Patterico's Pontifications

3/5/2019

Bolton Lies Without Shame About Trump Accepting Kim’s Word

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:23 am



Brazen lying:

BOLTON: He’s not taking his word. He said, “I’m going to take,” what he said is “I’m going to take him at his word.” It just, it doesn’t mean that he accepts it as reality. It means that he accepts that’s what Kim Jong Un said.

Not only is this incoherent, it’s a lie. As Allahpundit points out (and let’s face it, I’m just regurgitating his post but in a less entertaining fashion), Trump said he believes Kim:

[TRUMP:] I did speak about it [with Kim], and I don’t believe that he would have allowed that to happen. It just wasn’t to his advantage to allow that to happen. Those prisons are rough, they’re rough places and bad things happened. But I really don’t believe that he was — I don’t believe he knew about it.

REPORTER: Did he tell you that — did Kim Jong Un tell you?

TRUMP: He felt badly about it. I did speak to him, he felt very badly. He knew the case very well, but he knew it later. And you’ve got a lot of people, big country, a lot of people. And in those prisons and those camps you have a lot of people. And some really bad things happened to Otto, some really, really bad things. But he tells me that he didn’t know about it, and I will take him at his word.

Trumpers will defend Trump’s licking Kim’s behind as a charm offensive, but other world leaders aren’t as vapid as Trump. They don’t ignore literally every goal and principle they have and dissolve into a puddle of easily manipulated protoplasm just because someone praises them. That’s Trump — and Trump thinks everyone else is like him.

But they’re not. Kim is used to praise. He expects it. If he doesn’t get it from you, and if he has power over you, he will have you tortured and killed. Praise is just not that big a deal for the guy. It’s nice to get, of course, from the leader of the free world — it’s excellent propaganda! — but it won’t cause him to denuclearize. Only a complete idiot would think that. (Trump thinks that.)

I’m well into Escape from Camp 14, a book about the only person ever born in a North Korean prison to escape. The North Koreans are essentially Nazis. The horrors of their labor camps are indescribable.

Donald Trump gives the guy in charge of those camps a complete pass, and John Bolton just lied about it.

101 Responses to “Bolton Lies Without Shame About Trump Accepting Kim’s Word”

  1. I thought better of Bolton. Sigh.

    Happy Tuesday, everyone.

    Simon Jester (c8876d)

  2. Bolton is right. Taking someone at their word certainly does not mean believe. It means we’re here to discuss something else, let’s move on. Does anyone really think the President should call Kim a liar? In the middle of a negotiation? Over something that, while certainly outrageous, is in the past. The President is trying to improve the future.

    Bruce D (6f45b5)

  3. Taking someone at their word certainly does not mean believe.

    To take someone at his word most certainly DOES mean believe him:

    Look it up

    Accept what someone says on trust

    Chuck Bartowski (bc1c71)

  4. Bruce D: Reading is fundamental. Trump said he believes Kim. It’s quoted right there in the post you did not read.

    Patterico (1b4610)

  5. There is no end to the spinning some Trumpers will do. My God.

    Patterico (1b4610)

  6. Um, “I take you at your word” means I believe you. “Let’s move on” is what Trump and Bolton would like us all to do. You and Bolton are getting into Clintonesque territory where meaning “depends on what the meaning of ‘is’ is.”

    JRH (fe281f)

  7. “I don’t believe he knew about it.” That’s a direct quote. Spin that. Go ahead, I know you can!

    Patterico (1b4610)

  8. I’m pretty sure that Kim Jong Un knows every prisoner in NK…who is an American. He may not know every North Korean prisoner per se, but Otto Warmbier was not just any run of the mill prisoner.

    Dana (023079)

  9. True, Dana. Also, Hitler did not know every Jew he killed, but going out of your way to excuse Hitler and call him your buddy would not be terribly Churchillian.

    Patterico (1b4610)

  10. Maybe if Trump looked into his eyes and saw his soul, he’d know Kim was lying.

    Is that how it works with better presidents?

    Munroe (b6b8d2)

  11. This isn’t hard: if Bolton claims Trump really didn’t mean what we all clearly heard him say, how is the public to believe anything the president or his national security advisor say?

    Dana (023079)

  12. Fun fact: Hitler didn’t have nuclear weapons. But, yeah, Stalin did — or, was that good “buddy” Uncle Joe?

    Munroe (796dfd)

  13. Just like Obama said things that he had to say but Democrats knew he didn’t believe (like being against gay marriage but putting in every possible judge who would pass it) we know that Trump will do the same.

