Violent, deranged, inbred, feral NeoCon Judaic and Israel-Firster David Frum– ‘America Is Under Attack and the President Doesn’t Care’

Trump’s gravest responsibility is to defend the United States from foreign attack—and he’s done nothing to fulfill it.

ed note–As we like to say here as of late, by all means, all of yooz making up the ‘Trump is owned by Djooz’ brigade, pay absolutely no mind whatsoever to glaringly important pieces such as this, written by one of the most important architects of Israel’s ‘War on terror’ that began under George W. Bush, continued under Barack Obama and now is being slowly phased out under Donald Trump.

What we’d like to point out as well is the diabolical hypocrisy and duplicity that encompasses the moralizing and lecturing from an individual such as this who dares wag a bony finger in the face of the President (or anyone else for that matter) on the duties associated with defending the US from a ‘foreign attack’ when he damned-well knows that it was his nation–Israel–who unleashed the terrorist attacks against the US on the morning of 9/11.

Or, put another way–

As the rest of America mourns the victims of the Parkland, Florida, massacre, President Trump took to Twitter.

Not for him the rituals of grief. He is too consumed by rage and resentment. He interrupted his holidaying schedule at Mar-a-Lago only briefly, for a visit to a hospital where some of the shooting victims were treated. He posed afterward for a grinning thumbs-up photo op. Pain at another’s heartbreak—that emotion is for losers, apparently.

Having failed at one presidential duty, to speak for the nation at times of national tragedy, Trump resumed shirking an even more supreme task: defending the nation against foreign attack.

Last week, Special Counsel Robert Mueller indicted 13 Russian persons and three entities that conspired to violate federal election law, to the benefit of Trump and Republican congressional candidates. This is not the whole of the story by any means. This Mueller indictment references only Russian operations on Facebook. It does not deal with the weaponization of hacked information via WikiLeaks. Or the reports that the Russians funneled millions of dollars of election spending through the NRA’s political action committees. But this indictment does show enough to answer some questions about the scale and methods of the Russian intervention—and pose a new question, the most important of them all.

The new question is this: What has been—what will be done—to protect American democracy from such attacks in the future? The Russian attack in 2016 worked, yielding dividends beyond Vladimir Putin’s wildest hopes. The Russians hoped to cast a shadow over the Clinton presidency. Instead, they outright elected their preferred candidate. Americans once thought it was a big deal that Alger Hiss rose to serve as acting temporary secretary general of the United Nations. This time, a Russian-backed individual was installed in the Oval Office.

From that position of power, Trump has systematically attempted to shut down investigations of the foreign-espionage operation that operated on his behalf. He fired the director of the FBI to shut it down. His White House coordinated with the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee to misdirect the investigation. He mobilized the speaker of the House to thwart bipartisan investigations under broadly respected leadership. He has inspired, supported, and joined a national propaganda campaign against the Mueller investigation.

And all the while, Trump has done nothing—literally nothing—to harden the nation’s voting systems against follow-on Russian operations. On Sunday, he publicly repudiated his own national-security adviser for acknowledging at the Munich Security Conference the most incontrovertible basics of what happened in 2016.

It’s worth thinking about what a patriotic president would have done in Trump’s situation. He would be leading the investigation himself. He would be scouring his own campaign—doing everything in his power to reassure the country that whatever the Russians may or may not have done, his government owed Putin nothing. He would have imposed penalties on Russia for their outrageous acts—rather than protecting Russia from penalties voted by Congress. Above all, he would be leading the demand for changes to election laws and practices, including holding Facebook to account for its negligence.

At every turn, Trump has failed to do what a patriotic president would do—failed to put the national interest first. He has left the 2018 elections as vulnerable as the 2016 elections to Russian intervention on his behalf.

The president’s malignant narcissism surely explains much of this passivity. He cannot endure the thought that he owes the presidency to anything other than his own magnificence. “But wasn’t I a great candidate?” he tweeted plaintively at 7:43 a.m on Sunday morning.

