Before we begin I would like to make one thing clear, I'm not a fan of Trump, at all. Heck, any article I've written involving him on this site can tell you that. Yet, I feel like I'm forced to defend him in this case from the people who claim to be on the left, but have turned into the left's Dick Cheney in order to oppose him.
Mind you, I'm not saying the President is a saint here. After all, he's the one who made John Bolton the national security adviser. This is the same John Bolton who has made it clear he STILL supports the Iraq War. He also tried to sabotage the peace talk with North Korea, so again, it's not like the White House is perfect. Donald can't get my full support on foreign policy until he fires Bolton, stops bombing at least some of the 8 countries, at least somewhat downsizes the military industrial complex, and restores the Iran Deal. And that's ignoring the well over 100 ways I oppose in on other issues.
Maybe Kim Kardashian can get him to do this. (2018 politics are weird)
For that matter, I'm not ignoring the hypocrisy of many on the right supporting this. When Obama talked about meeting with the exact same country during his campaign, Fox News was angry. Now Fox got former House Speaker Newt Gingrich to explain why doing this is great.
However, as the old phrase goes, just because everyone else is bad, doesn't mean it's okay for you to be. And honestly, I'm having trouble telling the difference between a lot of the "left-wing" political commentators who are against this, and old speeches from Donald Rumsfeld during the War in Iraq. Just look at this comic, published in a left-wing news outlet, as an example:
But it only gets worse. Top cable "news" host Rachel Maddow decided to steal Glenn Beck's old bit of being completely insane and tried to find alternative reasons as to why Trump is doing this. I'll sum up for segment in a few short sentences for you:
Also, did Rachel ignore the fact that the two countries that broader ours, Canada and Mexico, are ones Donald has been a huge critic of.
Also, that segment went on for about three minutes and I was able to sum it up in three sentences. But here are a few more things that are brought up, but aren't the focus:
-Rachel puts odd focus on how the only way you can get from North Korea to Russia is a train. I don't know why this bothers me so much. Although, it's probably for the same reason Maddow focused on it for so long.
-Maddow is angry Trump is talking to a dictator. That is literally a right-wing talking point from when Obama met with Iran.
-At one point she says the summit was in North Korea. It was actually in Singapore.
-She goes on and on about how we're "normalizing dictators" by meeting with North Korea. When I thought we did that when we started backing 73% of the world's dictators. Hey Rachel, how many segments have you made on that? After all, you seem to be worried about us supporting these two, imagine how angry you should be hearing we support many more.
-Maddow is also FURIOUS that we didn't make any demands for North Korea to follow. You know, besides not starting a war.
But even then, let's say Maddow is right and this is all a plot by Russia to do, something. I don't know what, but something. How does that make what Trump is doing bad? If Putin really wants peace between not only the 60 year long enemies of North Korea and the United States, but also the even longer discontent between North and South Korea that has gone on since the Cold War, than Putin sounds like an awesome guy.
But sad MSNBC hosts aren't the only ones who are angry at peace. Senate Democrats have wrote a letter making it clear that they will not support an Iran style deal unless they have these following 5 points:
Doing that would just make them sitting ducks in case South Korea ever wants to topple them. They understand MAP, that's how they survived for so long.
This is what I mean, the "left" wants to sabotage peace in order to harm Donald Trump, and it's honestly disgusting to me. I hear, and have even used, the phrase "wrong side of history" before. Tell me, how often are you on that side when you support war?
Mind you, I'm not saying the President is a saint here. After all, he's the one who made John Bolton the national security adviser. This is the same John Bolton who has made it clear he STILL supports the Iraq War. He also tried to sabotage the peace talk with North Korea, so again, it's not like the White House is perfect. Donald can't get my full support on foreign policy until he fires Bolton, stops bombing at least some of the 8 countries, at least somewhat downsizes the military industrial complex, and restores the Iran Deal. And that's ignoring the well over 100 ways I oppose in on other issues.
