of the peoples of the two countries for peace and prosperity
The United States and the DPRK will join their efforts to build a lasting and stable peace regime on the Korean Peninsula
Reaffirming the April 27, 2018 Panmunjom Declaration, the DPRK commits to work toward complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula
The United States and the DPRK commit to recovering POW/MIA remains, including the immediate repatriation of those already identified.
Having acknowledged that the US-DPRK summit — the first in history — was an epochal event of great significance in overcoming decades of tensions and hostilities between the two countries and for the opening up of a new future, President Trump and Chairman Kim Jong Un commit to implement the stipulation in this joint statement fully and expeditiously. The United States and the DPRK commit to hold follow-on negotiations, led by the US Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, and a relevant high-level DPRK official, at the earliest possible date, to implement the outcomes of the US-DPRK summit.
President Donald J Trump of the United States of America and Chairman Kim Jong Un of the State Affairs Commission of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea have committed to cooperate for the development of new US-DPRK relations and for the promotion of peace, prosperity, and security of the Korean Peninsula and of the world.
There’s nothing new here.
The only thing that seemingly changes here is the explicit commitment by the North Korean government to recovering remains from the POW/MIAs of the Korean War. But Korean officials have been promising that same thing for years, and indeed, between 1996 and 2005, US-NK search teams “conducted 33 joint recovery operations and recovered 229 sets of American remains.†That program was discontinued because North Korea insisted we pay them for the privilege, a program some Americans referred to as “bones for bucks.†But we recontinued it in 2011, then stopped again in 2016.
So, what justifies all of this? Here’s Trump’s description of what he got in negotiations:
What did they do to justify this meeting? Secured commitment for complete denuclearization. That’s the big thing.
But that’s precisely what the North Koreans have been promising for the entirety of negotiations stretching back decades. They’ve always been lying.
2. Trump Legitimized Kim. Trump legitimized Kim. There are no two ways about it. Here’s the triumphal video Trump released this morning:
pic.twitter.com/tJG3KIn2q0
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 12, 2018
That video is inappropriate for any meeting with a dictator, let alone a dictator who uses WMD to kill a family member in an airport. If this video had been produced by Kim for propaganda use by his own people, that would have been just as believable.
But that was just the beginning. Trump said it was his “great honor†to meet Kim. He called Kim “very talented†and added that “you can take 1 out of 10,000†and they wouldn’t be able to do what Kim has done. He said Kim was “very smart†and a “very good negotiator.†He said that it’s a “rough situation†in North Korea but it’s also “rough in a lot of places.†He credited Kim with making the Olympics a “tremendous success by agreeing to participate.†Finally, he said, “His country does love him. His people, you see the fervor.†That’s pathetic. If Obama had said it, conservatives would rightly have gone ballistic. (And by the way, if Obama had said it, the media currently crushing Trump would have praised him to the skies.)
3. Trump Delegitimized America’s Actions In The Korean Region. Trump said that he would stop a planned military exercise with the South Koreans, and that he wanted to pull American troops off the Korean peninsula:
At some point I have to be honest. I used to say this during my campaign as you know better than most. I want to get our soldiers out. I want to bring our soldiers back home. We have 32,000 soldiers in South Korea. I would like to be able to bring them back home. That’s not part of the equation. At some point, I hope it would be. We will stop the war games which will save us a tremendous amount of money. Unless and until we see the future negotiations is not going along like it should. We will be saving a tremendous amount of money. Plus. It is very provocative.
The exercises have reportedly been postponed; there’s no reality to the movement of American troops off the peninsula, thank goodness.
