Trumpezuelian Invasion -- Nothing New - Congressional Approval? Give me a break - A Bit of History

Anti-Trump pundits and Marjorie Taylor Green whine about how Trump is violating America first which he ran on -- they don't get it - he meant the entire North and South America First. Look for a name change for Venezuela, in gold leaf. Maybe Trump sees Putin being popular after starting a war and thinks he can turn around his numbers.

Remember United States invasion of Grenada in the 80s?

Maurice Bishop, who sought to prioritise socio-economic development, education and true black liberation, was murdered:  Too much collectivism, not enough dog-eat-dog rugged individualism. Funny thing is Mamdani wants to put Bibbi in the same place. They could room with Luigi.

1898–1935: The United States launched multiple minor interventions into Latin America, resulting in U.S. military presence in Cuba, Honduras, Panama (via the Hay–Bunau-Varilla Treaty and Isthmian Canal Commission), Haiti (1915–1935), the Dominican Republic (1916–1924) and Nicaragua (1912–1925) & (1926–1933).  

This goes way beyond Epstein

Sunday, Jan. 4, 2026

 

Consider this post a history lesson. I've become a political junkie -- no more sports for me - politics is the real sport. I spend too much of the day listening to podcasts.

 

I am having trouble focusing on UFT politics and Unity Trump-like behavior. UFT and oppo politics is getting boring. The Delegate Assembly is blah and the RTC Meetings are getting close to blah with the RTC leadership not fighting back against Unity to my satisfaction, though both meetings are opportunities for social interaction. I'm also in close touch with the ABC and former ICE crew, which I will write more the great in-person meeting we had last week with about 15 people.

 

I'm not justifying or endorsing the Trump invasion(s), as so many Dems are doing, just putting them into historical context. Trump, like most presidents, has to pull a Putin and invade somewhere. His invasion is an endorsement of sorts for Putin's invasion of Ukraine due to Russian sphere of influence. And gives China justification for invading Taiwan. Since Trump is incapable of standing up to both of them, he decides to do what they do --- pick on the weak locally. He stays out of their spheres.

 

Anti-Trump pundits and Marjorie Taylor Green, who actually is making some sense, whine about how Trump is violating America first which he ran on -- they don't get it - he meant the entire North and South America First.

 

The Trump agenda: Panama canal, Canada 51st state -- Israel an exception, is the de-facto 51st state. How about Greenland? And next to come Cuba and Columbia? Trumpies don't have to worry about the left in Argentina and Chile and pretty much the west coast of South America. Only Columbia and Brazil is left and too big to invade but isolation would be a goal. In Central, maybe Nicaragua which is quasi left with another dictator.

 

Nations run by the left are always a danger to capitalists -- what next? Invade NYC and deport Zohran? Only if he's successful.

 

All the hand-ringing and rending of garments, as if this Venezuela thing is something new. How many times have we sent troops or intervened in Haiti, Nicaragua, the DR, wars with Mexico? This is not about the Monroe Doctrine, which was directed at European intervention in our "sphere." 

 

The war of 1848 and the invasion of Mexico, which brought us Texas, unfortunately.  Remember how France tried to take over Mexico during the Civil War when we were otherwise engaged?

 

Any leftist government led to neocon dreams of regime change. This was not just Republicans but both parties. Vietnam anyone? Some think Kennedy was killed because he was going to pull out of Vietnam and as retaliation for not supporting the Bay of Pigs.  I don't believe the son of Joe Kennedy would be an anti-imperialist.

Almost every president since McKinley has pretty much had to invade somewhere to establish tough guy bona fides. Some Dem presidents were only marginally better. 

The Dem response has been so weak -- let us vote to endorse the Trump intervention. Dems are OK with regime change if they can vote YES as they did with Iraq. And remember the murder of Patrice Lumumba? And Dag Hammerschold? I'm old and was a political junkie in HS.

 

Dem President Wilson forced us to get involved in WW1 and people were put in jail for opposing the war. I did a blog on him:  Woodrow Wilson: The More We Know About the History of the Democratic Party, the Sicker They Look

 

Only FDR seemed to change policy toward Latin America but I'd bet there were some hidden factors and some interventions. From AI:

Key Aspects of FDR's Approach:

• Ending Military Occupations: FDR withdrew U.S. Marines from Haiti (1934) and Nicaragua, and renounced the right to intervene unilaterally in internal affairs.
• Respecting Sovereignty: The policy, articulated in his 1933 inaugural address, pledged the U.S. to be a "good neighbor" that respected others' rights.
• Economic Cooperation: The focus shifted to promoting trade agreements and economic partnerships, aiming to build goodwill.
• Abrogating Interventionist Clauses: The U.S. abrogated the Platt Amendment, which had allowed intervention in Cuba
• Examples of Continued Influence (Interference)
  Despite the official stance of non-intervention, the FDR administration used diplomatic and economic pressure to shape Latin American outcomes: 
• Cuba (1933): Assistant Secretary of State Sumner Welles orchestrated the resignation of Cuban dictator Gerardo Machado. When a revolutionary government followed, FDR withheld diplomatic recognition, which indirectly led to the rise of Fulgencio Batista.
• Economic Diplomacy: The administration used the Export-Import Bank and reciprocal trade agreements to tie Latin American economies more closely to the U.S..
• World War II Security: During the war, the U.S. pressured nearly every Latin American nation (except initially Argentina) to align with the Allies, crack down on Axis sympathizers, and provide strategic materials. 

Reagan used the excuse of protecting American medical students to cover for the real reason: 

 

Following the execution of Marxist Prime Minister Maurice Bishop and the seizure of power by hardline Marxists, the U.S. cited imminent danger to approximately 1,000 American citizens, many studying medicine, fearing they could become hostages. 

Containing Soviet/Cuban Influence:

Grenada, under Bishop and then the new regime, had growing ties with Cuba and the USSR, with a large airport under construction by Cuban engineers. Reagan feared this could become a Soviet military base in the Caribbean, challenging U.S. dominance

Wikipedia:  Foreign interventions by the United States

 

The United States has been involved in hundreds of interventions in foreign countries throughout its history, engaging in nearly 400 military interventions between 1776 and 2026, with half of these operations occurring since 1950 and over 25% occurring in the post-Cold War period.^[1] 

----- 

U.S. intervention in the Americas spans from 19th-century expansionism (Monroe Doctrine, Mexican-American War) to 20th-century Cold War actions, often driven by strategic/economic interests, with

congressional approval varying significantly; while formal declarations of war are rare (e.g., Mexico 1846, Spain 1898), the War Powers Resolution of 1973, requiring President notification and limiting troop deployment without Congress's authorization, emerged from Vietnam-era conflicts where presidents acted without explicit approval, leading to ongoing tension over executive vs. legislative war powers. 

 

Early Interventions (19th Century)

• Monroe Doctrine (1823): Asserted U.S. opposition to European colonialism in the Western Hemisphere, setting a precedent for U.S. regional influence.
• Manifest Destiny & Expansion: Driven by economic opportunity and continental ambition, leading to conflicts like the Mexican-American War (1846-1848), where Congress declared war.
• Punitive Expeditions: The U.S. Navy conducted numerous interventions, often involving Marines, for protecting trade or punishing actions, such as in Sumatra or Argentina. 

Rise of U.S. Hegemony (Late 19th - Early 20th Century)

• Spanish-American War (1898): A formal declaration of war by Congress following the sinking of the USS Maine, resulting in U.S. control of Cuba, Puerto Rico, Guam, and the Philippines.
• Roosevelt Corollary (1904): Expanded the Monroe Doctrine, justifying U.S. intervention in Latin American countries to prevent instability and European debt collection. 

20th Century & Cold War Interventions

• "Big Stick" Diplomacy & Banana Wars: Numerous interventions (e.g., Nicaragua, Haiti, Dominican Republic) to protect U.S. interests, often without formal declarations, blurring lines of power.
• World Wars: The U.S. entered WWI and WWII following Congressional declarations, joining global conflicts.
• Cold War Era: Interventions in Latin America (e.g., Guatemala, Chile, Grenada) often supported anti-communist forces, with varied congressional involvement, sometimes covertly (Iran-Contra affair). 