But Americans who cherish democracy and national sovereignty need to start discussing a bigger and darker question.

Authoritarian nationalist parties across the western world have outright cooperated with the Russians. Russian money has helped to finance the National Front in France, and the election and re-election of the president of the Czech Republic. In Germany, Russia first created a hoax refugee-rape case—then widely publicized it—in an effort to boost its preferred extremist party in that country’s 2017 election, the Alternative for Germany. Russia supported pro-AfD comment in media favored by Germany’s surprisingly substantial Russian-speaking communities.

CIA Director Mike Pompeo predicted to the BBC at the beginning of 2018 that Russia “will be back” to help its preferred candidates in November 2018. To what extent does President Trump—to what extent do congressional Republicans—look to Russian interference to help their party in the 2018 cycle?

Most observers predict a grim year for the GOP in 2018. But the economy is strong, and selective tax cuts are strategically redistributing money from blue-state professionals to red-state parents. The Republican national committee commands a huge financial advantage over its Democratic counterpart. (Thing look more even at the level of the individual candidates.) A little extra help could make a big difference to Republican hopes—and to Trump’s political survival.

Nothing has been done in the past 15 months to prevent that help from flowing. You have to wonder whether the president does not privately welcome that help, as he publicly welcomed help from WikiLeaks in the summer of 2016.

Trump’s own tweets reveal that among the things he most fears is the prospect of Representative Adam Schiff gaining the gavel of the House Intelligence Committee from the clownish present chairman, Devin Nunes. How far would Trump go to stop a dreaded political opponent, inside the law and outside? How far has Donald Trump gone in the past?

Trump continues to insist that he and his campaign team did not collude with Russia in the 2016 election. We know that they were ready and eager to collude—that’s on the public record. (“If it’s what you say I love it especially later in the summer.”) The public does not yet know whether the collusion actually occurred, and if so, in what form and to what extent. But in front of our very eyes we can observe that they are leaving the door open to Russian intervention on their behalf in the next election. You might call it collusion in advance—a dereliction of duty as grave as any since President Buchanan looked the other way as Southern state governments pillaged federal arsenals on the eve of the Civil War.

  1. #1 by James Benn on 02/18/2018 - 9:34

    “But Americans who cherish democracy and national sovereignty need to start discussing a bigger and darker question.”

    The presence of a shitload of ‘dual citizens’ within Washingmachinetown’s Corridors of Power, perchance? (((

    But no. No, David is more concerned about “Authoritarian nationalist parties across the western world” which, in his humble opinion, “have outright cooperated with the Russians”.

    And here we get to the heart of the matter … ‘nationalism’ vs ‘internationalism’. Ironic when you consider that during cold war days, Russia was accused of the converse … namely, promotin’ ‘international commoonism’. Well we know who was behind the rise of commoonism in Rusklandia. And we know who is heavily invested in ‘internationalism’ … the (((new werld ordure))) … and a single worldwide debt-based currency.

    So much for David’s avowed concern for ‘national sovereignty’. The hallmark of a ‘sovereign nation’ is control over the issuance of MONEY. But that would be ‘nationalism’, wouldn’t it David?

    I couldn’t be bothered reading the rest of David’s sophistry. I can only hope he is paid by (((The Atlantic))) per number of words. Cos it must have been a tedious job churning them out.

    When the wicked
    Carried us away in captivity
    Requiring from us a song
    Now how shall we sing the lord’s song in a strange land
    By the rivers of Babylon (dark tears of Babylon)
    There we sat down (You got to sing a song)
    Ye-eah we wept, (Sing a song of love)
    When we remember Zion. (Yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah)
    – By the rivers of Babylon, Boney M

  2. #2 by 5 dancing shlomos on 02/19/2018 - 9:34

    satan needing more babies to eat

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: