Trump -psykoosi

  • Viestiketjun aloittaja Viestiketjun aloittaja ak.tied
  • Aloitus PVM Aloitus PVM
Kirjaan liittyen Trumpin ja Woodwardin puhelinkeskustelu n. kuukausi sitten. Trump valittelee ettei Woodward haastatellut häntä ja Woodward kertoo pyytäneensä presidentin haastattelua ainakin kuudelta ihmiseltä. Kellyanne Conwaykin liittyy keskusteluun ja kertoo välittäneensä pyynnön eteenpäin, Trump myöntää senaattori Lindsay Grahaminkin maininneen Woodwardin haastattelupyynnöstä. Eli Trump ei halunnut antaa haastattelua mutta esittää olevansa valtavan pahoillaan ettei tullut haastatelluksi kirjaa varten.
Trump: Hello, Bob.

BW: President Trump, how are you?

Trump: How are you? How are you doing? Okay?

BW: Real well. I’m turning on my tape recorder, with your permission.

Trump: Oh, that’s okay. That’s okay. I don’t mind that at all.

BW: I’m sorry we missed the opportunity to talk for the book.

Trump: Well, I just spoke with Kellyanne [Conway] and she asked me if I got a call. I never got a call. I never got a message. Who did you ask about speaking to me?

BW: Well, about six people.

Trump: They don’t tell me.

BW: A senator. I talked to Kellyanne about it two and a half months ago.

Trump: [?].

BW: She came for lunch.

Trump: Well, it’s too bad. Of course, you and I had a conversation a couple of years ago, and so that I think got you there a little bit. And we had a conversation many years ago, if you remember, in Trump Tower.

BW: Yeah, I do.

Trump: That has to be 20 years ago. And you were thinking about doing a book about me then, which is interesting. Who knew it would’ve been on this subject? Right? That was not in the cards at that time.

BW: That’s right. Well, I’m sorry, I . ..

Trump: I still remember that.

BW: I spent a lot of time on this, talked to lots of people.

Trump: All right. Good.

BW: And as you know and are living, we are at a pivot point in history.

Trump: Right.

BW: And I would’ve liked to have done that, and I maximized my effort, and somehow it didn’t get to you, or . ..

Trump: It’s really too bad, because nobody told me about it, and I would’ve loved to have spoken to you. You know I’m very open to you. I think you’ve always been fair. We’ll see what happens. But all I can say is the country is doing very well. We’re doing better economically just about than at any time. We’re doing better on unemployment maybe than ever. You know, I mean, if you look at the unemployment numbers, you’ve heard me say it. And we’re doing better on unemployment than just about ever. We’re having a lot of — a lot of companies are moving back into our country, which would’ve been unheard of two years ago. If the other administration or representatives of it had kept going, had kept — you know, if the other group had won, I will tell you, that you would have, I think you’d have a GDP of less than zero. I think we would’ve been going in the wrong direction. Because regulations are such a big part of what we’ve done, Bob.

BW: Well, I understand that point of view. And as you know, it’s also a difficult time where the political system and you and my business is being tested.

Trump: Yeah. Yeah.

BW: I take it very seriously. I’ve done books on eight presidents, going back from Nixon to Obama.

Trump: Right.

BW: And I learned something about reporting, frankly, Mr. President.

Trump: Good.

BW: I’ve got to go talk to people and see them outside of the White House and outside of their offices, and gained a lot of insight and documentation. And it’s — you know, it’s a tough look at the world and your administration and you.

Trump: Right. Well, I assume that means it’s going to be a negative book. But you know, I’m some — I’m sort of 50 percent used to that. [Laughter] That’s all right. Some are good and some are bad. Sounds like this is going to be a bad one.

BW: It was a chance missed, and I don’t know how things work over there in terms of . ..

Trump: Very well. We . ..

BW: . . . getting to you.