Post-Vietnam Era & The War Powers Resolution (1973)

• Context: Secret bombings in Cambodia and prolonged Vietnam conflict without formal declarations spurred Congress to act.
• Key Provisions: Requires the President to notify Congress within 48 hours of deploying troops into hostilities and mandates withdrawal after 60-90 days unless Congress authorizes the action or declares war.
• Ongoing Debate: Presidents have often bypassed or interpreted the Resolution loosely, citing funding as implicit approval, highlighting the persistent struggle over war powers. 

Contemporary Examples

• Panama (1989): Invasion to depose Noriega, authorized under different legal frameworks, bypassing typical WPR procedures.
• Syria (2017): Missile strikes occurred without explicit Congressional authorization, sparking debate over the Resolution's application

The U.S. has imposed regime change in the Americas numerous times, beginning with overt military actions in the early 20th century (like in Cuba, Mexico, Nicaragua) and shifting to covert CIA-backed coups during the Cold War (e.g., Guatemala 1954, Brazil 1964, Chile 1973), often citing anti-communism or protecting U.S. interests, with historical examples also including the 1893 overthrow of Hawaii's monarchy

. These interventions, ranging from direct invasions to clandestine operations, have occurred across Latin America and the Caribbean for over a century. 

Key Examples in Latin America & Caribbean:

• Cuba (Early 20th Century): Multiple interventions and occupations to install or support governments favorable to U.S. interests during the "Banana Wars".
• Mexico (1914): Invasion of Veracruz to oust President Victoriano Huerta during the Mexican Revolution.
• Dominican Republic (1916-1924): Eight-year military occupation to force government reforms.
• Guatemala (1954): CIA-organized coup overthrew President Jacobo Arbenz, who enacted land reforms affecting U.S. business.
• Brazil (1964): CIA supported the coup that deposed President João Goulart.
• Chile (1973): U.S. involvement in the coup that overthrew democratically elected President Salvador Allende.
• Grenada (1983): U.S. invasion to prevent a Marxist government from consolidating power.
• Panama (1989): U.S. invasion to depose military dictator Manuel Noriega. 

Other Notable Cases:

• Hawaii (1893): Overthrow of Queen Liliuokalani by U.S.-backed businessmen, leading to annexation.  

 ------

December 18, 2025

The United States’ Hidden History of Regime Change—Revisited

The truculent trio—Trump, Hegseth, and Rubio—do Venezuela.

Barbara Koeppel

 

Since the early 20th century, the United States has commandeered coups around the world, helping opposition figures and their mutinous militaries topple leaders whose policies they abhor. Why? These heads of state launched programs to redistribute land; strengthen labor unions, health and education systems; and nationalize industries. Washington insists they are “communist” or “socialist” and will threaten American dominance and corporate interests.

In the good old days, the hanky-panky was hidden, since the United States signed both the United Nations and Organization of American States charters, which stated that forced regime change was illegal.

But by the 1990s, US politicos scrapped the secrecy and told it like it was. For example, right-wing thinkers such as William Kristol and Robert Kagan, pilots of the Project for a New American Century, had no qualms writing a 1998 New York Times op-ed about the US and Iraq: They insisted that the US should overthrow Saddam Hussein’s regime “to ensure America’s greatness.”

Since then, everything has been on the table. Along with Kristol and Kagan, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Lewis “Scooter” Libby, and Richard Perle joined the Bush II team. Finding no need to pussyfoot around, they insisted that the US should intervene wherever regimes rejected Washington’s road map.

Venezuela is just the latest country the US considers a threat. Since it sits on the world’s largest oil reserves (five times that of the US), former president Hugo Chávez and, after him, Nicolás Maduro chose an independent course. Despite US sanctions, Venezuela has sent its oil to countries such as China (which gets the lion’s share) as well as India, Cuba, Turkey, and even small amounts to Italy and Spain. Such goings-on cannot continue.

