Kim Jong-un Pulls the Wool over President Trump’s Eyes
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Trump did far more than overlook Kim’s atrocious human-rights abuses — he became Kim’s PR man.
T he headline writers adore the word “historic.” It was ubiquitous in reporting on the April meeting between Kim Jong-un and Moon Jae-in. Kim shook Moon’s hand and then guided him over the military demarcation line to step onto North Korean territory. This prompted swoons. What rot. If that was a bona fide gesture of peaceful intent, time will tell. In the meantime, let’s assume it was a stunt.
So too with the summit between Kim Jong-un and Donald Trump, though in this case the media hype couldn’t compete with Mr. Trump’s own. He has basked in talk of a Nobel Peace Prize and predicted that he and the butcher of Pyongyang were “going to have a great discussion and a terrific relationship.” Obviously panting for a meeting, Trump was reportedly livid with National Security Advisor John Bolton, whose May comments about a “Libya solution” to the nuclear-weapons problem apparently spooked Kim into withdrawing from the summit. Trump insisted that it was he who cancelled, just as he did with the Philadelphia Eagles’ White House visit.
But he showed quite a lot of ankle in his note. “I felt a wonderful dialogue was building up between you and me,” he cooed, closing with words conceding that it was Kim, not Trump, who had actually cancelled. “If you change your mind having to do with this most important summit, please do not hesitate to call me or write.” Kim reeled in his catch. He sent an oversized letter Trump could pose with, grinning like a winner of the Publishers Clearing House sweepstakes.
Why is our president smiling? You can always argue that democratic leaders must treat with dictators and even villains of various stripes for the sake of winning a war or securing the peace. You can even argue that sometimes presidents flatter unsavory leaders to build trust and ease tensions. But no historical comparisons can illuminate Trump’s ricochets between hysterical threats (“fire and fury”) and pusillanimous praise (“very talented”) without any substantive change on the part of the dictator. What has changed since the State of the Union address in which Trump honored the memory of Otto Warmbier and detailed the atrocities of the North Korean regime? In gratitude for the exchange of pleasantries, the release of a few hostages, and vague offers of “denuclearization” Trump has made himself Kim’s doormat.
As a matter of substance, the Singapore summit achieved less than nothing. It was a profound defeat for U.S. world influence and for democratic decency, arguably the worst summit outcome since Yalta. Kim promised to consider “denuclearization,” exactly as his father and grandfather had done repeatedly over the past several decades — breaking their promises each and every time. For this puff of cotton candy, Trump agreed to halt “U.S. war games” (using the North Korean term for joint military exercises with South Korea), which Trump himself called provocative! He invited Kim to the White House. He also issued the risible tweet announcing, ahem, peace in our time: “There is no longer a nuclear threat from North Korea.”
It’s difficult to determine just how stupid Trump thinks the American people are. But there is no question that Trump’s affection for strongmen and thugs, evident before in his praise of the Chinese murderers of Tiananmen, and his warm words for Putin, Duterte, and Xi, has now extended to the worst tyrant and killer on the planet. Trump did far more than overlook Kim’s atrocious human-rights abuses. He became Kim’s PR man: “He’s a very talented man and I also learned he loves his country very much.” He has a “great personality” and is “very smart.”
Trump granted Kim’s legitimacy: “His country does love him. His people, you see the fervor. They have a great fervor.”
In 2014, a United Nations report concluded that North Korea’s crimes against humanity “entail extermination, murder, enslavement, torture, imprisonment, rape, forced abortions and other sexual violence, persecution on political, religious, racial and gender grounds, the forcible transfer of populations, the enforced disappearance of persons and the inhumane act of knowingly causing prolonged starvation.”
What of all that? Trump is understanding, even impressed. “Hey, he’s a tough guy. When you take over a country — a tough country, tough people — and you take it over from your father, I don’t care who you are, what you are, how much of an advantage you have. If you can do that at 27 years old, I mean, that’s one in 10,000 that could do that. So he’s a very smart guy. He’s a great negotiator.”
What was Trump’s chief argument in 2016? The U.S. had been the victim of “bad deals,” with other countries and he was the great deal maker. He fingered the Iran deal as the worst deal in history. His defenders will excuse the truckling to Kim as a clever gambit to extract concessions. But Kim has offered absolutely nothing. All of the concessions have come from the United States, including the most crucial one — we’ve put ourselves on the same moral plane as North Korea. That’s what Make America Great Again has achieved.
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
And in case you missed it....this article is from the National Review.
I know....that's what caught my eye, that this was published by a very conservative magazine like the National Review
The meeting was nothing more than another scene from the theater of the absurd. I am sure that Kim Jung-un walked away smiling with the knowledge that we will suspend military exercises with South Korea and in return received nothing.
Simply two swell guys getting together for a bit of chit chat in bizarro world.
The meeting was nothing more than another scene from the theater of the absurd. I am sure that Kim Jung-un walked away smiling with the knowledge that we will suspend military exercises with South Korea and in return received nothing.
Pretty sure he was tickled pink to get the photo of Trump saluting a NK general too.
Mona Charen is a long time neocon, I believe, but her description of all this is nonetheless pretty accurate. Trump is a massive embarrassment to the American people.
I was going to google her because I know the name but I couldn't remember if she was a conservative or a liberal. Because face it, this article reads like a liberal would write it.
Because only liberals exercise critical thinking skills and can articulate thoughts without attacking someone with false information?