Trump: Well, if you would call Madeleine [Westerhout] in my office . . . Did you speak to Madeleine?

BW: No, I didn’t. But I . ..

Trump: Madeleine is the key. She’s the secret. Because she’s the person . ..

BW: Well, I talked to Raj [Shah] about it. I talked to . . . I talked to Kellyanne.

Trump: Well, a lot of them are afraid to come and talk, or — you know, they are busy. I’m busy. But I don’t mind talking to you. I would’ve spoken to you. I spoke to you 20 years [ago] and I spoke to you a year and a half or two years ago.

BW: A couple of years ago, I understand.

Trump: And I certainly don’t mind talking to you, and I wish I could’ve spoken to you. But nobody called my office. I mean, you went through, I guess, different people. ...


BW: Well, Mr. President, how can I spend all this time talking to people and — like Kellyanne and Raj and Republican senators?

Trump: Who were the senators? No, they never called me about it.

BW: Senator [Lindsey] Graham said he had talked to you about talking to me. Now, is that not true?

Trump: Senator Graham actually mentioned it quickly in one meeting.

BW: Yes. Well, see. And then nothing happened.

Trump: That is true. That is true. Well, that — no, but that is true. Mentioned it quickly, not like, you know, and I would certainly have thought that maybe you would’ve called the office. But that’s okay. I’ll speak to Kellyanne. I am a little surprised that she wouldn’t have told me. In fact, she just walked in. [to Kellyanne] I’m talking to Bob Woodward. He said that he told you.

Conway: Yes.

Trump: About speaking to me. But you never told me. Why didn’t you tell me?

Conway: [inaudible].

Trump: I would’ve been very happy to speak to him. All right, so what are you going to do?

BW: Well ...

Trump: So I have another bad book coming out. Big deal.

BW: . . . it goes on, and I . . . What you can count on is that I’ve been very careful. And Evelyn, are you on?

EMD: Yes.

BW: Evelyn Duffy, who’s my assistant, Mr. President.

Trump: Hello, Evelyn.

BW: She transcribed all the tapes because, with permission, I taped people for hundreds of hours.

Trump: Good.

BW: And I think there’s nothing in this book that doesn’t come from a firsthand source. Is that correct, Evelyn?

EMD: I believe that’s —

Trump: But are you naming names? Or do you just say sources?

BW: Yeah, well, it names real incidents, so . ..

Trump: No, but do you name sources? I mean, are you naming the people, or just say, people have said?

BW: I say, at 2:00 on this day, the following happened, and everyone who’s there, including yourself, is quoted. And I’m sorry I didn’t get to ask you about these . ..

Trump: I mean, you do know I’m doing a great job for the country. You do know that NATO now is going to pay billions and billions of dollars more, as an example, than anybody thought possible, that other presidents were unable to get more? And it was heading downward. You do know all of the things I’ve done and things that I’m doing? I’m in the process of making some of the greatest trade deals ever to be made. You do understand that stuff? I mean, I hope.

BW: Certainly, I understand and I would’ve loved to go through a discussion with you about NATO, because this goes back to early in your administration and your concern about it, and the agreement that the countries have that they would increase their defense contribution, what is it, by the year 2024? And you know . . . So anyway, we are . ..

Trump: Well, you know last year, if you see the secretary, [Jens] Stoltenberg, he said I believe $44 billion just last year, and that was from last year’s meeting. And this year it’s much more money they’ve agreed to put up. So it’s a tremendous amount of money. No other president has done it. It was heading down in the opposite direction. So I don’t know if you’re going to report it that way; probably not. But that’s too bad, but that’s all right, but you know, one of those things.

BW: Everything is going to be factual. And it is not a good thing for my business, if I may say this to you, Mr. President, to the presidency, or to the country, to not have real, full exchanges on these. And I broke my spear on it trying to get to you.

Trump: Well, other than Lindsey [Graham], who did quickly mention it, nobody mentioned it.