Though the geography has changed, none of this is new. During the Cold War, the CIA cast cloaks and daggers to remove regimes, bankroll opposition figures, and train forces, as it did with the Nicaraguan contras in the early 1980s.

The number of interventions is huge. In some countries, the CIA meddled in elections. Dov Levin, a political scientist at the University of Hong Kong, wrote that since the end of World War II, the United States interfered in 81 countries’ elections. He added that if the list were backdated to the end of the 19th century, it would be twice as long. Russia, he noted, came in second, interfering in 36 elections.

For example, before the 1948 elections in Italy, the CIA sought to discredit candidates who were Communists (the party was legal). Since they were the backbone of the resistance in World War II, many could have won. Thus, the CIA circulated millions of embarrassing forged letters and aired broadcasts warning of the catastrophe to come if the Communists won. The tactics mainly succeeded.

But election meddling was the least deadly of the CIA’s cloaks and daggers. For the next seven decades, it helped topple or kill both elected and non-elected leaders in Panama (in 1941 and 1989), Iran (1953), Guatemala (1954), the Congo (1960), Brazil (1964), Indonesia (1965–67), the Dominican Republic (1965), Bolivia (1971), Chile (1973), Argentina (1976), Grenada (1983), Haiti (1991), Libya (2011), and Ukraine (2014).

For example, in Indonesia, the CIA helped oust President Sukarno and install General Suharto. It financed opposition groups and anti-communist propaganda, trained military factions, and ran psychological operations to create instability—and revealed the names of insurgents. It also produced a pornographic film in which the lead wore a mask of Sukarno. After the coup, the Suharto regime killed between 750,000 and 1,000,000 individuals.

In Brazil, the CIA supported the generals’ coup, since it and the US thought President João Goulart was a leftist threat that had to be squashed. This led to a 24-year military dictatorship that killed or “disappeared” at least 1,000 political dissidents and activists. It also promoted the broader US strategy of intervening in the region.

In Chile, Richard Nixon, the CIA, and Secretary of State Henry Kissinger supported the 1973 Pinochet coup that toppled Salvador Allende, the democratically elected president, who committed suicide during the attack. Kissinger warned President Nixon that “the example of a successful Marxist government in Chile would surely have an impact on other parts of the world and significantly balance our own position in it.”

Similarly, in Argentina, the US supported the 1976 military coup to counter “leftist” threats. Here, the CIA provided intelligence and logistical support to the military junta to destroy its opposition. And the tactics succeeded. Afterward, at least 30,000 people were “disappeared” as the generals systematically abducted, tortured, and murdered them—even tossing some out of airplanes. The US looked the other way because it wanted the junta to stabilize the region and protect American interests.

On very few occasions, the schemes failed. For example, the CIA tried to kill Fidel Castro for decades. Through Operation Mongoose, the agency sent him explosive cigars or poisoned food, ballpoint pens, and scuba diving suits. But Castro survived until his death in 2016 at the age of 90.

Decades earlier, the United States, Britain, France, and Japan sent troops to Russia in the 1918 civil war to block a Bolshevik victory. They failed, and the Soviets retained power until 1989.

Interestingly, when Smedley Butler, a US Marine Corps general, retired in 1935, he famously announced, “I spent most of my time being a high-class muscle man for big business and the bankers. I was a gangster for capitalism.”

In April 2025, Dr. David Kirk, an assistant chair of intelligence studies at the American Military University, frankly said the US will “engage in denial and deceptions” to hide its plans from its enemies. However, over the past few decades, secrecy strategies have been scrapped.

But fine-tuned secrecy habits die hard. When I asked the Pentagon’s spokesman, Lt. Col. Bryon McGarry, about the weapons the US has sent to Israel and Ukraine since 2023, he said, “We don’t comment on specifics.”

As Kurt Vonnegut often wrote, “and so it goes.”

Trump and His Cronies Want a War in the Western Hemisphere

Don’t be fooled by the anti-interventionist language. The Trump administration is only too eager to use military force.

William D. Hartung

 

School Scope: How Democrats and Republicans Lost the Working Class Leading to Trumpism

I had two pieces in The Wave this week.