    Clearly there is a diplomatic goal and the diplomatic goal is not achieved by this complaint. But it’s okay, Trump can call Kim ‘Little Rocket Man’ any time he feels it’s to his advantage.

    Right now we’re playing with carrots, not sticks. Things have been pretty peaceful, North Korea wise – no missiles over Japan recently, right? So Trump is keeping things positive. After all, by the reporting Trump did get to the admission of the possibility of some kind of limited but real physical concession in return for a big concession on our part.

    That’s more than Israel gets from the Palestinians. Trump didn’t take it, but it’s still more than we had before.

    Ingot9455 (f12c00)

  14. It’s a gotcha question at a press conference by a hostile news reporter. Who wants nothing more than for Trump to say something that can be either presented as him being clueless or coddling a dictator. CNN got what they wanted. You’re just lapping it up.

    Consider this scenario: Kim, of course, does know the locations and health condition of VIP prisoners. But what if one of his senior underlings was lying to him about Warmbler’s condition and didn’t tell him the truth until it was obvious that Warmbler might die in their custody? They don’t want that to happen, so they contact us to arrange release and presumably, the senior underling who misled Kim is either a guest of his country’s gulag or sleeping with the fishes. Kim could be lying about when he knew, but how are we going to prove it and is it our best geopolitical interests to accuse him of lying at a press conference? It’s amazing that a very smart prosecutor is foaming at the mouth about this and following the lead of a willfully blind press propaganda machine that willingly sold bagfuls of crap on behalf of the Obama Administration.

    CygnusAnalogMan (9c66ec)

  15. He said, “But he tells me that he didn’t know about it, and I will take him at his word.”. Seems clear to me. I ask again, what should he have done, called Kim a liar to his face? How can anyone really know what Kim knew?
    Presidents have been kept awake at night about North Korea’s nukes for decades. They have tried to negotiate, with little success. President Trump may also fail. But some progress has been made, no rocket testing in more than a year, same with nuke testing.
    Why are so many so ready to attack the President rather then giving him a chance to do something that previous Presidents also tried to do?

    Bruce D (6f45b5)

  16. The most straightforward explanation was provided directly by our president, who stated that he and Chairman Kim had fallen in love. (You could look it up. This really happened.) We all know how love can be blind.

    John B Boddie (66f464)

  17. “Why are so many so ready to attack the President rather then giving him a chance to do something that previous Presidents also tried to do?”
    Bruce D (6f45b5) — 3/5/2019 @ 8:39 am

    Because there’s something worse than being obliterated by a nuclear inferno, and that’s having a president that lies.

    Munroe (6c1d4e)

  18. “Because there’s something worse than being obliterated by a nuclear inferno, and that’s having a president that lies.”

    If only these weren’t the only choices. Alas.

    Davethulhu (fab944)

  19. Thank the Lord, all Trump has to do is go to confession, say a few Hail Marys, a couple Acts of Contrition and three Our Fathers and all is good. Peace be with you, never lies.

    mg (8cbc69)

  20. I ask again, what should he have done, called Kim a liar to his face?

    You DO understand that there’s a lot of ground between trusting someone at his word and calling him a liar to his face, right?

    Chuck Bartowski (bc1c71)

  21. Trumpers will defend Trump’s licking Kim’s behind as a charm offensive,

    Keepin’ it classy. …and not insulting to any of the blog readership.

    Excellent role model for commenting. This is why I continue to visit the blog: for the intellectually challenging political commentary.

    ColoComment (b48a15)

  22. There is no end to the spinning some Trumpers will do.

    And if they can’t spin, they’ll deflect (“But Obama …”), or suggest that you’re a bad person for failing to revere Trump uncritically.
    I saw a lot of that back during the primaries: emotional hostility in response to any suggestion that Trump isn’t supremely wise, brave, resolute, self-sacrificing, etc. So it isn’t just a matter of “you side with Trump or you side with the loony left.” It’s a bizarre belief that Donald Trump, uniquely, merits uncritical devotion and unquestioning trust.
    That isn’t any more healthy or sane than the Dems’ hysterical opposition.

    Radegunda (694c3c)

  23. I gave the example of noel field, he was actually a Soviet spy, but stalin more likely beria didnt trust him so they sent him to Siberia, the counterpart to beria is the fee llow we’ve been negotiating with for seven years, the machinery of the regime isn’t concerned with one drifting student, even with regime sympathies, this is what the framework relied upon.

