Foreign Policy Decisions

1) Ruby Cramer, “Trump is ‘fascist to the core,’ Milley says in Woodward book; The former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff says Trump is “the most dangerous person to this country,” echoing dire warnings of others in national security circles,” Washington Post, October 12, 2024 (2:27 p.m. EDT);

1) Sabrina Rodriguez, “Trump amplifies falsehoods about immigrants in closing appeal; As his edge on the economy fades, the Republican nominee campaigned in Aurora, Colo., on Friday, promoting false claims about Venezuelan gangs taking over residential buildings there, Washington Post, October 11, 2024 (Updated at 5:18 p.m. EDT).

A great deal of the news coverage of and opinion about Kamala Harris reflects a deep innate bias against her.

The press doesn”t know how tonreport on Trump. They don’t know how to analyze crazy. And they or their young editors are not inclined to look beneath the surface to find out and report on what is going on under the hood, so io speak, at the deep subconscious level where voters’ emotions will determine how they vote on November 5, 2024, the day of America’s date with Destiny.

The bias is that is an innate feature of their reporting is that they hold Kamala Harris up in comparison not to her actual opponent, Donald Trump, but rather to some idealized rational presidential candidate who exists only in their imaginations.

Their comparisons of Harris’ speeches, policies, or character are always against this illusory candidate of their imagination. Making such comparisons, they strive to show how brilliant they are analytically. Meanwhile, the necessary comparisons with the real candidate, Donald Trump, are never formulated or presented to their readers and listeners.

Reporting on what is really going on in the campaign is consequently absent from their newspaper articles andp their television reports.

How do you report on crazy? How do you report on Trump’s policies when he has no policies other than talking points that might occur to him or his advisors on any given day, at any given time?

Kamala Harris might not be the best presidential candidate the Democrats might have produced. But given Joe Biden’s stranglehold p on the nomination process and his obstinate refusal to withdraw from the race until he was absolutely forced to do so, Harris was the only feasible candidate for the Democrats–at that moment in time.

With Harris the Democrats at least had a chane to win the presidential election and control of the Senate and the House. With Joe Biden, an increasingly senile candidate, they faced inevitable defeat in all three arenas.

Kamala Harris was the best possible candidate for the Democrats.

For the press and television and other reporters, the central question is and always has been, how does she stack up against Donald Trump and how dobtge Democratic candidates stack up against their Republican opponents.

How do they stack up against Crazy and the lying Republican candidates who are utterly under the thumb of the crazy, lying, and criminal Leader of their authoritarian party? let us be frank and call it what it is–a fascist party totally controlled by a fascist Leader, Donald Trump. Crazy, surrounded by leaders of a would-be fascist government.

Ponder this: Neither Trump, nor vive-presidential candidate J.D. Vance, nor Republican House Leader Mike Rodgers, will admit publicly that the 2020 presidential race was won by Joe Biden. Nor will they admit that there was virtually no evidence of any significant fraud– none, as confirmed by the decisions of all 62 courts in which Trump raised spurious claims of fraud without a shred of credible evidence.

Moreover, these same Republican leaders will not commit to accepting the presidential election results in 2024 if Trump doesn’t win.

It is past time that reporters started reporting on what is really going on in the 2024 elections, on the character and democratic commitment of candidates from the two parties.

Without a fearless and vibrant press, America seems to be in a political coma.

Who, if not the press, will administer CPR to the comatose American body politic, if not the press?

1) Drew Goins, “It takes a lot to get a federal judge to write a piece this bold, Drew Goins Post, October 7, 2024 (4:52 p.m. EDT);

Is it blind faith in International Law,or Deep Understanding from 50 years of following events as an international lawyer?

1) Owen Jones, “What atrocity would Israel have to commit for our leaders to break their silence? To avenge 7 October, crimes of all kinds are condoned. But politicians should take note: the British public disagrees,” The Guardian, October 3, 2024 (17:38 bST)

Bsckgrounf

1) “Two Argentina towns face a torrent of harassment. The culprit: Parrots; The thousands of burrowing parrots swooping into Pedro Luro and Hilario Ascasubi in Argentina have resulted in constant power outages and streets blanketed by poop,” Wahington Post, October 3, 2024;

It only slowly dawned on me. But it is clear.

Peggy Noonan is shilling for Donald Trum and tge Republican presidential ticket.

This a sad way for Noonal, a distinguushed columnist with a Republicam background to end her career.

Hilling for a Republican presidential candidate whi is a convicted felon faving numerous additional felony indictments, a man found guilty of sexual battery by a jury in a civil case, a monstrous liar the likes of whom have bot been seen since Adolf Hitler, a misogynist who brags of his sexual abuse, a racist xenophobe who males explicit appeals tomneo-Nazi voters, a vicious liar constantly attacking immigrants, and one of the most despicable men to ever run for the presidency.

He is the lawless leader of an authoritarian movement which has achieved total dominance of the Republican Party and transgormed it into a fascist party which represents one of the greatest threats to American democracy in tge country’s history.

Oh, and the felonies for which he is indicted and will stand trial include conspiracy to overthrow the Constitution and numerios specific acts to achieve that objective.

And now Peggy Noonan is shilling for this monstruous candidare, creating a permission structure for other Republicans with “honorable” backgrounds and records to vote for Trump. Many readers of tge Wall Street Journal, including wealthy and powerful business leaders, are reportedly leaning toward supporting Trump.

Peggy Noonan is givingbthem permission, “moral cover” if you will, for dupporting and voting for Trump.