Norm in The Wave
http://www.rockawave.com/node/235427?pk_campaign=Newsletter

-->

School Scope: How Democrats and Republicans Lost the Working Class Leading to Trumpism

By Norm Scott

A number of articles have been published on the Trump appeal to the white working class which used to be solidly Democratic and often pro-union. There is no way I can fully cover this issue in a short column but I want to touch on a few points and include links for those readers who want to delve deeper. Both parties bear responsibility which is why Trump supporters reject the traditional Republican Party which has been pro-free trade and anti-union. The Dems have been ostensibly pro-union but in reality have done little for unions since they came under attack in the first days of Ronald Regan in the early 1980s. (I’ll explore how the Dem betrayal, especially regarding their support of the union busting charter schools, undermined teacher unions in a future post.)

Let’s look at free trade. It was the left and some unions that rose up in November1999 to protest globalization, leading to 40,000 people protesting and riots in Seattle at the WTO conference. (Wiki at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Seattle_WTO_protests). China’s admission to the WTO at the end of 2001 (under the Bush administration) basically led to the wipe out of the American steel (and coal) industry since China could make steel much cheaper and efficiently (the American steel industry had not upgraded for decades). A lot of Trump support comes from the areas where people were affected. Cheap Chinese furniture also wiped out the entire North Carolina furniture industry along with others.

NAFTA, which was pushed hard by the Clintons and the Republicans, led to the movement of industry to Mexico with no penalty on the corporations. There are estimates that at least 3 million jobs were lost. On the other hand, free trade has allowed the American consumer to buy cheap at the cost of American jobs. So there is a yin-yang. Now this is not the first time that our industries have been savaged. Both my parents were garment workers and my father (a presser) was still doing some work into the early 1970s as that industry was on life-support. Some industries are gone due to technology (printing). With 80% of our jobs being service, Trump’s promise to bring back dead or dying manufacturing is a myth.  The coming threat is that service jobs are being savaged by robots and technology. The largest growth of jobs currently are low wage home health care workers. As I reach my dotage I expect to be taken care of by a home health care robot, a long-term threat to even these jobs.

The failure of both parties is evident in both NAFTA and the WTO, both of which have their merits in lowering consumer costs and keeping inflation down, but in not taking good care of the massive number of workers affected by increasing the safety net. European workers have also been negatively affected but they have a much stronger safety net. Strong unions are a reason and since they have been weakened by Republican attacks and Democratic inaction, the safety net here is weak and left millions of people vulnerable. That was why Bernie Sanders, who offered coherent programs, was also so popular in areas where Trump is also strong.

Even though I find Donald Trump abhorrent, some of the points he raises are very valid and resonate with the non-deplorable segment of his supporters. We were at a family wedding this past weekend with some Trump supporters and did get to hear their reasoning, in one case due to how negatively they were affected by Obamacare, a very legitimate point. My relative recently reached 65 and is now on Medicare which he loves. My response was that even though a flawed plan – we agreed that the insurance companies basically wrote the bill in a way to maximize their profits – I did try to point out that if  the Republicans had tried to fix what was wrong instead of spending 6 years trying to kill Obamacare things might be working a little better. He pointed out that Obama was so desperate to get something passed he was willing to accept any piece of crap and is defending that piece of crap for his “legacy.” But I don’t really want to defend Obama care since I’m for a single payer system – Medicare for all – and Obama pretty much gave up that ghost from day 1 because the insurance companies would have lobbied that to death.

Now there is no little irony in that my relative loves single payer and I believe the entire nation would love single payer if it were gradually extended. (There are ways to pay for it and remember that every advanced Western nation has such a system – and rumors that people die under it because of long waits is belied by examining the death rates of these countries.) Remember, most people are insured by their employer, not Obama care. More irony is that early assaults on Hillary Clinton began when she was assigned the job under her husband of shepherding in a health care system in the early 90s and was savaged for urging that it be single payer. She has apparently learned her lesson and came off to the right of Bernie Sanders on this issue.

If interested in exploring some ideas raised, here are some links.

