Saturday, December 24, 2016
Our Lord Of The Tantrum Text Goes Ballistic...
...When a fellow citizen criticizes one of his bonehead statements of policy, or some other crazy thing he's going to do, but with the leader of the nation that took direct hostile action against us he replies by heaping praise upon him. Even when there is legitimate evidence to suspect a "I'll help you if you'll help me" arrangement, and that hostile foreign leader continues to boast of his ability to counter our military, even as he continues to have that same military challenge ours ever more recklessly at every turn. Even then the Terrible Texter double downs again with more praise.
All of that, of course, is bad enough, but now we have what are ostensibly statements that contradict each other; as in (paraphrasing) "Putin's a great guy that we're going to deal with," juxtaposed with "Let's start another nuclear arms race because we can beat anybody at that game."
What can a sane person conclude from that kind of hyperbole. Does one part of his mind have absolutely no connection to the other? Can he make a declaration one minute and, in the next, forget about what the first implies so he can say something else in direct contradiction in the next minute? And perhaps even more importantly, does he have any grasp at all on the idea that offensive capability is created to address specific, clearly identified threats? Or that shooting his mouth off about a building program for the most terrifying weapon we have simply to boast of our productive capabilities might be genuinely insane? Does he think at all before he opens his mouth?
Obviously he does not.
And this is the person who has his finger on the button to launch those most terrible weapons in our inventory. This is the person who is supposed to put careful consideration towards what are our most pressing priorities, because spending money on one priority means not spending it on another. Are more nukes more important than our elderly having Social Security? Are more nukes more important than spending money on investments to address Climate Change? Or are more nukes, and a bigger military in general, simply more prospective profits for the money people who are his real constituency?