    Narciso (55a4c4)

  24. @1. Think again.

    And again. Times 10 to the 23rd power.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  25. Walrus Gumbo, Fox News stooge, President of RedEye [defunct]

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQDRHqTD6WQ

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  26. Have you read A River in Darkness? It is a very harrowing description of every day life in NorK.

    Slugger (5b2669)

  27. Kim’s ‘I-have-lost-interest-in-negotiating’ ploy is priceless, too. Beats Trump over the head with his own game… after eating his lunch w/two world stage leveling face-to-faces w/t POTUS. Our Captain’s easier to play than a radio.

    The world knows if you smack a Trump piñata, two hours of CPAC spills out.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  28. Please you clobbered over Gorbachev and celebrated andropovs jazz collection. A regime is a machine, that swallows up even close relatives of the ruling class.

    Narciso (55a4c4)

  29. speaking of lying west virginia republican legislature put up poster showing picture of congresswoman omar with caption we have already forgotten 9-11. a fight broke out when a democrat tried to put up poster showing bush cheney and neo-con artists with caption from progress for new american century (1998) “we will need a SECOND PEARL HARBOR before the american people will allow us to attack iraq. and bush receiving c.i.a. report in august 2001 titled bin ladin determined to attack in america with aircraft. bush telling c.i.a. ok you have covered your a*s I will tell attorney general ashcroft not to fly commercial aircraft.

    lany (9f8b81)

  30. Words, words, words! Actions are what matters. Trump got Wambier released after Obama allowed him to remain in a NK prison cell.

    David in Cal (0d5a1d)

  31. Take him at his word meaning giving the fat little bastard the benefit of the doubt, I guess.

    Trump is liable to say nearly anything at any time, for better or worse. Bolton is following his lead.

    Colonel Haiku (e2ff85)

  32. Perhaps I’ve grown too old to have any appreciation for being outraged more days than not.

    Colonel Haiku (e2ff85)

  33. @31. Actually, Kim sold Trump a vegetable before it went totally bad. And ‘The Donald’ bought it only because the price was right: free.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  34. Our handyman in our building was in the imap, that was the country camp the Castro brothers set up, you were likely to end up there even if you werent a political prisoner,

    Narciso (55a4c4)

  35. 35… I’m sure the sentiment is appreciated.

    Colonel Haiku (e2ff85)

  36. The budget is already 77% greater than last year.
    O Donno Boy You should have vetoed the first omnibus. Both Parties hate your guts, just do cost cutting, gosh darn it.

    mg (8cbc69)

  37. To say a person did not know about an incident is not the same as saying that same person does not bear any responsibility for it. It’s quite common that national leaders are held responsible for things they had no personal knowledge about at the time.

    Darren M. (a4eb00)

  38. BOLTON: He’s not taking his word. He said, “I’m going to take,” what he said is “I’m going to take him at his word.” It just, it doesn’t mean that he accepts it as reality. It means that he accepts that’s what Kim Jong Un said.

    Bolton is exactly correct, at least as far as the meaning of that expression goes.

    Trump used that expression twice in his press conference, and it is clear from the other time that by take him at his word Trump does not mean accept it as reality, but rather something like treat it as if it were true.

    And one of the things importantly that chairman Kim promised me last night is regardless he’s not going to do testing of rockets and nuclear — not going to do testing. So, you know, I trust him, and I take him at his word. I hope that’s true. But in the meantime we’ll be talking. Mike will be speaking with his people.

    Note that he “trusts him” and he “takes him at his word” but at the same time, he only “hopes” it is the truth!

    I think this is more than Trump just trying to have things both ways, as is his wont on occasions.

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

  39. @37. Seems so; Trump sentimentality: he takes Kim at his word.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  40. Trump did in fact say he believes Kim did not order Warmbier’s mistreatment or death, but this was not what the words: I take him at his word mean.

    But there are two other problems with what Donald Trump said about Kim’s guilt for what happened to Otto Warmbier.

    He felt badly about it. I did speak to him. He felt very badly. But he knew the case very well, but he knew it later….He tells me that he didn’t know about it, and I will take him at his word.

    First, Donald Trump seems to have believed Kim’s acting: Trump seems to believe that nobody is able to lie convincingly about not having done something wrong, not Putin; not Mohammed bin Salman; not Kim Jong Un; or he believes that that degree of lying is beyond the capability of most human beings. Or at least Trump acts like he believes that sort of thing. (it was reported that he did, at first first believe Christine Blasey Ford, until he heard Brett Kavanaugh, firmly deny what she said, so there may be some truth to that supposition. Of course, that way, Trump may be constantly have been taken advantage of.)

