You've said absolutely nothing that disputes the numerous published reports that Trump lurched into this impulsively. Worse, you seem unaware of this. I think Goat's take on your posts is too charitable.
"Hopefully, you will give me credit."
- Thread starter UncleMark
- Start date
Well you two should speak with each other more often....
.... your proof is nothing but reading tea leaves.
The more I read, the loonier this gets:
North Korea has been desperate for a state-visit from a sitting U.S. president since at least the Clinton administration. White House Press Secretary Sarah Sanders has said that the United States has not made any concessions, but let’s be clear: THE MEETING IS THE CONCESSION.
Although President Trump seems to be under the impression that the meeting would be to discuss the elimination of North Korea’s nuclear weapons, the North Koreans haven’t said anything remotely like that.
In fact, all we have from the North Koreans is the secondhand account of a South Korean diplomat of his boozy dinner with Kim Jong Un and an email sent by the North Korean ambassador to the United Nations to Anna Fifield at the Washington Post.
What Kim said, according to the South Korean envoy Chung Eui-yong, was pretty thin gruel: that North Korea would not need nuclear weapons if “military threats towards the North are cleared and the security of its regime is guaranteed.” The email to Fifield didn’t seem to mention it at all, merely offering to explain North Korea’s position to the United States.
In other words, Trump seems to have thought that Kim would meet to give up his nuclear weapons. But for Kim the meeting is about being treated as an equal because of his nuclear and missile programs. After all, Saddam Hussein abandoned his weapons and was invaded and hanged. Muammar al-Qaddafi abandoned his and was toppled with the help of American airpower and dragged out of his SUV to a grisly death. Kim Jong Un, by contrast, kept his programs and now is on the verge of a state visit.
The Trump administration now seems to realize this. And so, despite the president personally teasing the announcement, the White House is now saying that no meeting will occur until North Korea takes “concrete steps” toward denuclearizing — a restatement of its previous position.
So, what’s happening? I suspect we are seeing the downside of both the denuding of State Department expertise and the curious way in which staff Trump’s staff handles him: like a toddler, in Dan Drezner’s famous characterization.
. . . They may think they are pulling one over on Trump, but what happens when he realizes that Kim Jong Un isn’t giving up the bomb? Do we think the U.S. president is so dumb that he will just be beguiled by tens of thousands of North Koreans packed into a stadium holding up cards that form a picture of his smiling face? Don’t we think that he will, eventually, realize that Kim is getting the better of him? And what happens then? We should be careful that Trump’s childish optimism does not curdle into bitter resentment. In that case 2019 might be more dangerous than 2017.
Because once Trump realizes it, he will look to blame someone. Will Trump blame Rex Tillerson, his embattled secretary of state? In that case, perhaps we’re lucky; the only punishment will be trading Tillerson for Nikki Haley. What if he blames Moon? Will that trigger a crisis in the relationship with Seoul? And then there is my big fear: What if Trump blames Kim Jong Un? What if Trump concludes that the problem was that Kim somehow misled him? That might be very dangerous. It all depends on where the blame lands. And the only thing we know, is that Trump won’t blame himself.
Although President Trump seems to be under the impression that the meeting would be to discuss the elimination of North Korea’s nuclear weapons, the North Koreans haven’t said anything remotely like that.
In fact, all we have from the North Koreans is the secondhand account of a South Korean diplomat of his boozy dinner with Kim Jong Un and an email sent by the North Korean ambassador to the United Nations to Anna Fifield at the Washington Post.
What Kim said, according to the South Korean envoy Chung Eui-yong, was pretty thin gruel: that North Korea would not need nuclear weapons if “military threats towards the North are cleared and the security of its regime is guaranteed.” The email to Fifield didn’t seem to mention it at all, merely offering to explain North Korea’s position to the United States.
In other words, Trump seems to have thought that Kim would meet to give up his nuclear weapons. But for Kim the meeting is about being treated as an equal because of his nuclear and missile programs. After all, Saddam Hussein abandoned his weapons and was invaded and hanged. Muammar al-Qaddafi abandoned his and was toppled with the help of American airpower and dragged out of his SUV to a grisly death. Kim Jong Un, by contrast, kept his programs and now is on the verge of a state visit.