Trump even parroted Kim blaming the United States for past North Korean failures to abide by their word:
He said that, you know, there are reasons [Kim Jung Il] didn't [abide by his agreements] because he was let down by the United States, but that’s irrelevant. What he’s doing, and and he very much said that, he said you know over the years -- first of all, they’ve never gone this far, you know, they’ve never been at a level like this, and his father never dealt with a president, and a lot of other things. But he said, it’s very much on his mind. He said, ‘We are going to get this done.’ In the past we’ve tried, but it never worked out and it never did work out. And it was embarrassing actually to the United states and to our leadership.
https://www.dailywire.com/news/31740/trumps-big-north-korean-moment-either-masterstroke-ben-shapiro (https://www.dailywire.com/news/31740/trumps-big-north-korean-moment-either-masterstroke-ben-shapiro)
-
:thud:
-
LOL. Sure thing Benny. You have such a stellar track record for predicting things after all.
-
Status quo ante would be a disappointment, not a debacle.
-
Another Nevertrumper neocon chimes in. All the neocons ever did was start endless wars that cost
trillions, that we never win. Like Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Syria, etc.
Go to hell neocons, your time running this county (into the ground) is over.
-
Shapiro is not a neo-con, and he's a very smart man.
You ETs need to stop being so damned sensitive. Some things Trump does are very good. Some not so much. We don't know how this is going to turn out, and if anyone pretends to know how all of this is going to come out, they're full of it.
-
Some things Trump does are very good. Some not so much. We don't know how this is going to turn out, and if anyone pretends to know how all of this is going to come out, they're full of it.
@Sanguine that's the bottom line right there. People that are trying to declare "peace in our time" because Trump shook hands and gave a thumbs up to a guy who executes people with 37mm anti aircraft guns need to readjust their reality.
-
Shapiro is not a neo-con, and he's a very smart man.
You ETs need to stop being so damned sensitive. Some things Trump does are very good. Some not so much. We don't know how this is going to turn out, and if anyone pretends to know how all of this is going to come out, they're full of it.
Well I think this is a lot better then thermal nuclear war. Which was what we were going to get
sans some kind of an agreement with N.K.
Isn't Ben the guy that quit Breibart over that lying reporter that claimed Cory assaulted her?
He most definitely is a NeverTrumper and likely a neocon too.
I checked he is a hard core neocon.
-
@Sanguine that's the bottom line right there. People that are trying to declare "peace in our time" because Trump shook hands and gave a thumbs up to a guy who executes people with 37mm anti aircraft guns need to readjust their reality.
Please show me one poster declaring "peace in our time". TIA.
-
Well I think this is a lot better then thermal nuclear war. Which was what we were going to get
sans some kind of an agreement with N.K.
And, where did I say anything to the contrary?
Isn't Ben the guy that quit Breibart over that lying reporter that claimed Cory assaulted her?
He most definitely is a NeverTrumper and likely a neocon too.
He, and others quite Breitbart over that and several other issues. That doesn't make him a "neo-con". As for NT, he has been, and has modified his position as Trump does good things.
I checked he is a hard core neocon.
So, just curious. How do you define a neocon? Who knows, I could be one too?
-
Please show me one poster declaring "peace in our time". TIA.
The fact that it was in quotes means he was using it as a figure of speech.
-
(A) yes, there is a middle option, and (B) it wasn’t a horrible debacle. At worst, at the very worst, it was a nothingburger that will have no real lasting consequences, other than, perhaps, giving Kim the final push he needs to consolidate some as yet unconsolidated power position in internal NK politics.
There is simply no way this could be a debacle or disaster of any sort, for the simple reason that the US really hasn’t given anything away, just as NK did not.
-
Please show me one poster declaring "peace in our time". TIA.
I looked. @corbe, a Trump critic, just did – in reverse, of course, on the summit thread.
-
The fact that it was in quotes means he was using it as a figure of speech.
He put it in quotes because ..... wait for it ..... It was a quote.
Chamberlain I believe, after meeting with Hitler.
-
He put it in quotes because ..... wait for it ..... It was a quote.
Chamberlain I believe, after meeting with Hitler.
So, that means he couldn't be using it as a figure of speech?
Nevermind, you just want to argue. Carry on.
-
So, that means he couldn't be using it as a figure of speech?
Nevermind, you just want to argue. Carry on.