    Second, Trump also said: I don’t believe that he would have allowed that to happen. It just wasn’t to his advantage to allow that to happen.

    Which kishnevi agreed with.

    As I said in another comment in another post, that is a fallacy. Because Kim did not expect to release Otto Warmbier any time soon.

    And in fact, Trump may actually have brought about Otto Warmbier’s death, as I explained.

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

  41. 1944: ‘John has a long moustache.’
    2019: ‘John has a brown moustache.’

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  42. Donald Trump:

    Remember, I got Otto out along with three others.

    Actually, Donald Trump probably caused the death of Otto Warmbier!

    Kim Jong Un felt he had to release Otto Warmbier because he needed it as a condition of meeting Donald Trump, and he was afraid of Donald Trump after Trump had tweeted:

    https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/948355557022420992?lang=en

    Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump

    North Korean Leader Kim Jong Un just stated that the “Nuclear Button is on his desk at all times.” Will someone from his depleted and food starved regime please inform him that I too have a Nuclear Button, but it is a much bigger & more powerful one than his, and my Button works!

    4:49 PM – 2 Jan 2018

    My button works!

    Meaning, to Kim, that maybe his “button” doesn’t work; i.e. the U.S. has sabotaged something, or could destroy missiles in flight, and Donald Trump has a loose lip.

    Trump had been trying to alert Kim that if he tried to use nuclear weapons, he would suffer destruction – he would lose. And here he was telling him that the United States was not afraid of what he might try.

    Kim Jong Un almost instantly reversed course, and stopped all his threats. He had to negotiate – he had to stall Donald Trump.

    And to do this he has to release Otto Warmbier.

    Problem: Otto Warmbier had undergone too much torture; seen too many other people suffer; or had contact with some long term secret political prisoners, whose names he could reveal, maybe Japanse it doesn’t want to admit it is still holding or North Koreans who could have told him tales – maybe even about the nuclear program, or whatever they felt they needed to keep highly secret – or maybe again just the names of other prisoners – for the North Korean state to feel that they could release him. (I mean the way they felt, they felt they couldn’t, or were afraid to. It is not like this is actually necessary to keep thse secrets or would make a difference, except for fools, and there are very few real fools who deal with North Korea.)

    Kim’s solution: Release Otto Warmbier alive, but in such a way that he will never regain consciousness.

    (North Korea probably didn’t expect the Warmbier family to turn off life support, so they thought they were safe from an accusation of having killed him.)

    That’s what probably happened.

    Warmbier was originally tortured because Kim just had to have a show trial where he confessed – it was not enough to give him a long sentence over his protestations of innocence or in total secrecy.

    At that time it was expected he’d be kept locked up for a very very long time. So they didn’t worry about who or what he would be exposed to, or what would happen if he was released.

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

  43. 14. CygnusAnalogMan (9c66ec) — 3/5/2019 @ 8:25 am

    But what if one of his senior underlings was lying to him about Warmbler’s condition and didn’t tell him the truth until it was obvious that Warmbler might die in their custody?

    No, if that was teh case, the family would have been able to detect what caused him to be put in a coma.

    This was not an accident. What happened to Otto Warmbier was scientifically planned.

    Otto Warmbier was not released because he was near death; he was near death because he was released!

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

  44. Trump’s been interested in nuclear proliferation for a long time.

    In 1987 a book was published by Penguin written by Ron Rosenbaum called Manhattan Passions. It consists of pieces that were previously published in the magazine called “Manhattan Inc.”

    One of them is an interview with Donald Trump. Trump cancelled and uncancelled his interview because
    he said he didn’t know whether he wanted to talk about his idea. (his idea was for the United States and the Soviet Union, acting together, to force all other nations to give up nuclear weapons because most of these countries that could develop nuclear weapons are in one form or another dominated by one or the other..

    Now one things Ron Rosenbaum wrote there is:

    “And so it occurred to me in the aftermath of reading “:Deadly Gambits>” What could we possibly have to lose by placing all nuclear negotiating in the hands of Donald Trump?’

    This.actually.happened. Thirty years later.

    I don’t think Ron Rosenbaum actually really meant that.