BW: You say Kellyanne’s there, ask her.

Trump: Nobody told me about it. Well, let me ask her. Why don’t you speak to Kellyanne. Ask her. She never told me about it.

[Conway takes the phone.]

BW: Kellyanne?

Conway: Bob, how are you? Hi.

BW: Hi. Remember two and a half months ago you came over and I laid out, I wanted to talk to the president? And you said you would get back to me?

Conway: I do. And I put in the request. But you know, they — it was rejected. I can only take it so far. I guess I can bring it right to the president next time.

BW: Yeah.

Conway: But I try to follow all the protocols, or else I’m accused of being somebody who doesn’t follow protocol.

BW: President Trump, I just want you to know I made every effort.

Conway: But you had talked to [former White House communications director] Hope [Hicks], right, who said no?

BW: Listen, I talked to anyone I could. [Laughs]

Conway: You talked to a number of people and they all said no?

BW: I talked to Raj.

Conway: Raj.

BW: He was going to work it out.

Conway: Hope. [Me?].

[The president says something in the background that is inaudible.]

Conway: I said you tried talking to everybody? What about when you interviewed, like, other people? They all said yes? That they’d try?

BW: Yeah, well, about six or seven people. I tried. And I couldn’t have — you and I spent a whole lunch on it, Kellyanne. And I said, I want to cover the substantive issues in foreign policy and domestic policy. And you said you would get back to me. Nothing.

Conway: Yeah. So, I did. I presented it to the people here who make those decisions, but . ..

BW: Who are the people?

Conway: But anyway, I’ll give you back to the president. And I’m glad to hear that you tried through seven or eight different people. That’s good. You should tell him all the names. [Laughs] Thank you.

Trump: But you never called for me. It would’ve been nice, Bob, if you called for me, in my office. I mean, I have a secretary. I have two, three secretaries. If you would’ve called directly — a lot of people are afraid . . . Raj, I hardly have . . . I don’t speak to Raj.

BW: Kellyanne is a . ..

Trump: I do, I do, and Kellyanne went to somebody, but she didn’t come to me.

BW: Well, does she have access to you?

Trump: And she should’ve come to me. She does have access to me. Absolutely. She has direct access, but she didn’t come to me. And you know what? That’s okay. I’ll just end up with another bad book. What can I tell you?

BW: It’s surprising to me that these people — did Raj have access to you?

Trump: Not really, but he would’ve been able to do it. But I have an office. You have the office number. I have an office that’s directly into my office.

Conway: [inaudible in background]

Trump: It doesn’t matter. Let me tell you what matters: The economy is the best it’s been in many, many decades. And it’s going to get a lot better. And the country is doing very well. That’s what’s important.

BW: Yes, sir. I thought I would . ..

Trump: We’re doing a good job.

BW: . . . never kind of say, let’s not talk about this because the book is done to a president . ..

Trump: Yeah, I know.

BW: . . . and, but that’s the position we’re in. And it’s one I tried to avoid. You need to know I made maximum effort.

Trump: All right. It’s too bad.

BW: Yes, sir.

Trump: I’m just hearing about it. And I heard — I did hear from Lindsey, but I’m just hearing about it. So we’re going to have a very inaccurate book, and that’s too bad. But I don’t blame you entirely.

BW: No, it’s [?] — it’s going to be accurate, I promise.

Trump: Yeah, okay. Well, accurate is that nobody’s ever done a better job than I’m doing as president. That I can tell you. So that’s . . . And that’s the way a lot of people feel that know what’s going on, and you’ll see that over the years. But a lot of people feel that, Bob.

BW: I believe in our country, and because you’re our president, I wish you good luck.