A left-leaning current NYC teacher and former West Point grad who served in Iraq writes:

Obama's (and Hillary's) Capital "P" Pragmatists --  http://provocationsblog.blogspot.com/2016/10/obamas-and-hillarys-capital-p.html?m=1.

IN THE HEART OF TRUMP COUNTRY

West Virginia used to vote solidly Democratic. Now it belongs to Trump. What happened?

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2016/10/10/in-the-heart-of-trump-country

Trump: Tribune Of Poor White People | The American Conservative

http://www.theamericanconservative.com/dreher/trump-us-politics-poor-whites/

Check out this hot book: J.D. Vance - 'Hillbilly Elegy,' a Tough Love Analysis of the Poor Who Back Trump and "Deer Hunting With Jesus" by Joe Bageant about the southern white working class.

Norm blogs at ednotesonline.com

CB 14 Education Committee Meets

http://www.rockawave.com/news/2016-10-28/Community/CB_14_Education_Committee_Meets.html

 

By Norm Scott

Community Board 14’s Education Committee and School District 27’s Community Education Council (the successor to the pre-Bloomberg local school boards) have initiated a series of meetings aimed to attract parents from every Rockaway school where they get an opportunity to share issues of concern regarding their schools.

The joint committees will follow up with politicians and Department of Education officials as an advocate for the schools. One common theme that emerged is the school safety issue around the schools -- from broken sidewalks to unsafe traffic patterns. Some schools don’t have an after school program. Another has seen a major spike in children from Central America with little or no English in the home yet have not received the services needed to address this issue. Another issue that emerged was the question of how many homeless children from shelters attend Rockaway schools, as these children often need a high degree of services and schools with high numbers are under resourced. While the numbers of shelter children are not high, it was pointed out that there are a high number recently of shelter students who have moved into housing in Rockaway, a sign that schools with these children may need some extra support in assisting with the transition.

CB14, whose members are appointed by elected officials, addresses a wide variety of concerns related to Rockaway and education is often left on the margins. The activation of the education sub-committee in reaching out to CEC 27 should bring more focus on the schools.

The NJT disaster is a vision of this nation under Trump/ Should Chris Christie be charged with murder in NJ Transit Crash?

“It was an excellent railroad and running quite well until the last seven years, and it has been in constant decline,” said Martin E. Robins, a former deputy executive director of the agency. Under the administration of Gov. Chris Christie, a Republican, the state subsidy for the agency has plunged by more than 90 percent... NY Times

From the first I heard that a woman died in that Hoboken crash my immediate thought was that Trump thug henchman Christie played the major role in the NJ Transit catastrophe - starting with his cancellation of the new tunnel under the Hudson when he took the money for his own political use -- mainly to keep the Jersey gas prices down so he could say he didn't raise taxes. Now the one over 100 year old tunnel is a disaster and the tunnel that Christie delayed for all these years still has to be built at a much higher cost - and we in NY have to help cover. I read somewhere a comment that the state took control of schools in Jersey so maybe the feds should take over the NJT.

Remember hurricane Sandy when the trains in NY were put on higher ground while the trains in Jersey were left to drown?

The NJT disaster is a vision of this nation under Trump.

It is no accident that Christie quickly tried to cover his tracks by finally agreeing to a big hike in the gas tax which was 30 cents below most of the rest of the nation for decades.

Yesterday, the NY Times did a major piece showing the neglect over the past 7 years of Christie admin - people who moved to Jersey who have to commute are rethinking their choice.

The railroad’s falling reputation, some fear, could push people out of the state and turn others off from living there.

My friend's daughter and her husband are thinking of moving from Brooklyn to Jersey, assuming a certain commute time since they both work in the city. I would rethink if I were them.

Poor Jersey transit clogs the entire northeast corridor. This is definitely worth reading despite its length.

New Jersey Transit, a
Cautionary Tale of Neglect

The swift decline of one of the nation’s busiest commuter
railroads is a story of failures and mismanagement, and
ominous for mass transit systems across the country.

In the 1990s, New Jersey Transit was riding high.