Maybe Kim Kardashian can get him to do this. (2018 politics are weird)
For that matter, I'm not ignoring the hypocrisy of many on the right supporting this. When Obama talked about meeting with the exact same country during his campaign, Fox News was angry. Now Fox got former House Speaker Newt Gingrich to explain why doing this is great.
However, as the old phrase goes, just because everyone else is bad, doesn't mean it's okay for you to be. And honestly, I'm having trouble telling the difference between a lot of the "left-wing" political commentators who are against this, and old speeches from Donald Rumsfeld during the War in Iraq. Just look at this comic, published in a left-wing news outlet, as an example:
Mr.President, why aren't you fighting the axis of evil?-What this comic is sayingSeriously, this looks like something National Review would have ran back in '04. Just replace Trump with John Kerry and Un with Saddam.
But it only gets worse. Top cable "news" host Rachel Maddow decided to steal Glenn Beck's old bit of being completely insane and tried to find alternative reasons as to why Trump is doing this. I'll sum up for segment in a few short sentences for you:
Donald Trump is trying to make peace with North Korea. North Korea has a boarder with Russia. Therefore, the president is working for Russia when he did this.Yeah, Maddow talks about Russia quite a bit. Also, her theory doesn't make any sense, at all. By that logic, Trump already made peace with North Korea because we're still allies with South Korea.
Also, did Rachel ignore the fact that the two countries that broader ours, Canada and Mexico, are ones Donald has been a huge critic of.
Also, that segment went on for about three minutes and I was able to sum it up in three sentences. But here are a few more things that are brought up, but aren't the focus:
-Rachel puts odd focus on how the only way you can get from North Korea to Russia is a train. I don't know why this bothers me so much. Although, it's probably for the same reason Maddow focused on it for so long.
-Maddow is angry Trump is talking to a dictator. That is literally a right-wing talking point from when Obama met with Iran.
-At one point she says the summit was in North Korea. It was actually in Singapore.
-She goes on and on about how we're "normalizing dictators" by meeting with North Korea. When I thought we did that when we started backing 73% of the world's dictators. Hey Rachel, how many segments have you made on that? After all, you seem to be worried about us supporting these two, imagine how angry you should be hearing we support many more.
-Maddow is also FURIOUS that we didn't make any demands for North Korea to follow. You know, besides not starting a war.
But even then, let's say Maddow is right and this is all a plot by Russia to do, something. I don't know what, but something. How does that make what Trump is doing bad? If Putin really wants peace between not only the 60 year long enemies of North Korea and the United States, but also the even longer discontent between North and South Korea that has gone on since the Cold War, than Putin sounds like an awesome guy.
But sad MSNBC hosts aren't the only ones who are angry at peace. Senate Democrats have wrote a letter making it clear that they will not support an Iran style deal unless they have these following 5 points:
1.The deal must include the dismantlement and removal of all nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons from North Korea
Okay, that's perfectly fair.
2.The U.S. must ensure a "complete and verifiable denuclearize of North Korea" removing all items related to nuclear-weapons productions to prevent the country from reversing course.Again, I guess that's fine. After all, you can't have a deal unless both sides are following it.
3.North Korea must end its ballistic-missile programs as well.Wait, why? All the weapons listed before are considered WMD's and banned under the Geneva Convention (with the US never singed onto, but still). But Ballistic missiles seem to be a little far.
Doing that would just make them sitting ducks in case South Korea ever wants to topple them. They understand MAP, that's how they survived for so long.
4.North Korea must comply with "anywhere, anything" inspections to ensure it is not cheating on the deal, and sanctions must be immediately restored if it does cheat.Again, I guess that's fine.
5.The deal must be permanent.So, wait a minute. What if they're actually being attacked by someone? Then can they get there missiles back or are they just forced to fight with less?
This is what I mean, the "left" wants to sabotage peace in order to harm Donald Trump, and it's honestly disgusting to me. I hear, and have even used, the phrase "wrong side of history" before. Tell me, how often are you on that side when you support war?
No comments:
Post a Comment