Trump: Okay. Thank you very much, Bob. I appreciate it. Bye.
Klikkaa laajentaaksesi...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...urnalist-bob-woodward/?utm_term=.fad4aabd1784
 
Trumpilta taas sovinnollisuuden rajoja vahvasti koetteleva tviitti: piikittelee Sessionsia siitä, että Obaman aikakaudella alkaneet paria republikaaniedustajaaa koskevat oikeusjutut saatetaan päätökseen julkisuuden valokeilassa juuri välivaalien lähestyessä, jolloin republikaanit puolueena tulee yllätetyksi housut kintuissa.
https://twitter.com/x/status/1036681588573130752

Jotenkin kallistuisin siihen suuntaan, että Trumpilta jää toinen kausi istumatta valkoisessa talossa. Kerää liikaa vihollisia tviittailullaan. "Kansan syvien rivien" tuella ei kuitenkaan loppuviimeksi pärjää kovinkaan pitkälle USA:n kaltaisessa vahvasti kaksijakoisessa vaalijärjestelmässä, jossa voittomarginaalit ovat yleensä muutaman prosentiin luokkaa. Avainkysymys vain kuuluu, että kukas sitten tilalle? Ollakseen yli 300-miljoonainen kansa, yllättävän heikkotasoisia / mitään sanomattomia ehdokkaita on ollut spekulaatioissa.
 
Viimeksi muokattu:
Mortti kirjoitti:
Trumpilta taas sovinnollisuuden rajoja vahvasti koetteleva tviitti: piikittelee Sessionsia siitä, että Obaman aikakaudella alkaneet paria republikaaniedustajaaa koskevat oikeusjutut saatetaan päätökseen julkisuuden valokeilassa juuri välivaalien lähestyessä, jolloin republikaanit puolueena tulee yllätetyksi housut kintuissa.
https://twitter.com/x/status/1036681588573130752

Jotenkin kallistuisin siihen suuntaan, että Trumpilta jää toinen kausi istumatta valkoisessa talossa. Kerää liikaa vihollisia tviittailullaan. "Kansan syvien rivien" tuella ei kuitenkaan loppuviimeksi pärjää kovinkaan pitkälle USA:n kaltaisessa vahvasti kaksijakoisessa vaalijärjestelmässä, jossa voittomarginaalit ovat yleensä muutaman prosentiin luokkaa. Avainkysymys vain kuuluu, että kukas sitten tilalle? Ollakseen yli 300-miljoonainen kansa, yllättävän heikkotasoisia / mitään sanomattomia ehdokkaita on ollut spekulaatioissa.
Klikkaa laajentaaksesi...

Oikeusministeri varmasti tykkää kun saa lukea presidentin v@ttuilut Twitterin kautta. Todella hienotunteista.
 
  • Tykkää
Reactions: PSS
Mitä enemmän aikaa menee ja kattelen tuota touhua, sitö surrealistisempi olo tulee. Ensin on kaks ehdokasta, tositv bisnesmies ja dementikko. Toista buustaa lehdistö ihan täysillä ja toinen vinoilee menemään minkä kerkeää. Ihmiset sekoavat jomman kumman puolelle ja puolustavat "ehdokastaan" täysin tunteella. Bisnesmies "voittaa" ja pääsee pressaks. Molemmat ikäsä pyörineet samoissa porukoissa. Nettiin ilmestyy ylipatriootti, mystinen armeijan valkohattumikälie ja patriootit kerääntyy yhteen. On salaisia syytelistoja ja hirveesti kaikkee ja jopa mccaini on tuomittu ja tapettu. Eikä kukaan vieläkään _tiedä_ mistään mitään. Kohta bisnesmiehellä on sekä armeija että patriootit mukana, militiat hallitsee alueitaan ja varmaan saadaan poikkeustilakin päälle. Joo'o, siinä maailmanpelastuksen yhteydessä pommitetaan kuitenkin irania, syyriaa ja mitä kaikkia mieleen tulee.

Mun näkemyksen mukaan ihan helvetin isoa teatteria koko touhu. Saas nähä mikä totuus on.
 