The Trump administration now seems to realize this. And so, despite the president personally teasing the announcement, the White House is now saying that no meeting will occur until North Korea takes “concrete steps” toward denuclearizing — a restatement of its previous position.
So, what’s happening? I suspect we are seeing the downside of both the denuding of State Department expertise and the curious way in which staff Trump’s staff handles him: like a toddler, in Dan Drezner’s famous characterization.
. . . They may think they are pulling one over on Trump, but what happens when he realizes that Kim Jong Un isn’t giving up the bomb? Do we think the U.S. president is so dumb that he will just be beguiled by tens of thousands of North Koreans packed into a stadium holding up cards that form a picture of his smiling face? Don’t we think that he will, eventually, realize that Kim is getting the better of him? And what happens then? We should be careful that Trump’s childish optimism does not curdle into bitter resentment. In that case 2019 might be more dangerous than 2017.
Because once Trump realizes it, he will look to blame someone. Will Trump blame Rex Tillerson, his embattled secretary of state? In that case, perhaps we’re lucky; the only punishment will be trading Tillerson for Nikki Haley. What if he blames Moon? Will that trigger a crisis in the relationship with Seoul? And then there is my big fear: What if Trump blames Kim Jong Un? What if Trump concludes that the problem was that Kim somehow misled him? That might be very dangerous. It all depends on where the blame lands. And the only thing we know, is that Trump won’t blame himself.
Well you two should speak with each other more often....
If the above is true, I argue that merely agreeing to have a meeting was the concession made by a previous administration. So what great news source are you getting these great analysis from?
More:
Over the past six weeks, the Trump administration’s roster of Korea experts, already depleted, grew even thinner. The White House mysteriously dropped its choice for ambassador to Seoul. The State Department’s top North Korea specialist resigned. And the senior Asia director at the National Security Council was out the past two weeks on paternity leave.
But when a high-level South Korean delegation arrived at the White House on Thursday afternoon for two days of meetings over the North Korea threat, one person swooped in to fill the vacuum: President Trump.
In a stunning turn of events, Trump personally intervened in a security briefing intended for his top deputies, inviting the South Korean officials into the Oval Office, where he agreed on the spot to a historic but exceedingly risky summit with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un. He then orchestrated a dramatic public announcement on the driveway outside the West Wing broadcast live on cable networks.
The news shocked Washington, Seoul and everywhere in between.
. . . But what the whirlwind evening at the White House also illustrated was that in his unorthodox presidency, which centers so singularly on his force of personality, Trump has little worry about a dearth of qualified staff because he considers himself to be his own diplomat, negotiator and strategist.
“The president is the ultimate negotiator and dealmaker when it comes to any type of conversation,” White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said. “And we feel very confident in where we are.”
The question is where exactly is the Trump White House — and how did it get there?
The answer wasn’t clear Friday as Trump aides struggled to explain whether concrete steps from Pyongyang toward denuclearization were a precondition ahead of the summit, what the agenda of the talks will encompass and how a president known to disdain dense briefing books intends to prepare for an adversary that U.S. intelligence officials don’t know much about.
. . . The South Koreans, who have fretted over Trump’s saber-rattling over the past several months, landed at Dulles International Airport midmorning Thursday. Perhaps battling jet lag after the 13-hour flight, they arrived at the White House in early afternoon for what they thought was the warm-up act: a meeting with Trump’s top aides, including Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, Deputy Secretary of State John Sullivan and Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats.
Led by South Korea’s national security adviser, Chung Eui-yong, the delegation’s aim was to debrief Trump’s team on the four-hour meeting Chung held with Kim in Pyongyang shortly after the Olympics, which had provided the two Koreas a chance to reopen a long-dormant diplomatic dialogue.
But what was supposed to be an hour-long briefing took an unexpected turn when Trump himself intervened midway through. The Koreans had been scheduled to see Trump on Friday, but the president had gotten wind of the meeting and told aides he wanted to get involved immediately.
In the Oval Office, Chung explained to Trump that he had brought with him a personal invitation from Kim for a meeting — a stunning offer given Kim has not met with any foreign heads of state since assuming control of the North after his father’s death in 2011.
