President Trump Vs. The New York Times

by

R.E. Prindle

 

The press continues to represent President Trump as a fool.  The New York Times, one of the most unbalanced of the President’s critics ran an article by Peter Baker titled ‘Will Trump Take Brutally Forthright Advice From General McMaster?’

The Times seems to think the President and McMaster are equals rather than superior and subordinate.  Trump is not only the Chief Executive of the US but he is also the Commander In Chief of the military.  That means he has a higher rank than any General or Admiral of the armed forces.  Each and everyone including McMaster, a Liberal plant, owes the President not only obedience but the respect due to a higher rank.

General McMaster does not speak brutally to his Commander In Chief.  Hopefully all his advice as a subordinate will be given in a forthright manner so as to leave no room for misunderstanding but respectfully.  If what Mr. Baker of the Times means by his title is whether President Trump could take in new information or a different representation of facts, I think the answer is a resounding ‘Yes.’

Consider that as a builder Mr. Trump had to rely on a number of specialists to construct his buildings who knew much more of their specialty than Mr. Trump did.   For instance, if Mr. Trump wanted a feature that was impossible it was the architect’s duty to say whether or not the request could be done and suggest an alternative if it couldn’t.  There is no reason to suppose the President would be less reasonable in dealing with General McMaster’s suggestions not based on alternative politics.

However, if, as the Times’ Mr. Baker suggests, McMaster disagrees with President Trump’s ideas on immigration that is outside the field of a military man’s competence and becomes a mere different political opinion.  I hope Mr. Baker can tolerate my own blunt disagreement with his own opinion.  However, as always the Times prints opinion pieces and calls them news.  Always the pieces are not only critical of the President but demeaning to him.

Mr. Baker goes on to quote a Max Boot of the CFR, obviously Mr. Baker considers him an ultimate authority:

The difficulty is that Trump has a lot of crazy ideas in his head- like we should steal Iraq’s oil or we should kill the relatives of terrorists or we will ban Muslims coming here.’

 

One asks Mr. Baker, crazy to whom?  The President did not say we should steal Iraq’s oil, he said we should have appropriated it after we had gone to the expense and trouble of ‘liberating’ the Iraqi people from Saddam Hussain.  In fact, as I recall, preparations were being made to build pipelines when that small part of the population that didn’t ‘love’ us, the US ardently believed that the Iraqi people loved America and Americans, erupted into guerilla warfare and not so guerilla as all that.  Another war gone wrong.

Was President Trump responsible for that, or were the Iraqi people crazy too?

As far as killing your enemy’s relatives, historically this is more or less de riguer while ISIS seems to practice it along with other medieval barbarities.  The logic being those seeking revenge are eliminated.  While I personally do not endorse the practice along with Mr. Baker does he mean to call Moslems crazy too?

That makes his third crazy idea difficult to grasp.  Mr. Boot of the CFR thinks President Trump is crazy for wanting to ban Muslims.  As various surveys point out a strong majority of Americans agree with the President and disagree with Mr. Boot of the CFR and Mr. Baker of the NYT.  Are they, or we rather, crazy too?

Mr. Baker approvingly says that Mr. McMaster ‘brutally’ disagrees with the President on this issue, which is beyond his competence.  This is strange, need I say very strange because Moslem paramilitaries, commonly referred to as terrorists by those of Baker and Boot stripe are a danger everywhere.  As paramilitaries these Moslems are busily at work in most countries of Europe and the US causing discord and civil strife.

For some inexplicable reason, Messrs. Baker, Boot and McMaster and Liberals in general refuse not only to acknowledge Moslem asymmetrical warfare but deny it and that makes them accomplices.  Not to be snide, but one wonders how much they are being subsidized to deny the reality.  Is the New York Times on the take?