Had I been trying to directly quote the President...which clearly I wasn't...I'd have put the phrase like this:
Peace in our time
Instead of using the typed version of air quotes.
But @Sanguine is correct...some people are just in a midd to argue about anything.
Had I used an Oxford comma there would have been accusations of being an NT tied to that as well.
-
It’s a success if:
* You think a general improvement of relations with North Korea is a desirable end in itself.
* You care deeply and sincerely about the return of American remains from the Korean War (by the way, we pay the North Koreans about $1 million for each set of remains, so this isn’t quite the “goodwill†gesture it’s being made out to be).
* You think we were in fact on the brink of war during the whole “fire and fury†chapter and that talking is always preferable to fighting.
* You think North Korea deserves to be welcomed back into the community of nations and be seen as a co-equal nation with the United States of America.
* You think any spectacle where Trump dominates the news coverage is good.
* You’re Dennis Rodman.
* You’re a Republican strategist eager to keep the peacemaker story through the midterms.
* You’re Kim Jong-un.
It’s a failure if:
* You thought the international opprobrium on North Korea was well-deserved and maintaining pressure on the regime was a valuable and correct policy.
* You think an American president heaping praise on an evil dictator in exchange for worthless promises is grotesque.
* You thought Trump could simply walk into a room and charm North Korea out of its nuclear weapons.
* You place a high value on the issue of human rights and the evils of the North Korean gulag.
* You think U.S.–South Korea military exercises are too valuable a chip to trade for more implausible promises (though in fairness, there’s plenty of time to restart them on schedule, so this may have been a clever and costless chip — though not informing the Pentagon about this in advance strikes me as ill-advised).
---Jonah Goldberg, National Review (https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/kim-trump-summit-singapore-success-too-soon/).
-
2. Trump Legitimized Kim. Trump legitimized Kim. There are no two ways about it.
Good. Without the new international legitimacy and dare I say prestige, Kim would wake up dead by his own military's hand. He still might, but with the top three generals gone and this from the POTUS, it is less likely. Step one in the march to a denuclearized Korean: Complete.
-
If Kim Jong-Un owned the New York Mets, there'd be executions every half inning.
-
Another Nevertrumper neocon chimes in. All the neocons ever did was start endless wars that cost
trillions, that we never win. Like Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Syria, etc.
Go to hell ne
@jpsb
Lol
I've seen plenty of this same commentary on Ben's Twitter timeline today. I think my IQ points dropped double digits from reading it.
It's predictable, though. Just as Shapiro and Jonah Goldberg agreed the other day when Ben interviewed Jonah, NeverTrump came to an end when the election was over. Now it's simply a matter of judging the president on his merits.
But---as Goldberg also noted---the lazy, easy way out for Trump fans is to yell "NeverTrumper" when presented with any criticism of Trump. It prevents them from having to think critically, and it makes Trump right all of the time.
-
It's predictable, though. Just as Shapiro and Jonah Goldberg agreed the other day when Ben interviewed Jonah, NeverTrump came to an end when the election was over. Now it's simply a matter of judging the president on his merits.
But---as Goldberg also noted---the lazy, easy way out for Trump fans is to yell "NeverTrumper" when presented with any criticism of Trump. It prevents them from having to think critically, and it makes Trump right all of the time.
@CatherineofAragon there's been a lot of that "lazy easy way out" happening today where this photo op in Singapore is concerned.
-
@CatherineofAragon there's been a lot of that "lazy easy way out" happening today where this photo op in Singapore is concerned.
@txradioguy
And it's getting sillier by the moment.
-
Some things Trump does are very good. Some not so much. We don't know how this is going to turn out, and if anyone pretends to know how all of this is going to come out, they're full of it.
And that includes the President himself who seems intent on celebrating before we have "irreversible and verifiable denuclearization":
......There is no longer a Nuclear Threat from North Korea........
-
Well I think this is a lot better then thermal nuclear war. Which was what we were going to get
sans some kind of an agreement with N.K.