Trump did far more than overlook Kim’s atrocious human-rights abuses. He became Kim’s PR man: “He’s a very talented man and I also learned he loves his country very much .” He has a “great personality” and is “very smart.”
Trump granted Kim’s legitimacy: “His country does love him. His people, you see the fervor. They have a great fervor.”
.
Or to put it in real world terms.
That may be my favorite depiction of Donald Trump yet. Love the tie.
I have said many times, Kim isn't crazy. He has just been going with the standard North Korean playbook, they have done this shit for decades. The only difference is we now have a president stupid enough to think this is somehow different.
It was actually really funny to read comments defending the "summit", the bar had been set pathetically low. Trump supporters claimed it was a success because it didn't directly result in a resumption of open hostilities. AKA the status quo. And in the time since it has actually turned out that Trump has started giving into North Korean and Chinese demands (the suspension of training exercises) in exchange for... absolutely nothing. Trump MCGA/MNKGA.
I want to know when the inspectors are going to be allowed in to make sure that Kim is dismantling his weapons
Obama is not the topic of this seed
It's all in the "Scheme" of all things dealing with foreign policy.
Goose/Gander and all that rot, based on a one sided article !
If you can't do the Goose/Gander thing when it comes to foreign policies, what makes a debate then ?
Reagan wasn't the topic either, yet you didn't note that. Why ?
Reagan is not the topic, either. Cease and desist
This is the funniest part of the "Opinion" article above:
Why is our president smiling? You can always argue that democratic leaders must treat with dictators and even villains of various stripes for the sake of winning a war or securing the peace. You can even argue that sometimes presidents flatter unsavory leaders to build trust and ease tensions. But no historical comparisons can illuminate Trump’s ricochets between hysterical threats (“fire and fury”) and pusillanimous praise (“very talented”) without any substantive change on the part of the dictator. What has changed since the State of the Union address in which Trump honored the memory of Otto Warmbier and detailed the atrocities of the North Korean regime? In gratitude for the exchange of pleasantries, the release of a few hostages, and vague offers of “denuclearization” Trump has made himself Kim’s doormat."
Can I list the Liberal types that have gone to dictator countries and praised the dictators, or maybe voice my dislike of an actual "Socialist/Progressive" politician that wanted us to be like Argentina ?
The highlighted sections is exactly what Obama and Reagan actually did....so it would come to my mind that "Reagan" and "Obama" can be a subject of the article.
If I can't say any of that, should I just say...…"Great Article" and move on ?
Can I list the Liberal types that have gone to dictator countries and praised the dictators, or maybe voice my dislike of an actual "Socialist/Progressive" politician that wanted us to be like Argentina ?
By all means list away.
By all means list away.
I'm being watched 
for any little hiccup. 
Seeya ! 
Not fair. Remove the term 'Obama' from the conservative lexicon and all that is left is drool dripping off the chin.
But no historical comparisons
---------------------If I can't say any of that, should I just say...…"Great Article" and move on ?
Even though the seeded article refers to historical comparisons, you and I are clearly not allowed to do the same.
Even though the seeded article refers to historical comparisons, you and I are clearly not allowed to do the same.
What I want is for you to leave me and my seeds alone. I do believe you came here looking for a fight. And don't start that whining shit again. Not everybody is out to get you.
If I have to, I will get a moderator to tell us both to leave each other alone. I've done it before.
But he showed quite a lot of ankle in his note. “I felt a wonderful dialogue was building up between you and me,” he cooed, closing with words conceding that it was Kim, not Trump, who had actually cancelled.
Mona Charen deliberately omitted the first paragraph of Trump's letter which proves that Trump canceled the first meeting:
Dear Mr. Chairman:We greatly appreciate your time, patience, and effort with respect to our recent negotiations and discussions relative to a summit long sought by both parties, which was scheduled to take place on June 12 in Singapore. We were informed that the meeting was requested by North Korea, but that to us is totally irrelevant. I was very much looking forward to being there with you. Sadly, based on the tremendous anger and open hostility displayed in your most recent statement, I feel it is inappropriate, at this time, to have this long-planned meeting. Therefore, please let this letter serve to represent that the Singapore summit, for the good of both parties, but to the detriment of the world, will not take place. You talk about nuclear capabilities, but ours are so massive and powerful that I pray to God they will never have to be used.
Then why does he say in the 3rd para "If you change your mind having to do with this most important summit, please do not hesitate to call me or write."
That in itself sounds like Kim canceled first and this letter is an open invitation to meet whenever Kim wants. The first para may be a red herring because Trump already fully knows Kim canceled because of the U.S./SK exercises ongoing in the area.
Then why does he say in the 3rd para "If you change your mind having to do with this most important summit, please do not hesitate to call me or write."
Good question, but as everyone knows, Trump's entire career has been based upon negotiations and deal-making. Contrary to what the article's author ignorantly claims, she shows that she doesn't understand that Trump threw out enticing carrots to pull Kim back to the table. Kim took the bait, because as we now know, he altered his attitude by reining in his anger and hostility and had an envoy personally deliver a letter to Trump.
It was Kim who crawled back, and anyone who can't see that is blinded by partisanship. Although everyone agrees that Kim is a disgusting despot Kim seems to understand that his and his predecessors' brinkmanship games won't work with Trump and his Administration.
No one can honestly say that the June 2018 US/NoKo summit was not an historic a first step.
Who is online
120 visitors
COPYRIGHT 2018 CREATORS.COM