If President Obama (who got nowhere with North Korea and would have had to go to war with many millions of people being killed) had gotten along with North Korea and made the initial steps toward a deal that I have, the Fake News would have named him a national hero!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 18, 2018
CNN: Trump demands credit for getting along with Kim Jong Un
Washington (CNN)President Donald Trump continued to defend his budding relationship with North Korean leader Kim Jong Un on Monday, demanding credit for his role in making "initial steps toward a deal" by establishing a personal rapport with the young dictator during last week's summit in Singapore.
"If President Obama (who got nowhere with North Korea and would have had to go to war with many millions of people being killed) had gotten along with North Korea and made the initial steps toward a deal that I have, the Fake News would have named him a national hero!" Trump tweeted.
Read more ....
Update: A week later, President Trump is still defending North Korea agreement (USA Today)
WNU Editor: The President does have a point. In the U.S. critics of President Trump have been going non-stop in criticizing and ridiculing President Trump's efforts during and after the Singapore summit .... John Oliver calls deal between US and North Korea 'close to meaningless' (The Guardian). For the South Koreans and others in the region, they have a completely different point of view .... For South Koreans, Singapore summit was far from a failure (CNN). So who is right?
4 comments:
In answer to your question 'So who is right', how could there be any question? That's easy. Especially when the situation has been dumbed down to 4 words; Obama right, Trump wrong. Always. See. Life is simple when you're a deplorable. obama is watching out for you.
Helpless and deplorable Roger
I sleep much better knowing that North Korea no longer has any nuclear weapons.
Girl: Are you sure you are using protection? guy: trust me. you will find out.
"So who is right?" I've tried to formulate a response to this twice but my responses were to many characters. First of all without inside information in real time we cannot "know" for certain. With that said, when there are competing viewpoints, while it is NOT an exact science to try and determine who is right, based upon the prior experience of the parties, there creditability, and common sense we can make inferences.
The South Koreans and their leaders are on the front lines, the leadership, and the current negotiations enjoy high approval ratings. This is a country where 33% of the officers believe America to be the primary enemy. As officers come from the population, I think it safe to say this can be extrapolated to the population as a whole. As such, this suggests that not only may our relations with SK be improving but the people with the most experience and the most to lose from a failure support the process. When trying to determine who is right, a good place to start is on who has the most knowledge, the most to gain from success, and the most to lose from failure. This would seem to be SK and those in the region.
Then we have POTUS and his team. He is a highly skilled negotiator and dealmaker who has decades of experience in this area. Additionally all the moves he and his team make are being closely scrutinized. As such, it generally be expected that any what he says or does would be reasonably credible.
Lastly we have the "western" media. Whom do we believe, a Guardian pundit along with other new media sources who aren't involved directly in the negotiations, don't have relevant real world experience, and have a history of errors, if not outright dishonesty in some cases or do we believe the South Koreans, others in the region, and POTUS who all have such experiences and have generally shown good judgment in this area. I think we could probably stop here but there is more.
Recently the media reacted hysterically to the suspension of military drills and to a salute. As for the suspension of military drills, given the situation, this would have been obvious, so much so that one should not have to have been told. It's sort of like don't touch a hot stove or jump out of 3rd story window onto the concrete below. Adults know such things and do not need to be told. In fact, to have to be told suggests a deranged mind. As for the salute, one can easily find the context online. Essentially during a tense session where leaders are meeting and greeting POTUS could have returned the salute or not returned the salute. To have not done so carried with it huge downside risks and no upside potential. To have returned the salute carries with it much upside potential along with no downside risks. I am sure the protocols will be worked on both sides for the next meeting. This was NOT worth the media hysteria. By behaving as they did these people indicate that they are not serious about trying to achieve peace and it would seem unwise to trust their judgment.
In conclusion, who is "right" is hard to know but based upon the evidence at hand it would seem the news media would be the group that would be least trustworthy. As to whether or not Trump deserves "credit," leaders like Moon, Kim, Xi, and Putin are nothing new and the likes of them have pretty much always been around. Not long after Trump entered office progress started to be made. He is the only new variable to the equation. As such, he is probably primarily responsible for the progress that has been made. Can much still go wrong? Of course!!
His tweet seems relatively obvious to me. Had BHO achieved this he would be being praised. As long as progress continues to be made, tensions are reduced, and we continue moving towards a peaceful resolution, I don't care who gets the credit. POTUS does not either. Worrying about where and to whom to assign credit to is the purview of DJT's political opponents and the news media.
Post a Comment