Isn't Ben the guy that quit Breibart over that lying reporter that claimed Cory assaulted her?
He most definitely is a NeverTrumper and likely a neocon too.
I checked he is a hard core neocon.
@jpsb
Thermonuclear.
Ben is the guy who quit Breitbart because, as he said (paraphrasing) the Michelle Fields incident was the straw that broke the camel's back after watching Steve Bannon allow the site to become a Trump propaganda outlet. We could get into the merits of defending that idiot loser Corey Lewandoski, but I'll pass on the hijack.
Exactly what is a neocon to you, jpsb? What's the definition of the word? I know what many people use it to mean, including the fringe site you post on. Mention Shapiro over there and the subject will inevitably come around to his religion.
Ben interviewed Jonah Goldberg just a few days ago; here's the portion of the interview where they address the NT issue.
Shapiro:
"Here's the way I define Never Trump---it ended the day of the election."
"There's no more Never Trump after that because now he's the president"
"So he does good stuff, and he does bad stuff, and when he does good stuff yay, and when he does bad stuff, boo"
"...this constant refrain from some of the bigger trump fans that every time we criticize him, that we must be NT every time we criticize him." They both agree that the practice isn't honest because those doing it understand it no longer applies but just want to use it as an epithet. Which is exactly what I've thought for some time.
If you spent any time reading Shapiro's Twitter, you'd know how foolish you look when you call him a Never Trumper. So here, for you, is the evidence right from the horse's mouth. Next time he doesn't quite give your man a tongue bath, you're going to have to find something else or look even dumber than you do now.
! No longer available (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhh9CujoYAQ#)
-
@jpsb
Thermonuclear.
Ben is the guy who quit Breitbart because, as he said (paraphrasing) the Michelle Fields incident was the straw that broke the camel's back after watching Steve Bannon allow the site to become a Trump propaganda outlet. We could get into the merits of defending that idiot loser Corey Lewandoski, but I'll pass on the hijack.
Exactly what is a neocon to you, jpsb? What's the definition of the word? I know what many people use it to mean, including the fringe site you post on. Mention Shapiro over there and the subject will inevitably come around to his religion.
Ben interviewed Jonah Goldberg just a few days ago; here's the portion of the interview where they address the NT issue.
Shapiro:
"Here's the way I define Never Trump---it ended the day of the election."
"There's no more Never Trump after that because now he's the president"
"So he does good stuff, and he does bad stuff, and when he does good stuff yay, and when he does bad stuff, boo"
"...this constant refrain from some of the bigger trump fans that every time we criticize him, that we must be NT every time we criticize him." They both agree that the practice isn't honest because those doing it understand it no longer applies but just want to use it as an epithet. Which is exactly what I've thought for some time.
If you spent any time reading Shapiro's Twitter, you'd know how foolish you look when you call him a Never Trumper. So here, for you, is the evidence right from the horse's mouth. Next time he doesn't quite give your man a tongue bath, you're going to have to find something else or look even dumber than you do now.
! No longer available (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhh9CujoYAQ#)
Oh, that's good, Catherine!
-
Ben is the guy who quit Breitbart because, as he said (paraphrasing) the Michelle Fields incident was the straw that broke the camel's back after watching Steve Bannon allow the site to become a Trump propaganda outlet. We could get into the merits of defending that idiot loser Corey Lewandoski, but I'll pass on the hijack.
Here's the problem with that spin. Later videos showed that Lewandowski was right and nothing happened. Michelle Fields was a liar and Ben never apologized about being wrong.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/authorities-drop-battery-charges-against-trump-campaign-manager-corey-lewandowski-n556051 (https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/authorities-drop-battery-charges-against-trump-campaign-manager-corey-lewandowski-n556051)
! No longer available (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgdXFQfKhq0#)
-
I read the article, and I didn't see what happened that constitutes a "horrible debacle". If it doesn't work, we're right back where we were 3 months ago...how is that a "horrible debacle"?