. . . Earlier this week, Vice President Pence, who was supposed to meet with North Korean officials during the Olympics to deliver a hard-line warning, vowed that the administration’s “posture toward the regime will not change until we see concrete steps toward denuclearization.” On Thursday, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, traveling in Africa, told reporters that the administration was “a long ways from negotiations.”
In the Oval Office, some of Trump’s aides raised concerns, according to a person familiar with the discussion. But Trump, seated in an armchair next to Chung, with their aides arrayed on couches, dismissed their fears and “made the decision” on the spot.
But when a high-level South Korean delegation arrived at the White House on Thursday afternoon for two days of meetings over the North Korea threat, one person swooped in to fill the vacuum: President Trump.
In a stunning turn of events, Trump personally intervened in a security briefing intended for his top deputies, inviting the South Korean officials into the Oval Office, where he agreed on the spot to a historic but exceedingly risky summit with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un. He then orchestrated a dramatic public announcement on the driveway outside the West Wing broadcast live on cable networks.
The news shocked Washington, Seoul and everywhere in between.
. . . But what the whirlwind evening at the White House also illustrated was that in his unorthodox presidency, which centers so singularly on his force of personality, Trump has little worry about a dearth of qualified staff because he considers himself to be his own diplomat, negotiator and strategist.
“The president is the ultimate negotiator and dealmaker when it comes to any type of conversation,” White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders said. “And we feel very confident in where we are.”
The question is where exactly is the Trump White House — and how did it get there?
The answer wasn’t clear Friday as Trump aides struggled to explain whether concrete steps from Pyongyang toward denuclearization were a precondition ahead of the summit, what the agenda of the talks will encompass and how a president known to disdain dense briefing books intends to prepare for an adversary that U.S. intelligence officials don’t know much about.
. . . The South Koreans, who have fretted over Trump’s saber-rattling over the past several months, landed at Dulles International Airport midmorning Thursday. Perhaps battling jet lag after the 13-hour flight, they arrived at the White House in early afternoon for what they thought was the warm-up act: a meeting with Trump’s top aides, including Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, Deputy Secretary of State John Sullivan and Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats.
Led by South Korea’s national security adviser, Chung Eui-yong, the delegation’s aim was to debrief Trump’s team on the four-hour meeting Chung held with Kim in Pyongyang shortly after the Olympics, which had provided the two Koreas a chance to reopen a long-dormant diplomatic dialogue.
But what was supposed to be an hour-long briefing took an unexpected turn when Trump himself intervened midway through. The Koreans had been scheduled to see Trump on Friday, but the president had gotten wind of the meeting and told aides he wanted to get involved immediately.
In the Oval Office, Chung explained to Trump that he had brought with him a personal invitation from Kim for a meeting — a stunning offer given Kim has not met with any foreign heads of state since assuming control of the North after his father’s death in 2011.
. . . Earlier this week, Vice President Pence, who was supposed to meet with North Korean officials during the Olympics to deliver a hard-line warning, vowed that the administration’s “posture toward the regime will not change until we see concrete steps toward denuclearization.” On Thursday, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, traveling in Africa, told reporters that the administration was “a long ways from negotiations.”
In the Oval Office, some of Trump’s aides raised concerns, according to a person familiar with the discussion. But Trump, seated in an armchair next to Chung, with their aides arrayed on couches, dismissed their fears and “made the decision” on the spot.
You can argue whatever you want, but in fact no prior administration has made any such concession.
I see you are posting this from Foreign Policy.
This goes again to my point about bias. For the first time in 50 Years, Foreign Policy endorsed a Presidential Canidate in Hillary Clinton. The endorsement wasn’t enough. They had to opine on it. You say my head is up my arse. I say yours is if you think you are reading non biased analysis. They have a vested interest in him failing read their reason for the endorsement then tell me why you would base your opinion on Trump from this source:
“Were she to be elected as this country’s first woman president, not only would it be historic and send an important signal about both inclusiveness and Americans’ commitment to electing candidates who have distinguished themselves on their merits, but she would enter office having already put down one great threat to the United States of America — the grotesque and deeply disturbing prospect of a Donald Trumppresidency,” they wrote.
