Skip to main content

"UTTER NONSENSE"

After Donald Trump's "major" foreign policy address, the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Republican Bob Corker, announced that he was very impressed, extolling "the broadness, the vision" of the speech.

The Wall Street Journal said it was "serious." The National Interest's Jacob Heilbrunn opined that the candidate was "more restrained." Clearly we now consider it a wonder of sorts that Trump can spend 40 minutes in front of cameras during which he avoids vulgarity, refrains from bigotry, and reads from a teleprompter.

The speech was, in fact, an embarrassment — a meandering collection of slogans that were mostly pablum: "We must make America strong again"; "Our goal is peace and prosperity."

It did not contain his most absurd and unworkable suggestions — building a wall on the U.S.-Mexico border; stopping people from sending their own money to relatives in Mexico; banning all Muslims from entering the United States; and a 45 percent tariff on Chinese goods. So it was an improvement, I suppose.

The most striking aspect of the speech was its repeated contradictions. "We will spend what we need to rebuild our military," he promised (though Washington already spends more than the next seven countries put together). But almost in the same breath, he talked about pinching pennies because of the crippling national debt. Trump is against humanitarian interventions, but implied that we should have intervened to help embattled Christians in the Middle East.

Trump put America's closest allies on notice that if they didn't pay their fair share on defense, a complaint Washington has made for at least four decades, he would end America's security guarantees to them. "We have no choice," he exclaimed. Then, he assured them that he would be a close and reliable ally. He promised to be "consistent" and yet "unpredictable." Is your head spinning yet?

Mostly Trump's speech was populist pandering masquerading as a strategy. But one theme emerged. Donald Trump is a Jacksonian. In his book "Special Providence," Walter Russell Mead explains that Andrew Jackson represents a distinctly populist style of American thinking that is quite different from the country's other major ideological traditions.

It is anti-immigrant and nativist, economically liberal and populist. In foreign policy, it is largely isolationist but, if and when engaged abroad, militaristic and unilateral. In trade, it is protectionist, and on all matters, deeply suspicious of international alliances and global conventions.

The Jacksonian tradition quite neatly describes Trump's foreign policy, though one has to add to it the element of narcissism that is evident in every aspect of the candidate's worldview. ("I'm the only one — believe me, I know them all — I'm the only one who knows how to fix it.")

Jacksonians are exasperated not by enemies but by our allies. They want to either abandon the world or utterly dominate it. What is deeply exasperating — in fact, intolerable — for them is engaging with the world and working with other countries to achieve incremental progress, manage conflicts and solve problems. Unfortunately, that happens to be what the bulk of foreign policy actually looks like.

If we want to defeat the Islamic State, for example, what is going to make that possible is complicated. It will be a series of military moves that wrest control of its territory, political and economic efforts to help local Sunni forces who can hold the land and provide effective government to the people, and intense diplomatic work with countries in the region to ensure that they support this process rather than disrupt it.

But Trump has a better idea, a secret plan that will zap the group into oblivion. He won't tell them, or us, what it is or when it will happen.

In 1993, the scholar-Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan wrote an essay titled, "Defining Deviancy Down." In it, he explained that American society was quietly accepting as normal behavior what would be considered "abnormal by any earlier standard."

Welcome to the Trump campaign, of which his speech on foreign policy was only the most recent example.

Breaking News at Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/FareedZ...26481/#ixzz47RX2arE7
Urgent: Rate Obama on His Job Performance. Vote Here Now!

Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Progs railed on neocons for interventionism -- invading Iraq.  Then, Obama doubled down by destroying the government of Libya and encouraging the same in Syria., unleashing more chaos and introducing ISIS to the world. After that, Obama made a treaty with Iran, which the Persians broke before the ink was dry.

And, Trump utters nonsense? 

As to Jacksonians, the analysis is faulty, at least. During Jackson's administration, we had few allies.  France was in chaos, Spain has no use for us.  The Brits were at sword's edge, at best.  They wanted our cotton, but still desired to return.  Jackson betrayed one of his only allies --- the Cherokee nation. 