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

  45. well there was a sputnik report, that Russia was unrecognizing north korea as a nuclear power,

    https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/03/05/schiff-and-nadler-hiring-lawfare-members-for-investigative-staff/comment-page-2/#comment-6774526

    narciso (d1f714)

  46. Bolton is an amateur liar, and not very good at it. He only told one lie to Chris Wallace, which pales before the 104 whoppers his boss told at CPAC (ad homs anticipated).

    Paul Montagu (eab766)

  47. well what do we have here:

    https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/we-ask-america-poll-illinois-voters-give-trump-higher-marks-pritzker-madigan/

    as compared to the framework, or the iran deal, it’s near beer

    narciso (d1f714)

  48. Breaking earlier: Michael Bloomberg won’t run – says he can’t win the Democratic nomination in acrowded field, although he says he would win the general election. And doesn’t like the Green New Deal.

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)

  49. sammeh he was going nowhere, but it leaves him time to pursue the everytown confiscation agenda, you don’t believe me as congressman mike Thompson,

    http://thefederalist.com/2019/03/05/explosive-new-documents-reveal-andrew-weissmanns-misconduct-enron-case/

    narciso (d1f714)

  50. Maybe if Trump looked into his eyes and saw his soul, he’d know Kim was lying.

    Is that how it works with better presidents?

    If Trump said that, you’d excuse it.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  51. I think the NK leaders are more in the Maoist, Stalinist camp rather than Hitleresque… same result, and a minor quibble, since the results are the same.
    Tortured by Maoists or Nazis feels the same and the politics are no consolation

    steveg (a9dcab)

  52. It’s amazing that a very smart prosecutor is foaming at the mouth about this and following the lead of a willfully blind press propaganda machine that willingly sold bagfuls of crap on behalf of the Obama Administration.

    It’s amazing that I have commenters willing to make excuses for the most despotic regime on earth, and for that regime’s defenders in the Oval Office.

    By the way: never mention my job again while criticizing me, or it will be your last comment here.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  53. For the most part, American POW’s were treated better by the Nazi’s than they were by Japanese, North Koreans, Chinese and North Vietnamese. The Middle East is no place for a Jew or a westerner to get imprisoned either.
    Unless you were Jewish or Slav, the far better option over the last 150 years would be the Nazis.
    The Asians and Middle Easterners have reputation for treating others like dirt. One could make a case that some African ethnic/religious groups are even worse unless you prefer death by rape and machete

    steveg (a9dcab)

  54. Well Kim is sung waa stalin pulpit, but one couldn’t help the mao influence, and the countervailing forces with japan.

    Narciso (464705)

  55. It’s amazing that I have commenters willing to make excuses for the most despotic regime on earth, and for that regime’s defenders in the Oval Office.

    And unlike Bolton, they’re probably not being paid for it.

    Trump, being Trump, gave a Trumpian answer to gotcha question that any City of Chicago Alderman would have dismissed with a wave of his cigar and a flash of his pinkie ring. Bolton, whose only other prospect is a retirement community, has to defend Trump or join the long parade of failed sycophants which has passed through the Oval Office in the past two years.

    nk (dbc370)

  56. Okay, sure, Nazis and NorKos sport lousy haircuts but at least the Germans were snappy dressers.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  57. A fellow named Robert flynn passed today, he was a federal Express pilot, favored raconteur on the main blog, years ago he was a write in against Murkowski,

    Narciso (464705)

  58. @50. Michael Bloomberg: soda jerk.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  59. We haven’t figured out the hermit kingdom in nearly 70 years, it was the most costly stalemate we had before Vietnam,

    Narciso (464705)

  60. No. The Germans could be brutal to POWs, but ask John McCains ghost if the communist asians hold the moral high ground

    steveg (a9dcab)

  61. Among other reasons, such as Goebbels wanting to have good propaganda with the International Red Cross (he was the one who snitched out the massacre of the Polish officers at Katyn forest by Stalin to them), we had something like 350,000 German POWS ourselves right here in the good old U.S. of A, and what was sauce for the gander would have been sauce for the goosestepper.

    nk (dbc370)

  62. Have you read A River in Darkness? It is a very harrowing description of every day life in NorK.

    No, Slugger, but thanks to your comment I have bought it. Thank you for the recommendation.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  63. Well, this post is as good a demonstration as any that a prosecutor is probably a poor choice for a diplomat, hostage negotiator, or peacemaker of any sort.

    Terrence (cb5d31)

  64. Well, this post is as good a demonstration as any that a prosecutor is probably a poor choice for a diplomat, hostage negotiator, or peacemaker of any sort.