Mortti kirjoitti:
Nyt joku valehtelee. Mattis, kirjan kirjoittanut Woodward, tai Woodwardille tietoja välittänyt nimetön lähde.
https://twitter.com/x/status/1037181592068911104
Klikkaa laajentaaksesi...
Öh, Trump twittasi eilen "Kellyn", "Mattiksen" ja "Sandersin" "lausunnot".

Lauserakenne "lausunnoissa" oli liian monimutkaisia Trumpille, mutta teemat samoja joita Trump aina toistaa.

Oma arvaus on että Trump on olennaisilta osin sanonut mitä niihin tulee kirjoittaa. En pidä epäuskottavana että sekä Kelly että Mattis ovat sinänsä kiistäneet sanoneensa heidän sanomikseen kirjassa mainitut asiat, vaikka olisivat sanoneet. He ovat nähneet miten kävi Tillersonille kun hän ei kiistänyt käyttäneensä sanaa moron Trumpista.

Sääli että joutuvat valehtelemaan, mutta Trump tarvitsee aikuisia ympärilleen.

PS. Woodward ei ole käyttänyt yhtä nimetöntä lähdettä, vaan kymmeniä. Usein paria samasta koukouksesta.
 
Etelän republikaanisenaattorit riensivät tukemaan oikeusministeri Jeff Sessionsia, Woodwardin kirjan mukaan Trump kutsui Sessionsia petturiksi, älyllisesti vajaaksi ja tyhmäksi etelän mieheksi. Senaattorit jopa tällä kertaa tukivat Sessionsia vaikka eivät ole lukeneet kirjaa, yleensä kommentointia vältetään sen perusteella ettei kirjaa ole luettu.
Southern Republican senators defended Jeff Sessions after an explosive new book by Bob Woodward recounted how President Trump called his attorney general a “dumb Southerner” and mocked his accent.

In the forthcoming chronicle of Trump’s White House, “Fear,” Woodward writes that the president privately called Sessions a “traitor,” saying: “This guy is mentally retarded. He’s this dumb Southerner . . . He couldn’t even be a one-person country lawyer down in Alabama.”

The remarks are said to have come during a conversation between Trump and his former staff secretary, Rob Porter, about Sessions’s decision to recuse himself from the Russian investigation. They represent the most withering insults the president has directed at his attorney general in months of largely one-sided sniping.

In a message on Twitter Tuesday night, Trump denied making the remarks.

“The already discredited Woodward book, so many lies and phony sources, has me calling Jeff Sessions ‘mentally retarded’ and ‘a dumb southerner.’ I said NEITHER, never used those terms on anyone, including Jeff, and being a southerner is a GREAT thing. He made this up to divide!” the president said.

Republican lawmakers are typically cautious in their criticism of Trump’s latest remarks, but on Tuesday several senators who said they had not read the book still bristled at the president’s alleged slight.

“I’m a Southerner, people can judge my intellect, my IQ, by my product and what I produce rather than what somebody else says,” Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-Ga.) said in an interview.

“We’re a pretty smart bunch. We lost the Civil War, but I think we’re winning the economic war since then . . . I’m not gonna get into name calling because I don’t think you should be allowed to call names — including the president,” he added.

Sen. Richard C. Shelby (R-Ala.), who served alongside Sessions during his 20 years as senator for Alabama, said: “Well, I’m sure I’ve got that accent, wouldn’t you think?”

He pointed out that Trump himself relied on Southern voters during the 2016 general election, warning: “I guess the president, he says what he thinks . . . I think the president’s probably got a lot of respect for the South, I hope so. He did well there. Without the South he wouldn’t be the president of the United States.”

The vast majority of Southern states voted for Trump.

Asked what he thought of Trump’s claim that Sessions was “mentally retarded,” Shelby, the fifth most senior Republican senator, added: “I think that’s strong words. I think Sessions is a very smart man and a man of integrity. I would disagree with the president on that.”