Yep, Trump is a populist, but I'm not sure about the Jacksonian part. Right now most of our NATO allies signed on to the EU socialist suicide pact; they're cannibalizing their militaries to pay for their welfare systems, even giving benefits they can't afford to those who are trying to destroy them while expecting the US military to save them from all possible threats. Friends don't let friends kill themselves stupidly, so I suspect Trump is giving them a wakeup call.

Contendahh posted:
direstraits posted:

Trump pointed out that only four of the NATO nations, besides the US is paying the two percent of GDP on their own defense. We should insist they up their defense budgets to the promised level, or write the US  a check for the difference. 

___

They is?

Nothing of substance to add, Ms. Grundy?

Those commenting on this topic have done a masterful job of addressing only one of several significant issues actually raised in the article I posted, namely the matter of other NATO members paying their shares, something that the article recognized ("a complaint Washington has made for at least four decades").

Mead's descripton of Trump's Jacksonianism stands:

"It is anti-immigrant and nativist, economically liberal and populist. In foreign policy, it is largely isolationist but, if and when engaged abroad, militaristic and unilateral. In trade, it is protectionist, and on all matters, deeply suspicious of international alliances and global conventions."

And the induction of the series of Middle East debacles does indeed trace back to a signal event, the invasion of Iraq on false pretenses and the poking of the Islamic bear--neocon initiatives that lit the fuse.  No way around that.

 

Contendahh posted:

Those commenting on this topic have done a masterful job of addressing only one of several significant issues actually raised in the article I posted, namely the matter of other NATO members paying their shares, something that the article recognized ("a complaint Washington has made for at least four decades").

Mead's descripton of Trump's Jacksonianism stands:

"It is anti-immigrant and nativist, economically liberal and populist. In foreign policy, it is largely isolationist but, if and when engaged abroad, militaristic and unilateral. In trade, it is protectionist, and on all matters, deeply suspicious of international alliances and global conventions."

And the induction of the series of Middle East debacles does indeed trace back to a signal event, the invasion of Iraq on false pretenses and the poking of the Islamic bear--neocon initiatives that lit the fuse.  No way around that.

 

The Islamist Bear slew thousands in this nation, not just on 9/11.  Invasion of Afghanistan and individual actions elsewhere were not only justified, but required.  Whereas, the invasion of Iraq was not. Certainly Obama and Hillary doubled down on stupid actions in Libya, Syria and Iran. 

Perhaps, Contenduhh, you should limit your comments to such esoteric grammar matters as the proper use of the diastole, trigon, interpunct and diple punctuation marks, which are in your competency range.

direstraits posted:
Contendahh posted:

Those commenting on this topic have done a masterful job of addressing only one of several significant issues actually raised in the article I posted, namely the matter of other NATO members paying their shares, something that the article recognized ("a complaint Washington has made for at least four decades").

Mead's descripton of Trump's Jacksonianism stands:

"It is anti-immigrant and nativist, economically liberal and populist. In foreign policy, it is largely isolationist but, if and when engaged abroad, militaristic and unilateral. In trade, it is protectionist, and on all matters, deeply suspicious of international alliances and global conventions."

And the induction of the series of Middle East debacles does indeed trace back to a signal event, the invasion of Iraq on false pretenses and the poking of the Islamic bear--neocon initiatives that lit the fuse.  No way around that.

 

The Islamist Bear slew thousands in this nation, not just on 9/11.  Invasion of Afghanistan and individual actions elsewhere were not only justified, but required.  Whereas, the invasion of Iraq was not. Certainly Obama and Hillary doubled down on stupid actions in Libya, Syria and Iran. 

Perhaps, Contenduhh, you should limit your comments to such esoteric grammar matters as the proper use of the diastole, trigon, interpunct and diple punctuation marks, which are in your competency range.

___

I am glad to see you implicitly acknowledge that the single most igniting and precipitating event leading to the widespread Middle Eastern crises was the unwise, neocon-instigated invasion of Iraq. I would remind you and other wingers that the conservative sector was strongly behind that unwise and deadly invasion.