    I’ll tell you the same thing I told the last person who brought up my job while insulting me. Do it again and it’s the last post you’ll make on this blog.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  65. Bolton is exactly correct, at least as far as the meaning of that expression goes.

    Sigh.

    No. No, he’s not, Sammy.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  66. All right then. I think that treating diplomatic negotiations with countries that have nuclear capabilities and a history of erratic behavior that may or may not be due to being puppets of another nuclear state like it’s a witness cross-examination is foolish at best and malicious at worst no matter what your profession.

    While I’m at it, I could also add that making strong allegations in the absence of hard evidence and accusing those who want to duly present their alternative theories by some process as shills for someone you hate is also shameful, foolish, and probably malicious no matter what your profession.

    It’s as anti-persuasive and guaranteed to make enemies among the fair-minded as marching up and down the Charlottesville streets with tiki torches.

    Terrence (0c84a6)

  67. shameful, foolish, and probably malicious

    OK. Goodbye. Find a different blog that allows you to insult people.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  68. I look at it like harry lime in the third man, when he was on the ferris wheel.

    Narciso (5098db)

  69. @70. More the sewer rat; at home w/Walrus Gumbo.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  70. Bolton is a diplomat, yes. I would expect better from diplomats than to kowtow to dictators in the name of covering an American politician’s behind.

    Gryph (08c844)

  71. John Bolton lied for Trump because that’s what people who work for Trump do for a living. It’s interesting that Trump, since his failed “summit” with Little Kim, has tried to blame the failure on the Democrats’ questioning Michael Cohen at the same time. He may have a point there.

    Maybe it was indeed bad timing to choose the day Trump was planning to sign away the security interests of the U.S. and her allies in the name of “peace” to draw attention to the fact that Trump only hires climbing sycophants who earn their money and advancement within his organization by lying for him and publicly praising him.

    In other words, Kim, who after all is trying to hoodwink Trump by being the better liar, may have been turned off by learning that Trump’s administration operates exactly like his own. Except that Kim kills the turncoats, whereas Trump merely smears them on Twitter and/or tries to intimidate them with vague threats to their families.

    Daren Jonescu (d6f3b4)

  72. @ Patterico – It’s amazing you’ve decided to descend to the last refuge of a political commentator – I’m credentialed and how dare you mention my job in critiquing the rational behind my commentary! I’m not defending the regime of Kim – I’m pointing out that that CNN reporter probably asked that question in a way to catch Trump in a bumbling answer and make a humongous deal about his answer as him “coddling” a dictator when his response was polite and diplomatic as can be in that press conference setting. I would strongly echo Terrence in his statement. You wanna ban me, go ahead. Hope you enjoy wallowing in your NeverTrumpian echo chamber.

    CygnusAnalogMan (9c66ec)

  73. @ Sammy Finkelman –

    Problem: Otto Warmbier had undergone too much torture; seen too many other people suffer; or had contact with some long term secret political prisoners, whose names he could reveal, maybe Japanse it doesn’t want to admit it is still holding or North Koreans who could have told him tales – maybe even about the nuclear program, or whatever they felt they needed to keep highly secret – or maybe again just the names of other prisoners – for the North Korean state to feel that they could release him. (I mean the way they felt, they felt they couldn’t, or were afraid to. It is not like this is actually necessary to keep thse secrets or would make a difference, except for fools, and there are very few real fools who deal with North Korea.

    I think Occam’s Razor strongly applies here – He probably underwent too much torture or neglect that caused his death. The rest is fantastic rambling that is more suited to a psychological thriller. I would note that the doctors here in the US found no evidence of physical torture on Warmbier’s body. I would posit that perhaps if they did, they would keep it quiet to avoid inflaming the American public but I don’t believe the family would ever agree to keep something like that quiet.

    CygnusAnalogMan (9c66ec)

  74. @ Patterico – It’s amazing you’ve decided to descend to the last refuge of a political commentator – I’m credentialed and how dare you mention my job in critiquing the rational [sic] behind my commentary!

    I think you should and will be banned for refusing to abide by the host’s rules but, FWIW: You missed Patterico’s point. This blog is personal and not about Patterico’s day job so it is inappropriate to bring up his job to make a point or try to libel his work/profession.

    DRJ (15874d)

  75. As Sammy mentioned above, prior to him saying “I take him at his word,” Trump said “I trust him.” This has to mean that Trump trusts a dictator who has taken American citizens hostage (and murdered one of them), sentenced his people to economic squalor, and has a record of not being trustworthy on agreements going back to his welshing grand daddy.