Sen. James M. Inhofe (R-Okla.) added to the chorus of disapproval, joking that Sessions was not a “dumb Southerner” but a “smart Southerner.” “Oh come on,” he said. “I’m a Southerner, too. I think it’s not at all appropriate. It’s totally inappropriate.”

Sen. Thom Tillis (R- N.C.), who grew up in New Orleans and Nashville among other cities, also raised his Southern origins, saying: “As a Southerner, I have to say, Jeff Sessions . . . is bright, studied in the law and well-respected universally by the conference here, I think that speaks for itself. He is bright.”

The comments come a week after it was revealed that Trump last month privately revived the prospect of firing Sessions, with whom he has clashed on issues including the Russia investigation and presidential interference in the judiciary.

Republicans in Congress’s upper chamber have at the same time softened their rhetoric on Sessions, with some openly accepting he will now be replaced but urging him to stay on until the midterm elections.

Said Bob Corker (R-Tenn.) on Tuesday: “I think we all know it’s likely he is going to terminate him after the midterms. In the interim I think it would be good if he stopped raving about Sessions. It’s unbecoming. Either do something or don’t, but these comments just continue to degrade our nation.”

“He doesn’t have healthy respect for the democratic institutions we have here. I was down in Venezuela back in May and the characteristics are definitely the characteristics you get out there, where you award your friends and criminalize your enemies,” said Corker, who is retiring at the end of his term.

Asked whether he thought Sessions could last until the midterms, Sen. John Neely Kennedy (R-La.) told The Washington Post: “I don’t know. It’s not my call, it’s the president’s.”

On Monday, Trump intensified his criticism of Sessions, blaming him for bringing politically inconvenient indictments against two Republican lawmakers: Reps. Chris Collins (R-N.Y.) and Duncan D. Hunter (R-Calif.), who were, respectively, the first and second Republicans in Congress to endorse Trump. Sessions was the third. “The Democrats, none of whom voted for Jeff Sessions, must love him now,” Trump tweeted.
Klikkaa laajentaaksesi...
https://www.washingtonpost.com/powe...f4f84429666_story.html?utm_term=.2675c43bed67
 
Woodwardista mainittakoon, ukko on kirjoittanut kirjat aika monesta presidentistä. Obamaa koskeva opus sattuu löytymään hyllystä, kritisoi myös kovin sanoin esim herran Afganistanin sodan johtamista ja kenraalikuntaa joka teki kovia ratkaisuja ylipäällikkö sivuuttaen.
 
Lurker kirjoitti:
Woodwardista mainittakoon, ukko on kirjoittanut kirjat aika monesta presidentistä. Obamaa koskeva opus sattuu löytymään hyllystä, kritisoi myös kovin sanoin esim herran Afganistanin sodan johtamista ja kenraalikuntaa joka teki kovia ratkaisuja ylipäällikkö sivuuttaen.
Klikkaa laajentaaksesi...
Tämä on kahdeksas. Aloittanut Nixonista. Saanut pari Pulitzer-palkintoa.

Jollei herran taustaa tiedä voi hakea Pentagon papers haulla.
 
Lurker kirjoitti:
Woodwardista mainittakoon, ukko on kirjoittanut kirjat aika monesta presidentistä. Obamaa koskeva opus sattuu löytymään hyllystä, kritisoi myös kovin sanoin esim herran Afganistanin sodan johtamista ja kenraalikuntaa joka teki kovia ratkaisuja ylipäällikkö sivuuttaen.
Klikkaa laajentaaksesi...

En ole lukenut legendaarista Watergate-kirjaa, mutta Woodwardin G.W. Bushin sotia käsittelevät kaksi teosta (Afganistan ja operaatio Enduring Freedom & Irak ja operaatio Iraqi Freedom) tuli aikoinaan lukaistua. Kumpikin edusti minusta ihan laadukkaasti kirjoitettua tutkivaa journalismia. Oletan ettei Woodwardin journalistin maine todellakaan ole heikoimmasta päästä.
 
New York Times julkaisi pokkeuksellisesti anonyymin mielipidekirjoituksen, syynä kirjoittajan korkea asema Trumpin hallinnossa. Kirjoittajan mukaan monet hallinnon työntekijät työskentelevät uutterasti vaikeuttaen presidentin pahimpien ideoiden toteutumista. Syyksi toimintaan kirjoittaja kertoo Trumpin moraalittomuuden, presidentillä ei ole minkäänlaisia periaatteita jotka ohjaisivat hänen toimintaansa.
The Times today is taking the rare step of publishing an anonymous Op-Ed essay. We have done so at the request of the author, a senior official in the Trump administration whose identity is known to us and whose job would be jeopardized by its disclosure. We believe publishing this essay anonymously is the only way to deliver an important perspective to our readers. We invite you to submit a question about the essay or our vetting process here.

President Trump is facing a test to his presidency unlike any faced by a modern American leader.

It’s not just that the special counsel looms large. Or that the country is bitterly divided over Mr. Trump’s leadership. Or even that his party might well lose the House to an opposition hellbent on his downfall.

The dilemma — which he does not fully grasp — is that many of the senior officials in his own administration are working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.

I would know. I am one of them.

To be clear, ours is not the popular “resistance” of the left. We want the administration to succeed and think that many of its policies have already made America safer and more prosperous.

But we believe our first duty is to this country, and the president continues to act in a manner that is detrimental to the health of our republic.

That is why many Trump appointees have vowed to do what we can to preserve our democratic institutions while thwarting Mr. Trump’s more misguided impulses until he is out of office.

The root of the problem is the president’s amorality. Anyone who works with him knows he is not moored to any discernible first principles that guide his decision making.

Although he was elected as a Republican, the president shows little affinity for ideals long espoused by conservatives: free minds, free markets and free people. At best, he has invoked these ideals in scripted settings. At worst, he has attacked them outright.

In addition to his mass-marketing of the notion that the press is the “enemy of the people,” President Trump’s impulses are generally anti-trade and anti-democratic.

Don’t get me wrong. There are bright spots that the near-ceaseless negative coverage of the administration fails to capture: effective deregulation, historic tax reform, a more robust military and more.
But these successes have come despite — not because of — the president’s leadership style, which is impetuous, adversarial, petty and ineffective.

From the White House to executive branch departments and agencies, senior officials will privately admit their daily disbelief at the commander in chief’s comments and actions. Most are working to insulate their operations from his whims.

Meetings with him veer off topic and off the rails, he engages in repetitive rants, and his impulsiveness results in half-baked, ill-informed and occasionally reckless decisions that have to be walked back.
“There is literally no telling whether he might change his mind from one minute to the next,” a top official complained to me recently, exasperated by an Oval Office meeting at which the president flip-flopped on a major policy decision he’d made only a week earlier.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/29/...ckId=signature-journalism-vi&imp_id=180098788
The erratic behavior would be more concerning if it weren’t for unsung heroes in and around the White House. Some of his aides have been cast as villains by the media. But in private, they have gone to great lengths to keep bad decisions contained to the West Wing, though they are clearly not always successful.

It may be cold comfort in this chaotic era, but Americans should know that there are adults in the room. We fully recognize what is happening. And we are trying to do what’s right even when Donald Trump won’t.

The result is a two-track presidency.

Take foreign policy: In public and in private, President Trump shows a preference for autocrats and dictators, such as President Vladimir Putin of Russia and North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-un, and displays little genuine appreciation for the ties that bind us to allied, like-minded nations.

Astute observers have noted, though, that the rest of the administration is operating on another track, one where countries like Russia are called out for meddling and punished accordingly, and where allies around the world are engaged as peers rather than ridiculed as rivals.