Its ridership was increasing, and its trains were new and running on time. It won a coveted award for outstanding public transportation three times. In the years ahead, faster routes to Manhattan and double-decker trains would put it at the forefront of the nation’s commuter railroads. Even as recently as 2007, it won a leadership award from New York University.

That all seems like a very long time ago.

Today, New Jersey Transit is in crisis. Its aging tracks and trains need billions of dollars in improvements. Delays and fares are rising along with ridership, with passenger cars packed to the breaking point. The century-old tunnel that carries its trains to New York is crumbling. And the agency has gone nearly a year without a permanent leader.

“It was an excellent railroad and running quite well until the last seven years, and it has been in constant decline,” said Martin E. Robins, a former deputy executive director of the agency.

Under the administration of Gov. Chris Christie, a Republican, the state subsidy for the agency has plunged by more than 90 percent. Gaping holes in the agency’s past two budgets were filled by fare increases and service reductions or other cuts. Plans for a new tunnel under the Hudson River — one of the most ambitious infrastructure projects in the country — were torpedoed by Mr. Christie, who pushed for some of the money to be diverted to road-building projects.

 Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/14/nyregion/new-jersey-transit-crisis.html?_r=0

Trump and Putin - Assassinate Opponents, Matt Lauer Savaged Over Trump and Clinton Treatment

Liberal lambs, can we talk? The notion that Clinton is disqualifyingly corrupt has been the essence of the press corps' framing of her over the past several years. Those "questions" define an aggressive attack. They land in a well-scripted sweet spot.

Has Candidate Trump ever committed an act which might be seen as "disqualifying?" We think it's astonishing that someone like Lauer would inject such a suggestion into a presidential forum. But if we agree that sauce for the goose might sometimes be sauce for the gander, we can think of at least one offense with which Trump might have been confronted:

Didn't he once spend a year lying about the birth of the reigning commander-in-chief? Had there been any truth to the various claims he advanced? Had everything he said been a lie? Was the entire thing slander?
----- Daily Howler

How Trump is never held accountable for the birther shit is beyond me.

Before I get to the above, let me address the Trump/Putin story.

Don't you love the people who say Trump is just being rhetorical and democracy is safe because of congress and the constitution and the Supreme Court. Trump loves Putin because of how he runs Russia - obliterate the opposition and if necessary hire hit men to remove opponents. It was no accident that Trump hinted at using  the same tactic to stop Hillary after she got elected.

And of course he will fire all the generals and put people in to run the army who would back him when he suspends the constitution for emergency reasons.

There was once this funny guy with a little mustache running around not being taken seriously. He promised strength they and to make his country great again and used the big lie every 5 minutes.

Krytstallnacht for Muslims:
I hear people wanting Trump to take strong stands on Muslims every time we have a terrorist act. If you don't know what this is click the link. What excuse did Hitler use to send out the brown shirts and the populace one night to destroy every Jewis business?

The pretext for the attacks was the assassination of the German diplomat Ernst vom Rath by Herschel Grynszpan, a German-born Polish Jew living in Paris. Kristallnacht was followed by additional economic and political persecution of Jews, and is viewed by historians as part of Nazi Germany's broader racial policy, and the beginning of the Final Solution and The Holocaust.^[8]

Yes - a terrorist act of sorts by one Jew.

Now don't get me wrong. I don't trust Hillary but I don't expect we will end up in a dictatorship.

There is the flap over both the Paul Krugman column chastising Hillary critics (Hillary Clinton Gets Gored) and leftist Glenn Greenwald chastising Krugman, accusing him and other Hillary backers of trying to do their own version of Trump in going after Hillary critics even if from the left.