    Paul Montagu (eab766)

  76. @ DRJ – I’m not libeling his work and/or his profession. If I was an opposing defense attorney on this blog, I’d be shouting Objection! Assumes facts not in evidence! And I’d probably have a good portion of my objections sustained by the presiding judge. I’d also point out that Patterico can’t have it both ways on this blog when he talks about people he’d endorse for political/judicial posts based on his prior work experience with them or their reputation in the legal community.

    CygnusAnalogMan (9c66ec)

  77. Monroe sez:

    Fun fact: Hitler didn’t have nuclear weapons. But, yeah, Stalin did — or, was that good “buddy” Uncle Joe?

    Gee, I dunno. Was Uncle Joe our buddy in 1949? What does Trump Superfan Revisionist History say about that?

    Hey Trump fans: Was Reagan a bad diplomat for calling Russia an “evil empire” while they had nukes? Should he instead have been denying their complicity in the horrors described by Russian dissidents?

    [Lightly edited]

    Patterico (4af482)

  78. @ Patterico – It’s amazing you’ve decided to descend to the last refuge of a political commentator – I’m credentialed and how dare you mention my job in critiquing the rational behind my commentary

    Goodbye.

    Patterico (4af482)

  79. I would strongly echo Terrence in his statement. You wanna ban me, go ahead

    You got your wish. Personal insults are also not tolerated so that’s strike four.

    Patterico (4af482)

  80. What I think is that if I put what we know about Trump and what Trump is saying about Kim Jong Un in front of a jury, I could get a special finding that what Trump is really trying to do is get into Kim Jong Un’s pants. Did he tell him that he reminds him of his daughter and promise him a role on The Apprentice, I wonder?

    nk (dbc370)

  81. 78. No. But you are gone so I don’t have to waste time explaining why.

    DRJ (15874d)

  82. “Gee, I dunno, Trumper. Was Uncle Joe our buddy in 1949? What does Trump Superfan Revisionist History say about that?

    Hey Trumper geniuses: Was Reagan a bad diiplomat for calling Russia an “evil empire” while they had nukes? Should he instead have been denying their complicity in the horrors described by Russian dissidents?”
    Patterico (4af482) — 3/6/2019 @ 6:48 am

    “Trumper” — your blog, your rules.

    Churchill would’ve been much less Churchillian with a Hitler possessing nuclear weapons. Or, do you disagree? We had oh, umpteen or so summits with the evil empire, under umpteen presidents including Reagan — which was so very Churchillian wasn’t it? I mean, Reagan called Andropov a liar to his face how many times? Lost count.

    Munroe (90a77c)

  83. I lightly edited 79, removing a reference to “Trumper geniuses” and such, to make it conform to my own standards. Sorry about that. Something about watching people justify a sub-moron’s praise for the head of perhaps the most brutal regime on Earth gets under my skin, but that’s no excuse.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  84. I see Munroe preserved the previous version (complete with misspelling) so you can see what was changed.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  85. How quickly we forget the fire and fury days.

    Narciso (1cbb4d)

  86. Reagan never ONCE denied the Soviet Union leadership’s complicity for the evils taking place inside its borders, and THAT is what we are talking about here. You’re justifying monstrous lying about evil. If Obama did the same you’d be all over him.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  87. Good man Obama who cheered the spirited debate when the basij blew neda sultans head clean off from a motor bike

    Narciso (1cbb4d)

  88. Churchill feared Hitler’s nuclear program but he didn’t change his diplomacy or rhetoric. He used special forces and prepared for a possible attack.

    DRJ (15874d)

  89. Churchill would’ve been much less Churchillian with a Hitler possessing nuclear weapons. Or, do you disagree? We had oh, umpteen or so summits with the evil empire, under umpteen presidents including Reagan — which was so very Churchillian wasn’t it? I mean, Reagan called Andropov a liar to his face how many times? Lost count.

    That really makes no sense, comparing a hypothetical to actual history where Reagan’s blunt foreign policy approach with a nuclear superpower ultimately succeeded.