On Russia, for instance, the president was reluctant to expel so many of Mr. Putin’s spies as punishment for the poisoning of a former Russian spy in Britain. He complained for weeks about senior staff members letting him get boxed into further confrontation with Russia, and he expressed frustration that the United States continued to impose sanctions on the country for its malign behavior. But his national security team knew better — such actions had to be taken, to hold Moscow accountable.

This isn’t the work of the so-called deep state. It’s the work of the steady state.

Given the instability many witnessed, there were early whispers within the cabinet of invoking the 25th Amendment, which would start a complex process for removing the president. But no one wanted to precipitate a constitutional crisis. So we will do what we can to steer the administration in the right direction until — one way or another — it’s over.

The bigger concern is not what Mr. Trump has done to the presidency but rather what we as a nation have allowed him to do to us. We have sunk low with him and allowed our discourse to be stripped of civility.

Senator John McCain put it best in his farewell letter. All Americans should heed his words and break free of the tribalism trap, with the high aim of uniting through our shared values and love of this great nation.

We may no longer have Senator McCain. But we will always have his example — a lodestar for restoring honor to public life and our national dialogue. Mr. Trump may fear such honorable men, but we should revere them.

There is a quiet resistance within the administration of people choosing to put country first. But the real difference will be made by everyday citizens rising above politics, reaching across the aisle and resolving to shed the labels in favor of a single one: Americans.

The writer is a senior official in the Trump administration.
Klikkaa laajentaaksesi...
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/05/...l?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
 
taantumu kirjoitti:
New York Times julkaisi pokkeuksellisesti anonyymin mielipidekirjoituksen, syynä kirjoittajan korkea asema Trumpin hallinnossa. Kirjoittajan mukaan monet hallinnon työntekijät työskentelevät uutterasti vaikeuttaen presidentin pahimpien ideoiden toteutumista. Syyksi toimintaan kirjoittaja kertoo Trumpin moraalittomuuden, presidentillä ei ole minkäänlaisia periaatteita jotka ohjaisivat hänen toimintaansa.
Klikkaa laajentaaksesi...
Kyseisellä kirjoittajalla on mielenkiintoinen näkemys demokratiasta. Sen ymmärtäisi, jos Trump tekisi jotain ihan muuta kuin vaalipuheissaan lupasi, mutta kun tilanne taitaa olla juuri päinvastainen. Kirjoittaja näyttäisi moittivan Trumpia siitä, että hän ei noudata republikaaniäänestäjien esivaaleissa vankasti hylkäämää republikaanien perinteistä linjaa. Vaalituloksella ei ilmeisesti saisikaan olla konkreettista vaikutusta politiikan suuntaan?

Sinänsä joku reaktio oli odotettavissa, että esim. Trumpin varsinkin Sessionsiin kohdistunut arvostelu varmasti on silittänyt monia republikaaneja vastakarvaan. Ja muutenkin suuri(n?) osa perinteisistä republikaanipampuista on joutunut lähinnä pakon edessä näyttelemään olevansa hyvää pataa Trumpin kanssa, koska Trump onnistui kaappaamaan republikaanien äänestäjäkunnan niin vahvasti hyppysiinsä. Republikaanien joukossa on toki ollut koko ajan myös muutama avoinkin anti-Trumpisti (laskisin ainakin entisen parivaljakon John McCainin & Lindsay Grahamin tähän kastiin). Saa nähdä, josko muut toistaiseksi piilotelleet republikaanien anti-trumpistitkin vähitellen alkavat aktivoitua. En usko esim. jonkun republikaanien puhemies Paul Ryanin erityisemmin pitävän Trumpista. Mutta pelkäävät alkaa avoimeen konfliktiin, koska silloin äänestäjät voivat tykätä kyttyrää.
 
Sinun täytyy kirjautua vastataksesi.
Back
Top