The editors slammed the GOP nominee for his "dangerous" policy views, writing that he has "played into the hands of terrorists" promoted the leadership of Russian leader Vladimir Putin.
"The dangers Trump presents as president stretch beyond the United States to the international economy, to global security, to America’s allies, as well as to countless innocents everywhere who would be the victims of his inexperience, his perverse policy views, and the profound unsuitability of his temperament for the office he seeks," the editors wrote.
The magazine endorsed Hillary, so you disbelieve any facts reported in its pages -- even though they're the same facts everyone else is reporting. This is how stupidity defends itself.
Daniel Larison says the same thing I've been saying -- at The American Conservative.
Did you read what they wrote??? If you are coming from THAT position there is no way that they can considered unbiased at all.....
You should hope Foreign Policy never reports that the red light means stop, or you'll have to prove just how dense you really are.
What sources do you use for news that you consider unbiased and have no opinion sections? Can you give me 3?
Daniels opinion on why he didn’t support Trump for President:
So why not Trump? Well, where to start? Trump is unfit for any position of authority because of his many failings of temperament, preparation, and judgment. Even if I could somehow overlook all of that, he isn’t going to deliver the foreign policy or any of the other policies that many of his supporters hope for. He can’t be trusted and changes his positions to whatever suits him at the time, but his stated foreign policy views are mostly awful or incoherent anyway. Trump takes a number of positions that make him just as unacceptable as any previous Republican nominee from this century. He isn’t really antiwar, and he’s definitely not antiwar when it matters (i.e., before the war starts). He routinely denounces the results of diplomatic engagement, wants to bring back torture, rejects the nuclear deal, takes a shamelessly pro-settler view of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and seeks to have an even more bloated military budget than we already do.
On top of that, his running mate is a dyed-in-the-wool hawk who backed every failed Bush policy, he surrounds himself with hard-liners and authoritarians of the worst kind (e.g., Bolton, Flynn, Giuliani, Gingrich, etc.), and he reportedly plans to appoint some of them to major Cabinet posts if elected. If anyone thinks that Trump won’t pursue regime change abroad, consider that at least three of his prominent supporters and possible appointees (Gingrich, Giuliani, Bolton) are public MEK boosters. That is the alternative that is being offered, and there is no way that I would vote for such a ticket. End/
I think it is funny how you guys fall to calling people names.... watch out goat may label you a child.
Um...yeah, I suspect that North Korea will turn out a lot like Carrier, where he'll claim something significant happened only for it to be revealed to be total bullshit.
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/carrier-jobs-to-mexico-despite-trump-deal/
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/06/22/trumps-carrier-jobs-deal-is-just-not-living-up-to-the-hype.html
Exactly. And despite the widely published reports that Trump's Carrier stunt was all bullshit, his supporters' ability to avoid knowing about that is something like a superpower they possess -- much like Hack's almost heroic efforts to remain oblivious here. On occasion iu@att tries to reach out in good faith to bridge this intellectual chasm, but I don't understand how you can reach people who don't know things because they just won't know them.
@Hoosier_Hack recently said that Trump is going to go down as one of our all-time best presidents because of how he delivered a speech. A speech. One speech. So, yeah…
No sir I didn’t... need to roll that back a bit.... you changed a few words in that sentence
MILF? Do you often objectify and demean women like a run of the mill sexist?
Only the republican ones.... don’t knock it. It’s the gift from the left that keeps on giving.
Isn’t he taking a shot at how Donald talks about his own daughter? He’s literally called her a piece of ass before. When he’s not saying that he would like to have sex with her if she wasn’t his daughter. On national television.
In short...no he wasn’t. But please do continue to justify it and explain it away. Deflection....
Please please please the nuance....
In a single video,everything that is wrong with Fox "News"
Total nothingburger, libtard. You don't do nuance, do you?
Trump's trade war changes China's calculus on North Korea
https://www.axios.com/north-korea-c...-un-0508da35-6cd0-41b1-bf6e-60d55b780941.html
https://www.axios.com/north-korea-c...-un-0508da35-6cd0-41b1-bf6e-60d55b780941.html
Similar threads