    Paul Montagu (eab766)

  90. Now one could cite claudia rosett, but why bother, you dont want to go war except when. You do.

    Narciso (1cbb4d)

  91. BTW, Graeme Wood has a good piece on Bolton. The NSA may have been easily busted in a lie but, like with other Trump people who go on these shows, he’s playing to an audience of one, and lying for the president is a kind of loyalty test. Also, this:

    He is now the most important figure in American national security, and because his position requires no Senate confirmation, he answers to no one but Trump. With the departure of James Mattis as secretary of defense early this year, Bolton is, incredibly, the only senior security official close to Trump who has seen how a normal White House works. (He has served in every Republican administration since 1981. Most Trump appointees have never served any other president.)

    The funny part in the piece is his describing one of the reasons why Trump didn’t hire Bolton earlier:

    “He could have risen faster if he had just been less of a dick.”
    It’s difficult to exaggerate how hard it is to earn a reputation as a dick in Washington. It’s like being known as a real nerd by fellow scientists at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory, or as the resident prude by sisters at a nunnery.

    And here’s what Bolton really thinks about North Korea.

    “He’s going to make [North Korea talks] fail if he can,” another ex-Boltonite says. Bolton’s record with the North Koreans suggests that he would rather have Kim as an enemy than as the condo-developing, nuclear-armed friend Trump and Pompeo are trying to create. Bolton’s motives will also be professionally self-serving, says his ex-colleague: “Why should I break my pick fighting my boss over this? When it fails, I need someone to be the one associated with it instead of me.” Last year, Bolton compared Trump’s North Korea policy to the policy that led to the fall of the Libyan dictator Muammar Qaddafi in 2011. Qaddafi ended up sodomized with a bayonet, then shot in the head. The comparison did not make Kim Jong Un more trusting of Trump’s overtures. If Bolton’s intention was sabotage, it may have worked.

    Paul Montagu (eab766)

  92. 89. By way of clarification, not only did Reagan never deny the Soviet Union leadership’s complicity, but the media had the vapors on more than one occasion for the way he would call them out on it.

    Gryph (08c844)

  93. @85. Churchill would have been much less Churchillian with a Hitler possessing nuclear weapons.

    Ask some old timers in Coventry or London ’bout them lovely Nawzi firestorms, mate. Bone up on the Blitz.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  94. Personal insults are also not tolerated so that’s strike four.

    Not insulting. Describing. As I understand it, vampires cannot see their own reflections. Must have something to do with being blood suckers.

    HoBo (79b716)

  95. @94. It’s a long-winded way of saying Walrus Gumbo was a third or fourth stringer plucked for the gig only because he was a Fox News toady. Just like the Snowman.

    The greatest worry for the United States isn’t NorKo, or China, or Russia. It’s our Captain with his finger on the button– of his TeeVee remote control.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  96. as the resident prude by sisters at a nunnery
    I have known a few nuns. They were strict with themselves, but not a prude among them.

    Kishnevi (a731c3)

  97. Un won’t get sodomized with a bayonet.
    He’ll get fed to the feral hogs by his cousins.
    Neither sounds real good to me..

    My guess is Un should play the long game here. He’ll get a much better deal if Bernie wins in 2020. If Trump wins in 2020 he can cut a deal then without too much lost if any. His people are already starving and his regime probably treated Wambier better than the average serf would get for the same crime

    steveg (a9dcab)

  98. 91. DRJ (15874d) — 3/6/2019 @ 7:47 am

    Churchill feared Hitler’s nuclear program but he didn’t change his diplomacy or rhetoric. He used special forces and prepared for a possible attack.

    There was already an all out war going on, though.

    Maybe a better comparison is Menachem Begin ordering the bombing by israel of a nuclear reactor in Iraq in 1981.

    If we call this the “Begin plan for the control of nuclear weapons,” we can say that the Begin plan is the only that has any reasonable prospect of working except for a change of government in the country or entity posessing nuclear weapons.

    The United States also eliminated nuclear weapons from Iraq in 1991 the same way. (by bombing)

    In 2003, the nuclear program was in mothballs. Repeated bombing – not sanctions IMO – between 1991 and 2002 had deterred Saddam from doing anything to revive his program.

    Quaddafi became afraid of the same thing happening in Libya as happened in Iraq in 2003 and negotiatied away his nuclear weapons. Iran stoppped work in any known targets from 2003 to 2007.

    Israel implemented the Begin (or Churchill) plan again with Syria (or with an Iranian bomb being built in Syria with the help of North Korea) in 2007.

    South Africa got rid of its nuclear weapons after 1994 because of a change of government. Ukraine and some other former Soviet Republics never really had them. They never had the codes I think.

    Sammy Finkelman (102c75)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3557 secs.