BS: When Tweedletrump Meets Tweedlejong

Subject: BS: When Tweedletrump Meets Tweedlejong
From: robomatic
Date: 11 Jun 18 - 04:12 PM

It is hard to predict what a 'leader' who rules by chaos and unpredictability will do. Hard, HA! It is freakin' impossible. A previous model that I noticed all by myself (and about a hundred others) was Berlusconi of Italy, who managed to get re-elected many times and is still not out of options in the country that looks like a boot. Meanwhile there is this from America's greatest magazine.

Trump is not stupid. That doesn't mean he's not a fool. But he is not normal and judging him by the same standards we judge almost every other political figure will result in errors in estimating where he's going, where we're going, and what the danger level is.


The only general predictions I feel safe making are that the level of discourse will remain at a kindergarten level with maybe some excursions into elementary school. That those who work closely with him will find themselves debased, and that those who rely on him or trust him will be disappointed.


So I'm ignoring the Singapore stream of news as irrelevant for today and most of tomorrow because I think we're going to get all the non-informational crap in the world tossed at us until there is actual fallout from actual meetings. And even then I think it will be a lot of formulaic crap' because no one can be perceived as other than a semi-legendary great leader.

I think the meeting in itself is a reward to a despotic ruler so there is not way he can lose. It is a debasement to our side to have our top man on a par with their top man. He is even debasing himself.

Subject: RE: BS: When Tweedletrump Meets Tweedlejong
From: robomatic
Date: 11 Jun 18 - 04:16 PM

I'm not sure what went wrong with the link I was trying to make, here's the address:


https://www.newyorker.com/culture/culture-desk/what-happens-when-a-bad-tempered-distractible-doofus-runs-an-empire

---

There was a typo in the code. Fixed. --mudelf

Subject: RE: BS: When Tweedletrump Meets Tweedlejong
From: Donuel
Date: 11 Jun 18 - 04:27 PM

Dennis Rodman arrived at the summit and will keep the peace

Subject: RE: BS: When Tweedletrump Meets Tweedlejong
From: keberoxu
Date: 11 Jun 18 - 09:44 PM

but will there be more handshake showing-off?

Subject: RE: BS: When Tweedletrump Meets Tweedlejong
From: robomatic
Date: 11 Jun 18 - 09:46 PM

OK I lied. It's on TV right now, Monday evening, and I'm glued...

Subject: RE: BS: When Tweedletrump Meets Tweedlejong
From: Iains
Date: 12 Jun 18 - 04:11 AM

Well that is North Korea de-nuclearised! Who is is next? Israel or Pakistan. If the man is on a roll, why stop at one?

Subject: RE: BS: When Tweedletrump Meets Tweedlejong
From: Jos
Date: 12 Jun 18 - 05:10 AM

Kim looked to me as if he was terrified. Would he have passed a lie-detector test (sweaty palms? increased heart rate?) while signing?
He looked about as enthusiastic as the young Prince Charles when being made Prince of Wales.

Subject: RE: BS: When Tweedletrump Meets Tweedlejong
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 12 Jun 18 - 08:11 AM

Like David & Goliath in the school playground!!

Subject: RE: BS: When Tweedletrump Meets Tweedlejong
From: Donuel
Date: 12 Jun 18 - 08:32 AM

As robo infers when two authoritarian king tweedledeedum human rights violators get together they are just doing photo ops for their base.

I don't see a David and Goliath as much as an amateur international manipulator and a pro despote agreeing to score points in the polls.

Subject: RE: BS: When Tweedletrump Meets Tweedlejong
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Jun 18 - 12:11 PM

"If the man is on a roll, why stop at one?"
Just put this up on another thread - saves me re-writing it
Leaving two aggressive powers - America and I*****l with the facility to bomb their enemies "back into the Stone Age" (to quote an American General?
I detest nuclear weapons and spent years marching against their proliferation - the argument was that as so many countries had them they acted as a deterrent

The only nation ever to use them against civilians is th good o0' U.S. of A., so am I happy that they (especially with a madman who boasts his button is bigger than everybody elses in charge) keep them - are you?
I have no time for the leaders of North Korea but, having seen their people bombed into the level of LIVING IN CAVES by the U.S., the Korean's would be insane to leave themselves defenceless to such a maniac
From the look of what happened at the meeting, nothing has changed anyway
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: When Tweedletrump Meets Tweedlejong
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Jun 18 - 01:03 PM

WOLD PEACE DRIVEN LOGIC OF TRUMP'S NEGOTIATIONS
You couldn't make it up
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: When Tweedletrump Meets Tweedlejong
From: Senoufou
Date: 12 Jun 18 - 01:08 PM

Do you think perhaps Trump is hoping to win the Nobel Peace Prize?

Subject: RE: BS: When Tweedletrump Meets Tweedlejong
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Jun 18 - 01:30 PM

If Kissinger can get one - why not!!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: When Tweedletrump Meets Tweedlejong
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 12 Jun 18 - 01:33 PM

I think they probably discussed haircuts!!!