• Glenn Greenwald: Liberal Bias For Clinton Is 'Journalistic Malpractice'
•  
• Glenn Greenwald to Paul Krugman: 'The Last Thing Required to ... Defend Hillary Clinton Is Bravery'
• Truthdig‎ - 3 days ago
• Left-Wing Journalist Glenn Greenwald Criticizes Liberal Pundits for Trying to Delegitimize Negative Coverage of Clinton

Finally, the Daily Howler takes his shot at biased reporting especially after Matt Lauer has been savaged

(Matt Lauer Fields Storm of Criticism), (The bashing of Matt Lauer: Why many of the attacks are driven by partisanship)

over his favorable treatment of Trump compared to Hillary the other night. His target is the press and the so-called liberals in the press and how their reporting in essence gives Trump so many breaks. He can say anything no matter how outrageous "Trump says Hillary is an alien from Mars" and they will report it.

Lauer astonishes. So does Chait!

...it finally occurred to him (Chait) that Candidate Trump might win the November election. Welcome back to earth!

We think Trump has an excellent chance, and we think that people like Chait have helped create the world in which that might happen. Meanwhile, have you tried to fight your way through Josh Marshall's account of last evening's forum?

Sad! For now, one last rumination:
Lauer started Clinton off with a lengthy set of questions about the email matter. The questions have all been asked and answered about a million times by now. Perhaps for that reason, Lauer gave his initial question on this topic a bit of a booster shot:

LAUER (9/7/16): The word “judgment” has been used a lot around you, Secretary Clinton, over the last year-and-a-half, and in particular concerning your use of your personal email and server to communicate while you were secretary of state. You’ve said it’s a mistake.

CLINTON: Mm-hmm.

LAUER: You said you made not the best choice. You were communicating on highly sensitive topics. Why wasn’t it more than a mistake? Why wasn’t it disqualifying, if you want to be commander-in-chief?

We'd have to say that's amazing. In his first real question of the night, Lauer directly suggested that Clinton's conduct may have been "disqualifying."

Lauer burned almost forty percent of Clinton's segment with this topic, asking questions which have been asked a million times by now. When his own inquisition was done, the first question from the audience concerned the same topic.

We assume that the audience questions were screened. The first audience question was this:

QUESTION: Secretary Clinton, thank you very much for coming tonight. As a naval flight officer, I held a top secret sensitive compartmentalized information clearance. And that provided me access to materials and information highly sensitive to our warfighting capabilities. Had I communicated this information not following prescribed protocols, I would have been prosecuted and imprisoned.

Secretary Clinton, how can you expect those such as myself who were and are entrusted with America’s most sensitive information to have any confidence in your leadership as president when you clearly corrupted our national security?

We assume the questions were screened. That said:

In Lauer's first question, he suggested that Clinton's conduct may have been "disqualifying." In the first audience question, Clinton was told that she had "clearly corrupted our national security." It's suggested she should be in prison.

The Art of the Deal: Trump Gets Strange Illness - for a $Billion, Democrats Left Speechless and Campaignless (Fantasy)

As the Trump campaign goes down in flames (even white make voters are getting edgy) it is hard to imagine there will not still be an attempt to come up with another candidate. His bizarre behavior might even be aimed at putting Republicans in a position of coming up with enough cash to get him to suffer from a malady that his doctors say will force him to drop out.

I got an inkling at a family gathering the other day where a white male avid Trump supporter was having doubts. He would never vote for Hillary but might vote for Gary Johnson or not vote at all.

So would you be surprised to see behind the scenes moves to pay Trump off to drop out?

Imagine if Trump pulled out of the race today and was replaced by (choose 1): Pence, Ryan, Cruz, Rubio, Bush, Romney, Walker, Mickey Mouse, a gopher.

Can Hillary beat any of the above?

Now imagine what the Democratic Party campaign, which is totally based on inciting fears of Trump, would look like. In fact it would be in shambles.

I am not one of those people who fear Trump more than other Republican potential candidates. In fact I believe they are all worse, temperament aside.

So my worst fear is that Trump is not the candidate, which I am feeling increasingly he won't be and therefore we end up with a president not named Clinton anyway.

I am still leaning toward voting got Jill Stein because of the annoying Democratic campaign which spends so much time talking about Trump. I mean, if you imagine the scenario above there would be such panic because what else would they be able to say about running against a gopher? or a mouse?

How annoying do I find Hillary's rising inflection at the end of her sentences - why can't she find a way to deliver a line after all these years?