Contendahh posted:
direstraits posted:
Contendahh posted:

Those commenting on this topic have done a masterful job of addressing only one of several significant issues actually raised in the article I posted, namely the matter of other NATO members paying their shares, something that the article recognized ("a complaint Washington has made for at least four decades").

Mead's descripton of Trump's Jacksonianism stands:

"It is anti-immigrant and nativist, economically liberal and populist. In foreign policy, it is largely isolationist but, if and when engaged abroad, militaristic and unilateral. In trade, it is protectionist, and on all matters, deeply suspicious of international alliances and global conventions."

And the induction of the series of Middle East debacles does indeed trace back to a signal event, the invasion of Iraq on false pretenses and the poking of the Islamic bear--neocon initiatives that lit the fuse.  No way around that.

 

The Islamist Bear slew thousands in this nation, not just on 9/11.  Invasion of Afghanistan and individual actions elsewhere were not only justified, but required.  Whereas, the invasion of Iraq was not. Certainly Obama and Hillary doubled down on stupid actions in Libya, Syria and Iran. 

Perhaps, Contenduhh, you should limit your comments to such esoteric grammar matters as the proper use of the diastole, trigon, interpunct and diple punctuation marks, which are in your competency range.

___

I am glad to see you implicitly acknowledge that the single most igniting and precipitating event leading to the widespread Middle Eastern crises was the unwise, neocon-instigated invasion of Iraq. I would remind you and other wingers that the conservative sector was strongly behind that unwise and deadly invasion.

The Dems war.

giftedamateur posted:

Contendahh, why your obsession with Trump? How in the world could his speech be any worse than Sander's or Clinton's speech?  I'll tell you, it couldn't. On a side note, did you run "correct" Jt? 

____

Why is it that you and certain others on this forum characterize interest and commentary on the most highly-publicized and controversial politician in the country today as "obsession"? It makes no sense whatsoever for you to do so. Are those who comment often on Hillary or Obama to be considered "obsessed"?  Are those who repeatedly and boringly post cut and paste accounts of crime by minorities "obsessed" on that subject? Why are accusations of "obsession" on this forum so selectively targeted toward what I post?  I will tell you why--because it is easier to cry "obsession" than to actually address the negative issues attached to such vulgarian entities as Trump, Sarah Palin,  or other nutjobs on whose nutterances I comment.

Last edited by Contendahh
Contendahh posted:
giftedamateur posted:

Contendahh, why your obsession with Trump? How in the world could his speech be any worse than Sander's or Clinton's speech?  I'll tell you, it couldn't. On a side note, did you run "correct" Jt? 

____

Why is it that you and certain others on this forum characterize interest and commentary on the most highly-publicized and controversial politician in the country today as "obsession"? It makes no sense whatsoever for you to do so. Are those who comment often on Hillary or Obama to be considered "obsessed"?  Are those who repeatedly and boringly post cut and paste accounts of crime by minorities "obsessed" on that subject? Why are accusations of "obsession" on this forum so selectively targeted toward what I post?  I will tell you why--because it is easier to cry "obsession" than to actually address the negative issues attached to such vulgarian entities as Trump, Sarah Palin,  or other nutjobs on whose nutterances I comment.

 You make thread after thread instead of keeping one going. You post something, wait a few days, and make yet another thread on the same thing. How many have you made on how he treats women? Of course people will ask the obvious, why his treatment of women bothers you, but the treatment women get from the two Clintons, which is worse, doesn't bother you at all.  You would vote for either one of those criminals. You are obsessed with filling the forum with your threads. Why don't you give the criminal Clintons the same treatment? Or the Socialist Sanders? It's because you are a hypocrite with zero credibility.

Contendahh posted:
direstraits posted:
Contendahh posted:

Those commenting on this topic have done a masterful job of addressing only one of several significant issues actually raised in the article I posted, namely the matter of other NATO members paying their shares, something that the article recognized ("a complaint Washington has made for at least four decades").