Personally, I am devastated to see Peggy Noonan shilling for Trump.

She was one of the reasons I subscribed to the Wall Street Journal, together with the fact that the Journal seemed willing to criticize Joe Biden and his foreign policy when the New York Times and the zwashington Post seemed disinclined to do so.

In the last several years, the Journal has degenerated into a shrill Republican policy rag. It seems like every article shrilly criticizes the Democrats, while the newspaper’s critical guns are rarely aimed at Republicans.

Peggy Noonan’s column was one of the last reasons I kept reading the Journal.

I just canceled my subscription.

Tim Walz’s performance” in the vice-presidential debate tonight (October 1, 2024) revealed how little Democratic advisers understand about what is going on at the subconscious level among voters who may ultimately vote for Trump and the authoritarian movement he leads.

It was a very polite, demure affaire. Walz and the Democrats who prepared him made a number of glaring mistakes.

Walz’s handlers did not prepare him well for the debate.

First, Walz allowed Vance to present the facade of a reasonable politician genuinely interested in solving the problems of the people and the country. Count that as a win for Vance and, more importantly, for Donald Trump and the fascist Republican Party he now so completely dominates.

Second, the most glaring defect in his performance was his extremely serious demeanor on be split screen when Vance was speaking. He should have been prepped to display a relaxed demeanor, as fortunately Kamala Harris learned to do and did so well in her debate with Donald Trump.

With all that we’ve learned about political debates on television since the Kennedy-Nixon debates in 1960, when Kennedy won on appearance and demeanor among those watching the debate, while Nixon won among radio listeners following the substance of the arguments, the fact that Walz was nor prepped to display an appropriate demeanor when Vance was speaking was, quite frankly, shocking.

Third, Walz didn’t seem to understand that his opponent in the debate was not J.D. Vance but Donald Trump, and that Vance was only useful as a target exemplifying the worst characteristics of Trump. Walz was not there to win a popularity contest with Vance, but rather to take on Trump and onlybsecondarily his unprincipled disciple,J.D. Vance.

Trump has said and done so many outrageous and unforgivable things–not only in this campaign but also in the 2016 campaign, during his presidency, and since he left office in 2021–that Walz was working in an extremely target-rich environment.

Vance for his part, has engaged in despicable lies and immigrant-bashing, such as his lie that illegal Haitian immigrants were stealing pet dogs and cats in Springfield, Ohio, and eating them. Both Trump and Vance have doubled down and continued to repeat these inexcusable, hate-filled lies.

Notably, Walz did not even mention the substance of the lies. Walz did not even mention that Trump and Vance had falsely accused Haitian immigrants who were lawfully in the United States of being illegal aliens, and such evil people that they stole and ate their neighbors’ pet cats and dogs. Nor did he mention the violent atmosphere and threats that Trump’s violent rhetoric about the Haitians had produced.

Instead, he assumed that most oeoplevrecalled and understood the substance and context of the events he was describing, Maybe hecwas simply assuming tgat voters throughout the country are like Minnesota voters.

They aren’t.

Third, Walz was way too civil and respectful of Vance. He didn’t need to have resorted to Trump-like rhetoric to press his point. He might have done so in the politest of tones, all the while figuratively driving the dagger into his opponent, and thereby Trump.

Walz might have driven his figurative spear into Trump and Vance on their repeated denials that Trump had lost the 2020 election to Joe Biden.

Fourth, Walz failed to parry Vance’s attacks on Harris for being responsible for what Vance viewed as her grievous policy failures by simply pointing out that shecwas not and had not been the President, and that as Vice-President her job had been to carry out the President’s policies.

Isn’t that exactly what Vance would do if he necame Vice-President, he might have asked.

Walz might have driven this point home by stressing the fact that it would be Vance’s job to execute Trump’s policies, however much he might personally disagree with them. This would have opened the way for strong and repeated attacks on some of Trump’s most egregious policy ideas and positions.

That would mean, would it not, tgat Vance would have to implement Trump’s pro-Russian policies, p which might include cutting off aid to Ukraine and / or pressuring Ukraine to enter a negotiated settlement with Russia which amounted to defeat. To negotiate a deal that involved abandonment of the most basic principles of the U.N. Charter and international law, such as the prohibition against the use of force across international frontiers and the acquisition of territory through military conquest And the enforcement of the laws of war by punishing those responsible for the commission of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and even genocide.

In short, Walz did not understand the opportunity ton treat the debate as if his real opponent were Donald Trump. He failed to call out both Trump and Vance for their outrageous actions and policies. He failed to attack Trump and Vance for their constant spewing like from a firehose of small and monstrous lies.

Walz didn’t seem to know where he was or what his job should be.

It was a great lost opportunity.

In the end, however, Walz’s performance probably didn’t hurt the Harris campaign, as the debate was pretty much a draw. Those voters who were able to follow the arguments, except perhaps for some wealthy businessmen, were probably already going to vote for Harris.

The debate did reveal two things, however.

First, that the Democrats are clueless as to how to conduct a campaign aimed at the emotions of probably the majority of voters whose vote will be decided by subconscious factors that have little to do with the fine rational distinctions made in tbe policy arguments voiced in the debate tonight.

Second, that should Trump win in November, an incumbent Vice-President Vance will be a formidable opponent in the 2028 election. Utterly unprincipled, nimble, and smart, with a barroom-brawler character to match tbat of Trump, Vance would be a hard man to beat.