Subject: RE: BS: When Tweedletrump Meets Tweedlejong
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 Jun 18 - 02:55 PM

"I think they probably discussed haircuts!!!"
Wonder who won the bet!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: When Tweedletrump Meets Tweedlejong
From: michaelr
Date: 12 Jun 18 - 03:23 PM

Hilariously, a Fox News anchor referred to the summit as the meeting of "the two dictators." She later apologized.

Fox News reports the truth strictly by accident.

Subject: RE: BS: When Tweedletrump Meets Tweedlejong
From: robomatic
Date: 12 Jun 18 - 07:26 PM

michaelr LOL

Subject: RE: BS: When Tweedletrump Meets Tweedlejong
From: Donuel
Date: 12 Jun 18 - 09:16 PM

Bonzo- the hair gel Kim gave Don is bugged!

Subject: RE: BS: When Tweedletrump Meets Tweedlejong
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Jun 18 - 11:14 AM

Fascinating analysis rom this morning's Irish Times leader column
A nice reminder why I enjoy reading it
Jim Carroll
A TRIUMPH-FOR KIM JONG-UN
Kim Jong-un must scarcely believe his luck. Less than nine months after he esablished North Korea as a nuclear power with a long-range ballistic missile capability the young despot has, through his summit with" Donald Trump in Singapore, attained a level of global credibility his father and grandfather could only have dreamed of. But that’s the least of the gifts Trump has given him. The summit has tightened the dictator’s grip on power, reduced the threat of a US-led attack and raised the prospect of new flows of financial aid. Most astonishingly, this has cost Kim virtually nothing.

Trump once appeared to be a hardliner on North Korea. Late last year, he taunted the “rocket man” in Pyongyang and threatened to visit “fire and fury” on the country (Kim called Trump “the dotard”). That bellicose rhetoric has given way to the most accommodating position any US president has taken towards the Kim dynasty. Showcasing his potent blend of high narcissism and tragic ignorance in Singapore, Trump proclaimed the meeting a “very important event in world history” and claimed Kim had given his “unwavering” commitment to denuclearisation.

Trump’s warmth towards Kim, though consistent with his affinity with autocrats everywhere, was still shocking. The man who “loves his people, loves his country”, as Trump put it, oversees one of the most repressive regimes in the world - one that kills its enemies and tolerates no dissent.

What Trump sought to portray as a shift in Pyongyang’s position is nothing of the sort. In fact, all the concessions are on the American side. And they're big concessions. The US will provide security guarantees and will cease joint military drills with Seoul. In exchange, Kim provided merely a vague pledge to work towards denuclearisation - language every diplomat will recognise as a standard-issue fudge. Trump appears to believe that when Pyongyang talks about denuclearisation, it means giving up its own arsenal. What it actually means is a vague aspiration for a nuclear-free region - one that would include the removal of the US nuclear umbrella over South Korea. The declaration contains no mention of verification or irreversibility. Nor does it mention scrapping missiles or even declaring the size of Pyongyang’s arsenal. It sets down no timetable.

Pyongyang made similar pledges in 1993 and 2005, but those accords also included an inspection regime and a verification process, respectively. In other words, Trump has achieved less than Bill Clinton and George W Bush did while giving away far more. Of course, it’s better that Trump and Kim are exchanging pleasantries than threats. Perhaps the Singapore summit can be the beginning of a meaningful process. But it was a bad start. For all his bombast and bluster, Trump appears to have been snookered by a cannier and more strategic opponent.

Subject: RE: BS: When Tweedletrump Meets Tweedlejong
From: meself
Date: 13 Jun 18 - 02:06 PM

Kim played chump like a cheap Chinese fiddle. It was embarrassing to watch him abase himself and his country before that hideous little dictator, and to hear his continuing praise of him. But ... I suppose it's what Putin wants - what can ya do?

Subject: RE: BS: When Tweedletrump Meets Tweedlejong
From: bobad
Date: 13 Jun 18 - 02:25 PM

Fun true fact: North Korea previously pledged denuclearization in 1985, 1992, 1994, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2008, 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2016. Each pledge was a lie. If anyone believes any promise Kim made to Trump they are going to be sadly disappointed.

Subject: RE: BS: When Tweedletrump Meets Tweedlejong
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Jun 18 - 03:15 PM

"Fun true fact: North Korea previously pledged denuclearization in 1985"
Given the treatment North Korea received at the hands of U.S. bombers, it is HARDLY SURPRISING that they are hesitant to take them at thrir word - not a particular "fun fact"

Can't blue clickie this one but it confirms above:
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/asia-pacific/unknown-to-most-americans-the-us-totally-destroyed-north-korea-once-before-1.3227633
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: When Tweedletrump Meets Tweedlejong
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 13 Jun 18 - 03:15 PM

"Fun true fact: North Korea previously pledged denuclearization in 1985"
Given the treatment North Korea received at the hands of U.S. bombers, it is HARDLY SURPRISING that they are hesitant to take them at thrir word - not a particular "fun fact"

Can't blue clickie this one but it confirms above:
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/world/asia-pacific/unknown-to-most-americans-the-us-totally-destroyed-north-korea-once-before-1.3227633
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: When Tweedletrump Meets Tweedlejong
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 13 Jun 18 - 03:20 PM

Fun true fact, all of the existing nuclear powers pledged to work towards complete, verifiable disarmament in 1968.

Subject: RE: BS: When Tweedletrump Meets Tweedlejong
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Jun 18 - 04:02 AM

Jim, North Korea gave the South reason to hate and fear it too in that war.
They invaded the South capturing all but a small pocket and committed many atrocities.

Dwelling on a war that ended nearly 70 years ago is not helpful.

Subject: RE: BS: When Tweedletrump Meets Tweedlejong
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 14 Jun 18 - 04:06 AM

Why, Keith, you are always dwelling on one which ended 100 years ago.

Subject: RE: BS: When Tweedletrump Meets Tweedlejong
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Jun 18 - 04:09 AM

From Jim's Irish Times piece,
" In three years of fighting a single major city changed hands: Kaesong, which is now the last vestige of a once hopeful détente with the South."

Seoul changed hands four times!

Subject: RE: BS: When Tweedletrump Meets Tweedlejong
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 14 Jun 18 - 04:11 AM

I have a work colleague from Slovenia. She told me that her grandparents had lived in four different countries, but never moved house.

Subject: RE: BS: When Tweedletrump Meets Tweedlejong
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Jun 18 - 05:23 AM

"lived in four different countries, "
A storyteller we recorded told of a neighbour who lived on the border of three counties; he sat in his armchair in Galway, laid his pipe on a stool in Roscommon and stretched his feet into Leitrim
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: When Tweedletrump Meets Tweedlejong
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Jun 18 - 05:32 AM

Keith
This is about America having bombed the North Korean people into caves and the implications of allowing them to do it again
You want to discuss the Korean war, open a thread
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: When Tweedletrump Meets Tweedlejong
From: bobad
Date: 14 Jun 18 - 07:00 AM

There are consequences to waging war against your neighbours. It's a pity that ordinary people have to suffer for the folly of their leaders.

Subject: RE: BS: When Tweedletrump Meets Tweedlejong
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Jun 18 - 07:36 AM

North Korea never actually went to war with its neighbours - Korea was one country until outsiders decided to help split it in two - America and the Soviet Union co-operated in partitioning it to serve their own interests
Drawing a line down the middle of any country is a written guarantee that future generations for a long time to come will be bringing their children home in body-bags - any history book will confirm that

It was interesting in the negotiations on how much stress Trump put on saving America money - it amused Kim and infuriated the South Koreans
The "condo" suggestion was irevealing too; maybe he is intending to turn the beaches into another American "open sewer" where they can go and launder money and watch local women copulate with animals as they could when Batista ran Cuba

It's been a long time since America did anything good without it coming with a price tag
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: When Tweedletrump Meets Tweedlejong
From: bobad
Date: 14 Jun 18 - 08:08 AM

On the 25th of June 1950, North Korean tanks rolled across the 38th Parallel and began the invasion of South Korea.

Subject: RE: BS: When Tweedletrump Meets Tweedlejong
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Jun 18 - 08:30 AM

"and began the invasion of South Korea."
You ignore the point I've made - as is your wont.
Korea "invading" Korea is like Lancashire "invading" Yorkshire
These countries are divided for political, particularly military reasons and it's always done in the interests of outsiders - never for the people
Following America's almost genocidal attack on the North they poured billions into the South as an investment' in a 'safe pair of hands'
They would have done the same in Vietnam if they hadn't had their arses kicked by barefoot Vietmanese peasants
One of my favourite historical MOMENTS - bested only by THIS
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: When Tweedletrump Meets Tweedlejong
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Jun 18 - 09:26 AM

Jim,
This is about America having bombed the North Korean people into caves and the implications of allowing them to do it again
You want to discuss the Korean war, open a thread

The bombing was part of the Korean War. You chose to discuss it not me.

Korea "invading" Korea is like Lancashire "invading" Yorkshire

Not really. They each had their own elected government and national armies.
The North started the war by invading the South, and committing numerous atrocities on the Southern people.

Subject: RE: BS: When Tweedletrump Meets Tweedlejong
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Jun 18 - 09:50 AM

"The bombing was part of the Korean War. You chose to discuss it not me."
And it relates to whether America can or should be trusted with weapons of Mass destruction - the rights and wrongs of the Korean war does not
You choose to extend it on the basis of your philosophy of never letting the opportunity of defending an atrocity you support pass by without taking it up
THe war has no place here, the 'lets nuke them back into the stone-age" approach too all opposition does.
This sums up America's relationship with the North Korean people and it is why the Trump administration CAN NEVER BE TRUSTED
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: When Tweedletrump Meets Tweedlejong
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Jun 18 - 09:50 AM

"The bombing was part of the Korean War. You chose to discuss it not me."
And it relates to whether America can or should be trusted with weapons of Mass destruction - the rights and wrongs of the Korean war does not
You choose to extend it on the basis of your philosophy of never letting the opportunity of defending an atrocity you support pass by without taking it up
THe war has no place here, the 'lets nuke them back into the stone-age" approach too all opposition does.
This sums up America's relationship with the North Korean people and it is why the Trump administration CAN NEVER BE TRUSTED
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: When Tweedletrump Meets Tweedlejong
From: bobad
Date: 14 Jun 18 - 10:44 AM

Already there are problematic discrepancies cropping up over the agreement. The North Koreans are claiming that Trump agreed to a "step-by-step and simultaneous action" to achieve peace and denuclearization while Secretary of State Mike Pompeo told reporters after meeting South Korea's president and Japan's foreign minister in Seoul. "We are going to get complete denuclearization; only then will there be relief from the sanctions." I can see this ending up the same way as all the previous pledges to denuclearize.

Subject: RE: BS: When Tweedletrump Meets Tweedlejong
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 14 Jun 18 - 12:56 PM

your philosophy of never letting the opportunity of defending an atrocity you support pass by without taking it up

I have never and would never support any.
I am sure you do not defend the atrocities committed by N Korean forces during their invasion of the South.

Subject: RE: BS: When Tweedletrump Meets Tweedlejong
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 14 Jun 18 - 02:56 PM

"I have never and would never support any."
Course not Keith - heavens forbid!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: When Tweedletrump Meets Tweedlejong
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 15 Jun 18 - 03:51 AM

And heaven forbid you would ever quote me doing it, because I never have.

Subject: RE: BS: When Tweedletrump Meets Tweedlejong
From: Peter the Squeezer
Date: 15 Jun 18 - 04:36 PM

This from the Daily Excess (UK "newspaper")

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/974497/donald-trump-nobel-peace-prize-north-korea-summit-kim-jong-un

I think I want to vomit!!

Subject: RE: BS: When Tweedletrump Meets Tweedlejong
From: Jos
Date: 15 Jun 18 - 05:26 PM

Trump wouldn't be the first to come back with a piece of paper and declare that the threat of war was over ...

Subject: RE: BS: When Tweedletrump Meets Tweedlejong
From: Mr Red
Date: 16 Jun 18 - 03:59 AM

like Lancashire "invading" Yorkshire




'appen so

Subject: RE: BS: When Tweedletrump Meets Tweedlejong
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 16 Jun 18 - 04:30 AM

Jos, that comparison is unfair. Chamberlain was buying time for Britain to rearm. Things could have been a great deal worse if he had acted differently. The USA is armed to the teeth already, and is really under no imminent threat. Chamberlain has an unfairly bad reputation.

Subject: RE: BS: When Tweedletrump Meets Tweedlejong
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Jun 18 - 05:58 AM

"Jos, that comparison is unfair."
Sorry David - not really
The ruthless bombing of Madrid by the reconstituted Luftwaffe was indicative of things to come from New Germany, Britain had ample time to take steps to oppose the rise on Naziism; instead, they took up Churchill's and others' view that "New Germany will provide a bulwark against the creeping menace of Bolshevism"

My dad, and many others, volunteered to fight in Spain to oppose the rise of fascism - he was wounded and taken POW (and had an appalling time)
When he returned he was awarded the title 'premature anti-fascist' by MI5 and was blacklisted from work with their assistance
As a result, the nly work he could obtain was that of a navvie - I never really got to know hm until I was 10

I've not long finished a fascinating novel on Chamberlain's negotiations , 'Munich', by Robert Harris
I realise it is a work of fiction But Harris if one of the most assiduous
researchers into his subjects
I highly recommend it
Also highly recommended is the 'Stalin' biography, by Simon Sebag Montefiore
The cgpter on the Yalta conference is a fascinating example of how the allied powers were prepared to co-habit with anybody is it is in their own interests - the Stalin-Roosevelt-Churchill three-in-a-bed love affair was truly revealing
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: When Tweedletrump Meets Tweedlejong
From: Iains
Date: 16 Jun 18 - 10:37 AM

" Britain had ample time to take steps to oppose the rise on Naziism; instead, they took up Churchill's and others' view that "New Germany will provide a bulwark against the creeping menace of Bolshevism"

Even the most extreme revisionist would have a hard time supporting the fairy tale above.

As Churchill college says:
"Churchill's role in British defence planning and foreign policy during the 1930s is of crucial importance for any understanding of the period. Unfortunately, it is virtually impossible to look at the issue now without hindsight. Churchill identified the growing strength of Germany's armed forces, and he was proved right; he predicted that the situation in Europe would lead to war and it did; he said Britain was far behind Germany in its programme of rearmament and especially in air power, and he was right in this too. The case for honouring his foresight and condemning those on both sides in parliament who ignored and even derided him can seem unanswerable."

Subject: RE: BS: When Tweedletrump Meets Tweedlejong
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 16 Jun 18 - 10:48 AM

The New York Times had an amazing article this morning. I rarely do full cut and pastes, but I think a lot of you can't read this unless you're subscribers (I am so I link to the NYTimes all of the time, probably using up everyone's four free reads a month very quickly). This one has so much backstory and bragging by Trump that it's a keeper. Talk about "off the cuff" - and he's going to talk himself into a jail cell one of these days. I included the two authors' twitter handles at the end in case you want to read more about this from them.

WASHINGTON — He assailed the “scum on top” of the F.B.I. who were out to get him. He suggested that a former aide did not lie even though he pleaded guilty to lying to investigators. And he distanced himself from his onetime campaign chairman hours before the aide was sent to jail.

Reasserting himself on the Washington stage after a week spent overseas or out of sight, President Trump went on offense on Friday in his multifront war with investigators, eagerly framing a new Justice Department report as validation of his claim of a “deep state” conspiracy against him.

“They were plotting against my election,” Mr. Trump said, pointing to partisan texts sent by several F.B.I. agents during the 2016 presidential campaign and cited in the report. The F.B.I. director at the time, James B. Comey, ran a corrupt operation and should be prosecuted, he added. “Comey was the ringleader of this whole, you know, den of thieves.”

Mr. Trump’s rendition of the report by the Justice Department inspector general was selective. The report faulted Peter Strzok, a senior F.B.I. agent, and four other bureau officials for anti-Trump messages, but concluded that no decisions were made out of political bias. Indeed, the report’s sharp criticism of Mr. Comey centered on actions that damaged Hillary Clinton during the campaign, not Mr. Trump, and it determined that the decision not to prosecute her for using a private unsecured email server while secretary of state was reasonable.

Mr. Trump dismissed that conclusion. “The end result was wrong,” he said. “I mean, there was total bias. I mean, when you look at Peter Strzok and what he said about me. When you look at Comey, all his moves. You know, it was interesting, it was a pretty good report. Then I say that the I.G. blew it at the very end with that statement.”

The president’s assessment came during a quintessentially Trumpian discourse on current affairs, first on “Fox & Friends” and then with reporters who surrounded him on the White House driveway. Seemingly energized by his landmark meeting this week with North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-un, Mr. Trump depicted his presidency as a string of unvarnished successes despite the unfair and even criminal forces arrayed against him.

Even aside from Mr. Comey and the “total thieves” at the F.B.I., Mr. Trump mounted withering attacks on a variety of other favorite targets, including congressional Democrats, Barack Obama, Robert S. Mueller III, Canada’s prime minister, professional football players and the news media. At the same time, he extolled his warm relations with leaders of North Korea, China and Russia.

“We’ve done more — I don’t say this in a bragging way, actually some of the haters actually say this — we’ve done more in 500 days, so now it’s 510 days, than any 500-day president, first term, by far,” he said at one point. “And that’s what I want to do, I want to really — you know, I got elected to make America great again, very simple.”

Indeed, in case the message did not get through, Mr. Trump used the words “great” or “greatest” 48 times. He dismissed contrary information and blamed any setbacks on Mr. Obama or the Democratic minorities in Congress. “When it’s my fault,” he said, “I’ll tell you.”

As he often does, Mr. Trump misstated or distorted a variety of facts, large and small, over the course of the television appearance and subsequent conversation with reporters.

On vindication from the inspector general: “If you read the I.G. report, I’ve been totally exonerated.” (Not true. The report examined the investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s email server and had nothing to say about Mr. Trump’s actions one way or the other.)

On bias in the special counsel’s office: “They have no Republicans.” (Not true. Mr. Mueller, the special counsel, is a lifelong Republican.)

On distancing himself from Paul Manafort, his indicted former campaign chairman, who was sent to jail on Friday: “He worked for me, what, for 49 days or something?” (Not true. Actually, it was 144 days.)

He likewise made expansive claims. He suggested that the vague 391-word statement he signed with Mr. Kim during their meeting in Singapore ended the nuclear standoff with North Korea. “I signed an agreement where we get everything, everything,” he said.

Although there is no concrete arrangement for how North Korea would dismantle its nuclear weapons arsenal, when it would happen or who would verify that it happened, Mr. Trump dismissed such questions as minor details that will be worked out.

“I have solved that problem,” he told reporters. “Now, we’re getting it memorialized and all. But that problem is largely solved.”

He praised Mr. Kim, brushing aside questions about the repressive government and gulags in North Korea. “He speaks and his people sit up at attention. I want my people to do the same,” he joked.

Mr. Trump confirmed that he wants to meet President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia this summer, brushing off Moscow’s annexation of Crimea in 2014, which he blamed on Mr. Obama rather than Mr. Putin. “President Obama lost Crimea because President Putin didn’t respect President Obama,” he said.

Likewise, he faulted Democrats in Congress for the federal authorities’ separating children from parents trying to cross the border from Mexico under a “zero tolerance” policy announced by Attorney General Jeff Sessions.

“I hate the children being taken away,” he said. “The Democrats have to change their law. That’s their law.”

While both houses of Congress are run by Republicans, Mr. Trump said they could not act because it would require Democratic votes in the Senate to overcome a filibuster. Democrats, however, said they would hardly filibuster legislation barring the separation of families at the border because they have already introduced such a bill with more than 30 Democratic sponsors.

Mr. Trump signaled qualified support for Scott Pruitt, his administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, who is facing at least a dozen investigations into his spending and use of his office for personal matters.

“I’m not happy about certain things, I’ll be honest,” Mr. Trump said. “I’m not happy about certain things, but he’s done a fantastic job running the E.P.A., which is very overriding.”

Mr. Trump also returned to other frequent topics. He mocked National Football League players for protesting racism when they are “making $15 million a year.” He again assailed Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of Canada for saying he would not “be pushed around” over tariffs.

And he dismissed the importance of a misleading statement he dictated last year about a Trump Tower meeting with Russians during the 2016 campaign, a statement that his lawyer and spokeswoman at first denied he had dictated even though his legal team later admitted that he had. “It’s irrelevant,” Mr. Trump said. “That’s not a statement to a high tribunal of judges. That’s a statement to the phony New York Times.”

Mr. Trump even suggested that his former national security adviser, Michael T. Flynn, a retired three-star general, did not actually lie to investigators even though he has pleaded guilty to doing so and the president himself has previously said he fired Mr. Flynn for lying.

“I feel badly for General Flynn,” he said. “He’s lost his house, he’s lost his life. And some people say he lied and some people say he didn’t lie. I mean really it turned out maybe he didn’t lie. How can you do that? How can you do that because who’s lied more than Comey? Comey lied a tremendous amount.”

The president seemed most animated, however, by the new inspector general report and used it to undercut Mr. Comey and Mr. Mueller. “What he did was criminal,” Mr. Trump said of Mr. Comey. “What he did was a terrible thing to the people. What he did was so bad in terms of our Constitution, in terms of the well-being of our country. What he did was horrible.”

Mr. Trump continued, “Should he be locked up? Let somebody make a determination.”

Mr. Strzok worked on the investigation into Mrs. Clinton in 2016 and his texts to a colleague, Lisa Page, were cited by the inspector general for showing an unprofessional bias. When Ms. Page was alarmed in August 2016 at the prospect of Mr. Trump’s winning the election, Mr. Strzok reassured her. “We’ll stop it,” he wrote.

Mr. Trump said that proved the F.B.I. was trying to sabotage him. “Peter Strzok should have been fired a long time ago and others should have been fired,” he said.

Follow Peter Baker and Eileen Sullivan on Twitter: @peterbakernyt @esullivannyt.

Subject: RE: BS: When Tweedletrump Meets Tweedlejong
From: Jeri
Date: 16 Jun 18 - 10:52 AM

Acme, the NYT is available to everyone now, AFAIK.

Subject: RE: BS: When Tweedletrump Meets Tweedlejong
From: Jeri
Date: 16 Jun 18 - 10:57 AM

Actually, it lets you read a number of articles, then, I assume you get the nag scree. Don't know if going incognito would get around that.

Subject: RE: BS: When Tweedletrump Meets Tweedlejong
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Jun 18 - 11:13 AM

"the fairy tale above."
Your belligerence used to be amusing - now it becomes tiresome, but I suppose it remains an indication that you have only a hastily grabbed cut-'n-paste to offer - what else is a school bearing Churchill's name going to say
The history of Britain and America's failure to act on a threat they were fully ware of is part of our history that is carefully white-washed over - Churchill fully subscribed to the "bulwark against Bolshevism approach as did a large number of his fellow statesemen
We had a King that taught the Royal sprogs the Nazi salute, a major Newspaper proselytising on behalf of fascism (your favorite, I seem to remember) a police force defending Moseley and his Blackshirts right to free speech' on the streets ob Britain - even during the conflict, Peers, MPs and industrialists (The Right Club), forming an alternative government in preparation for "When Herr Hitler" won the war
My father was given his award of "Premature anti-fascism" in 1939, whwn war was inevitable and his blacklisting lasted up to the 50s   
Churchill did his bit when war became an offer Britain couldn't refuse, but the fact remains that it might have been stopped had them in charge got their act together earlier
Even when reports of the Holocaust were seeping in, MPs and Members of teh House of Lords were dismissing it as "lies invented by whingeing Yids"
If you can't post without contemptuous dismissal Iains, don't post at all - it makes you look silly
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: When Tweedletrump Meets Tweedlejong
From: Iains
Date: 16 Jun 18 - 11:23 AM

If you can't post without contemptuous dismissal Iains, don't post at all.

Well lets have a few reputable historians support your position. I await with interest!

Subject: RE: BS: When Tweedletrump Meets Tweedlejong
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Jun 18 - 11:39 AM

From the Wiki entry on appeasement
His criticism of Hitler began from the start of the decade, yet Churchill was slow to attack fascism overall due to his own vitriolic opposition to Communists, "international Jews", and socialism generally.[32] Churchill's sustained warnings about fascism only commenced in 1938 after Hitler's ally, Francisco Franco, decimated the leftists in Spain.[33]

Where are your quotes from anybody (apart from Guido Fawkes) that contradict anything I have written here ?
Somebody else got here long before yout with "real historians who publish real books in real bookshops"
The winners of wars seldom , if ever bother to bexpose how that war was wone - they don't have to
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: When Tweedletrump Meets Tweedlejong
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Jun 18 - 12:12 PM

That quote came from The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography BTW
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: When Tweedletrump Meets Tweedlejong
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 16 Jun 18 - 01:10 PM

Jim,

The war was very nearly lost in 1939 anyway, if it had started in 1938 it almost certainly would have been. We were still three years from the Americans becoming interested, and from the switch in allegiance prompted by Operation Barbarossa.

Subject: RE: BS: When Tweedletrump Meets Tweedlejong
From: Iains
Date: 16 Jun 18 - 01:26 PM

Posting twice again. Is that a Goebell's tactic again. Repeat a lie.....!?
Relying on wiki is really scraping the barrel.
Here is history net

http://www.historynet.com/winston-churchills-prewar-effort-to-increase-military-spending.htm

or perhaps you would like to argue with Hansard?
https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1934/feb/07/inadequate-defences-of-great-britain-and#S5CV0285P0_19340207_HOC_

https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1934/mar/21/imperial-defence#S5CV0287P0_19340321_HOC_187

A mere soupçon of what is available to make a complete mockery of your allegations.

Or perhaps you dismiss Hansard as you do that fine fellow guido, or anyone else that does not fit your antideluvian narrow minded view of the world.
Or is wiki a more reliable source of what the great man said, rather than the actual transcript of precisely what he said, recorded in the place where he said it?

Subject: RE: BS: When Tweedletrump Meets Tweedlejong
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Jun 18 - 01:31 PM

" Is that a Goebell's tactic again. Repeat a lie.....!?"
Nope
a recurring problem
What lie?
I don't tell lies
Your links in no way contradict what I have put up
Please don't spoil this by mudsinging, now when I'm enjoyyinmg it as much as I am
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: When Tweedletrump Meets Tweedlejong
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 16 Jun 18 - 02:22 PM

Quickly
This is not just history from the history books - it is my family history - it is why I was only able to spend fifteen years getting to know my father, because Britain's ambiguous attitude to fascism drove him from home

The first act of aggressive fascism in Europe was when Franco attempted, with the air of Moroccan mercenaries, attempted to overthrow a democratically elected Social Democratic Government
Britain and France colluded to isolate the Elected Spanish Government by setting up a blockade of goods - they didn't do nothing - in Spain, they actively supported a fascist coup
People like my father were criminalised for going off to fight fascism
If that's not appeasement, my Jack's a kipper
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: When Tweedletrump Meets Tweedlejong
From: Iains
Date: 16 Jun 18 - 02:49 PM

Chamberlain brought back far more than a piece of paper. He gained time. Chain home was not fully operational until 1939. It was the first integrated air defence system in the world and without it the battle of Britain would have been lost. Also production was not on a wartime footing, though steps were taken well before the outbreak of war.e.g.shadow factories

Fighter planes
       1939    1940    1941    1942    1943    1944    1945    Total
        1,324         4,283         7,064         9,849         10,727         10,730         5,445         49,422

Returning Irish men from the second world war were penalized also. Shit happens!
A shame it does not happen with ISIS or whatever name of the moment they masquerade under.

Subject: RE: BS: When Tweedletrump Meets Tweedlejong
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 16 Jun 18 - 02:53 PM

Jeri, if you go into your cookies on your computer you can remove the NY Times cookie and get four more free articles. I used to do that also with the Washington Post. Now you can subscribe to the Post for 3.99 a month online, and the Times is a lot more, but I get it also. It's tedious but it does work; you might also try different browsers.

Subject: RE: BS: When Tweedletrump Meets Tweedlejong
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Jun 18 - 02:49 AM

"Chamberlain brought back far more than a piece of paper. He gained time. "
Surely the point is that, if Hitler's obvious ambitions had not been ignored he could have been stopped much earlier - that is the point I am making
The British Establishment (and a large slice of Europe and the U.S.) was not just unprepared; it was happy to work with the Nazi regime as long as they washed their dirty linen in the privacy of Germany
Hitler had many supporters in Britain - from the King down
Lord Rothermere's Daily Mail ran a campaign on THE GLORIES OF FASCISM

Spain was an obvious opportunity to cry "enough" - the German army was not ready for war, the Luftwaffe was allowed to tryout their untrained young pilots and new planes on Guernica

German re-armament began secretly immediately after Versailles but it became public when th Nazis took control - by the rules of the treaty, the allies could have stopped it.
Labour was the only party to oppose German re-armament

Chamberlain came back from Munich with a promise of 'Peace in our time", he convinced everybody that there would be no war - that is not preparing for one.
Even if he had believed otherwise, that would have been a case of locking the stable after the horse had won the 'Grand International'

I think we've naused up this thread enough - time to move on maybe
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: When Tweedletrump Meets Tweedlejong
From: David Carter (UK)
Date: 17 Jun 18 - 03:20 AM

That point is irrelevant Jim. In 1938, we were where we were. Could have, might have, stopped him earlier, but we hadn't and that is the only point. Chamberlain was faced with the prospect of going to war in 1938 with the probability that Britain would fall to Hitler. He took a more pragmatic course. He had only been prime minister since May 1937, so to lay the lack of preparation at his door is ridiculous. Blame Rothermere, blame the establishment, blame Churchill, blame Baldwin. But don't blame Chamberlain. Of course he came back saying that there will be no war, and of course he was preparing for one. What should he have said? "We know there will be a war eventually, but we aren't going to war now because we would lose"? That would have been truthful, and also stupid.

Subject: RE: BS: When Tweedletrump Meets Tweedlejong
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Jun 18 - 05:32 AM

"In 1938, we were where we were."
But surely that is the point - we needn't have been where we were
It wasn't as if Germany didn't have a track record
WW1 decimated a generation - it was to be 'the war to end all wars'
a little over a decade since the end ot the war an extremist Party took control of Germany - the allies who declared Germany should not rearm did nothing to stop those people from turning their country into a world threat again
There is no evidence that Chamberlain prepared for war with Germany - sm sources say "he must have known..." - if that is the case, he was lying to the British people when he said "peace in our time"
not only did Britain do nothing to stop the rise of fascism, the leaders colluded to prevent opposition to its rise in Spain
Many of the British establishment welcomed fascism with open arms.
Sorry Dave, I do not believe your argument has legs to stand on
History will condemn the first half of the twentieth century - and we are not doing too well REPUTATION-WISE since
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: When Tweedletrump Meets Tweedlejong
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Jun 18 - 05:34 AM

By the way - "where we were long after 1938 is criminalising those who actually took up arms against the rise of fascism
The horrors of the Holocaust didn't change that one iota
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: When Tweedletrump Meets Tweedlejong
From: Iains
Date: 17 Jun 18 - 06:01 AM

"There is no evidence that Chamberlain prepared for war with Germany - sm sources say "he must have known..." - if that is the case, he was lying to the British people when he said "peace in our time"
A shame you cannot read or understand what is above. Why do you keep repeating yourself

" Kingsley Martin’s column in the New Statesman shortly after the Anschluss suggests the willful opposition to even minimal defense expenditures that the Left exhibited throughout the decade: ‘Today, if Mr. Chamberlain would come forward and tell us that his polity was really one not only of isolation but also of Little Englandism in which the Empire was to be given up because it could not be defended and in which military defense was to be abandoned because war would totally end civilization, we, for our part, would totally support him.’
" the government of Neville Chamberlain made the crucial decision in late 1937 that Britain could only afford the buildup of a fighter, as opposed to a bomber, force, but it reached that decision because fighters were cheaper, rather than based on any belief in the efficacy of air defense. Churchill’s constant hammering on the lack of preparedness in the air and the importance of air defense supported what buildup did occur and provided much of the narrow margin by which Fighter Command won the Battle of Britain in 1940."

The labour party, as ever, sabotaging efforts for defence.

Subject: RE: BS: When Tweedletrump Meets Tweedlejong
From: Iains
Date: 17 Jun 18 - 06:18 AM

"There is no evidence that Chamberlain prepared for war with Germany"

As they say in pantomime: OH YES THERE IS!

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Chamberlain)
DEFENCE [LOANS].
Hansard 17 February 1937 vol 320 cc1205-318

When I announced a few weeks ago that it was the intention of the Government to introduce a Bill authorising them to raise £400,000,000 for purposes of Defence, the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition said that this was a proposal unprecedented in time of peace. I am not disposed to disagree with the right hon. Gentleman about that. It is, of course, true that this will not be the first time that loans have been raised for the purpose of paying for Defence, and no doubt hon. Members will have in their minds the precedent of Naval and Military Works Acts, 1895 to 1905. I should be sorry to regard those Acts as a precedent for what we are doing now. The circumstances of the time are entirely different, and the amounts that were then raised were trifling, compared with what we are thinking of to-day. The whole borrowings of the Treasury under the Naval and Military Works Acts did not sum up altogether to £45,000,000...........

Subject: RE: BS: When Tweedletrump Meets Tweedlejong
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Jun 18 - 01:37 PM

"Why do you keep repeating yourself"
For the same reason you keep quoting from a history magazine edited bt a health and fitness expert, I presume - you asked for reliable historians, didn't you
Bone of this answers the fact the the government appeased the Nazis until they bit its bum and criminalised those who went out to fight it
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: When Tweedletrump Meets Tweedlejong
From: Jeri
Date: 17 Jun 18 - 02:28 PM

You guys, when you shove a thread this far off topic, please just start a new one. Thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: When Tweedletrump Meets Tweedlejong
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 17 Jun 18 - 02:31 PM

"You guys, when you shove a thread this far off topic, "
I drink to that Jeri
It has got somewhat astray
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: When Tweedletrump Meets Tweedlejong
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 17 Jun 18 - 05:50 PM

Getting back to Trump's antics, you can scan back through the weekday posts of WTF Just Happened Today? on Twitter. He always has links to excellent information.