Mead's descripton of Trump's Jacksonianism stands:

"It is anti-immigrant and nativist, economically liberal and populist. In foreign policy, it is largely isolationist but, if and when engaged abroad, militaristic and unilateral. In trade, it is protectionist, and on all matters, deeply suspicious of international alliances and global conventions."

And the induction of the series of Middle East debacles does indeed trace back to a signal event, the invasion of Iraq on false pretenses and the poking of the Islamic bear--neocon initiatives that lit the fuse.  No way around that.

 

The Islamist Bear slew thousands in this nation, not just on 9/11.  Invasion of Afghanistan and individual actions elsewhere were not only justified, but required.  Whereas, the invasion of Iraq was not. Certainly Obama and Hillary doubled down on stupid actions in Libya, Syria and Iran. 

Perhaps, Contenduhh, you should limit your comments to such esoteric grammar matters as the proper use of the diastole, trigon, interpunct and diple punctuation marks, which are in your competency range.

___

I am glad to see you implicitly acknowledge that the single most igniting and precipitating event leading to the widespread Middle Eastern crises was the unwise, neocon-instigated invasion of Iraq. I would remind you and other wingers that the conservative sector was strongly behind that unwise and deadly invasion.

You conveniently ignored the subsequent Democrat actions that added napalm to the fire.  Stick to grammar, Ms. Grundy.

Contendahh posted:
direstraits posted:
Contendahh posted:

Those commenting on this topic have done a masterful job of addressing only one of several significant issues actually raised in the article I posted, namely the matter of other NATO members paying their shares, something that the article recognized ("a complaint Washington has made for at least four decades").

Mead's descripton of Trump's Jacksonianism stands:

"It is anti-immigrant and nativist, economically liberal and populist. In foreign policy, it is largely isolationist but, if and when engaged abroad, militaristic and unilateral. In trade, it is protectionist, and on all matters, deeply suspicious of international alliances and global conventions."

And the induction of the series of Middle East debacles does indeed trace back to a signal event, the invasion of Iraq on false pretenses and the poking of the Islamic bear--neocon initiatives that lit the fuse.  No way around that.

 

The Islamist Bear slew thousands in this nation, not just on 9/11.  Invasion of Afghanistan and individual actions elsewhere were not only justified, but required.  Whereas, the invasion of Iraq was not. Certainly Obama and Hillary doubled down on stupid actions in Libya, Syria and Iran. 

Perhaps, Contenduhh, you should limit your comments to such esoteric grammar matters as the proper use of the diastole, trigon, interpunct and diple punctuation marks, which are in your competency range.

___

I am glad to see you implicitly acknowledge that the single most igniting and precipitating event leading to the widespread Middle Eastern crises was the unwise, neocon-instigated invasion of Iraq. I would remind you and other wingers that the conservative sector was strongly behind that unwise and deadly invasion.

What we had in Iraq was a president who acted to protect the country in ignorance. After the 911 hit, everyone was eager to protect the country from the next hit while assuming that Islamists would want a bigger or more scary outcome. While the Bin Laden link might not have been as robust as one would like, there was good evidence of cooperation with the second in command of Al-Qaeda who had his own operation .

http://humanevents.com/2008/03...addam-and-terrorism/

 

As Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump hammers away at former President George W. Bush for not stopping the September 11 attacks, another factor could be added to the debate: Mr. Bush inherited from Bill Clinton an intelligence community in terrible shape.

This fact comes not from a Republican partisan but from George Tenet, President Clinton’s CIA director, a post that at the time made him the country’s top intelligence officer.

 

Mr. Tenet wrote in his memoirs, “At the Center of the Storm,” that Mr. Clinton left Mr. Bush with a CIA that was in “Chapter 11.” The eavesdropping National Security Agency was “crumbling” and “going deaf,” he said.

It is one explanation for why the intelligence community failed to discover and stop the September 11 plot.

Mr. Clinton is an integral part of Hillary Clinton’s Democratic presidential campaign. The record shows that, as commander in chief, he shrunk the CIA at the very time al Qaeda was expanding.

http://www.washingtontimes.com...igence-com/?page=all

Last edited by Stanky

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×