I think Byron York's piece was much, much better. Basically, Trump is trying a different approach. It may work, it may not, but it's worth giving it a shot since we haven't yet given up anything of real value.
-
Exactly what is a neocon to you, jpsb?
@CatherineofAragon
George W Bush is the gold standard for a neocon. A liberal warmonger.
Neocons invaded that GOP back in the 60s, 70s and 80s. They left the Rat party for the GOP
because the Rat party was the "peace party" under McGovern. They took over the GOP with W and
set the middle east and north Africa on fire. Thanks goodness the paleocons are back in power. We still have a lot of Bush republicans in elected office but their numbers are fading. Trump is
remaking the GOP into a much better party.
Ben, IIRC, was a big cheer leader for the war with Iraq. That makes him a neocon in my eyes.
Thermonuclear thanks for the correction.
-
Spapiro, Goldberg are interchangeable with a lot of Op-Edy types, for writing "On the One Hand; On the Other."
I would pay more attention to Pat Buchanan.
-
I read the article, and I didn't see what happened that constitutes a "horrible debacle". If it doesn't work, we're right back where we were 3 months ago...how is that a "horrible debacle"?
I think Byron York's piece was much, much better. Basically, Trump is trying a different approach. It may work, it may not, but it's worth giving it a shot since we haven't yet given up anything of real value.
@Maj. Bill Martin he didn't say it was a debacle. What Shapiro was saying is that it's still up in the air how this will turn out. There's a 50-50 chance it will go either way.
-
Spapiro, Goldberg are interchangeable with a lot of Op-Edy types, for writing "One the One Hand; On the Othe."
I would pay more attention to Pat Buchanan.
You put more stock in an isolationist anti Semite?
Interesting.
-
@Maj. Bill Martin he didn't say it was a debacle. What Shapiro was saying is that it's still up in the air how this will turn out. There's a 50-50 chance it will go either way.
And what I'm saying is that he didn't offer any scenario explaining why failure had to mean "horrible debacle." He didn't say "if this doesn't work...." and then explain what that "horrible debacle" would be. He didn't explain why there was no "middle ground", or why "resume hard-line approach" wasn't just as likely an outcome of failure.
This seems far more like "no harm in trying" to me, and he didn't even attempt to make the case as to why that wasn't true.
-
Spapiro, Goldberg are interchangeable with a lot of Op-Edy types, for writing "One the One Hand; On the Othe."
I would pay more attention to Pat Buchanan.
Tell me about it. Goldberg is a Class A loser. He spun off the rails that the NORK flag was next to ours at the summit. It's some of the most absurd Beltway bullshit over this meeting to date.
-
Spapiro, Goldberg are interchangeable with a lot of Op-Edy types, for writing "One the One Hand; On the Othe."
I would pay more attention to Pat Buchanan.
@truth_seeker
Lol, so their fairness and willing to judge Trump case by case is a losing deal for you.
Okay.
-
I'll read Shapiro and Goldberg a lot sooner than I will Brietbart.
I used to like reading all 3, but Bannon had an agenda, and it just wasn't the same anymore.
Shapiro and Goldberg get it from both sides, AT's after him when they criticize and NT's after him when they praise.
They can't win for losing.
Neo-Cons?
I just don't see it, unless the meaning of Neo-con has changed over the years.
-
And what I'm saying is that he didn't offer any scenario explaining why failure had to mean "horrible debacle." He didn't say "if this doesn't work...." and then explain what that "horrible debacle" would be. He didn't explain why there was no "middle ground", or why "resume hard-line approach" wasn't just as likely an outcome of failure.
This seems far more like "no harm in trying" to me, and he didn't even attempt to make the case as to why that wasn't true.
Is it still "no harm in trying" now that Trump is saying he's willing to overlook Kim's human rights abuses in the quest for denuclearization?
-
Is it still "no harm in trying" now that Trump is saying he's willing to overlook Kim's human rights abuses in the quest for denuclearization?
Yes.