He’s said multiple times that he stands by the quote as I repeated it. I’m not aware of him offering the caveats that you do.
So, absent the caveat, sounds like you might disagree with Mattis?
So, no, then?
When / where?
Here is video of the original (and only one that I’m aware of) exchange. Your restatement of his quote left off the word “ultimately” as well as the “hopefully” bit. That’s fine, people trim quotes and I don’t think you were doing anything dishonest by doing so here (I consider it a distinct possibility you were not even aware of the broader context). I don’t think I “disagree” with Mattis so much as, in the broader context of his answer, I believe Mattis was trying to lay out a broader aspiration, and show some support for the State Department, than trying to define some ironclad rule, and I can certainly appreciate the broader aspiration that diplomacy should reduce the incidence of war.
Trump has taken a different, more direct and hands-on approach to diplomacy (in some ways sidelining the career diplomats / political appointees that normally staff the State Department) than his predecessors. I’m not as convinced as you seem to be that such an approach is necessarily bad. In this case with North Korea at least, it seems to be bearing some fruit.
ETA: “Hopefully” this comes across as something like “I agree with the broader point that I believe Mattis was making about the importance of diplomacy, while perhaps taking issue with that particular snippet of an answer that you quoted earlier.”
Dotard and Little Rocket man meet June 12th in Singapore
I wonder if they will end up jumping up and down while they cream at each other. It would be rough on the translators.
it will go down as the really bad hair summit.
Outstanding, Sir!
I suspect you meant to type “scream,” not “cream,” as that’d be a very different sort of summit.
Kim will say “before we get down to business, how do you bang so many hot babes?”
cream or scream?
Either way it would be rough on the onlookers
Scream, I beg your pardon, and I will pay for the eye bleach.
In their faces either way.
The three former captives are now back in the U.S., and kudos to the people who made that happen.
And, yes, in this case, Trump’s approach to diplomacy might have worked. However, as others have noted, it’s not clear to me how much of the release (and the upcoming summit) are the result of Trump and Pompeo’s approach, or that Kim Jong-Un’s bargaining leverage has changed.
That said, as a general rule, unpredictability and insults (two hallmarks of Trump’s approach to, well, everything) generally are not seen as positives when it comes to attempting to be a successfully diplomatic country. My fear is that Trump will look at any progress in the North Korea situation, and say, “See? My approach works!”, and thus double down on pursuing the U.S.'s new role as World Asshole.
I play poker occasionally, and I’m certainly not going to say I am great, but I hold my own.
Sometimes, I encounter someone who makes the dumbest play ever. I’ve got them dead to rights, and they’ve got one card in the deck to save them.
That card comes up, they win the pot, and the say “Yeah, that’s how you play poker!” and preen on themselves and think that they did a good job.
The are usually felted within an hour.
“Never try to bluff somebody who’s stupid.”
- Doyle Brunson (attrib.)
Another interesting article from 38North’s blog…if you can follow the metaphorical prose.
https://www.38north.org/2018/05/jdethomas050918/
The author seems to suggest that this is a ploy and that Kim is scoring a major PR coup in both South Korea and China by presenting himself as a reasonable, rational, shrewd leader. The writer believes that if Trump disagrees over the meaning of denuclearization and throws a tantrum, South Korea will blame the US for diplomacy’s failure and that China will have less of an appetite for returning to strict sanctions. I’m not sure I entirely agree but it’s an interesting analysis.
What I do think - if I can give the Donald just a little bit of credit - is that he has brought a new dimension to the (virtually non-existent) relationship between North Korea and the US. By that I meant that Kim Jong Un already knew what he was going to get if Hillary Clinton had been elected, which is the same thing that the Kims got with Obama and the other Clinton (and the Bush administration, too): crippling sanctions, lectures on democracy, more lectures on human rights, platitudes about freedom, and insistence on non-proliferation…and implicit threats of regime change.
Trump, by contrast, has promised to be make America a more insular country and it has made clear his desire to negotiate bilaterally. And that last part is key because while it might drive the State Department intellectuals bat-shit insane with frustration at what the president apparently ‘doesn’t know’, it presents opportunities for fringe regimes like the Kims. I’m reluctant to call this Trump’s “genius” but it is, quite possibly, an example of how Trump’s instincts might at least provide opportunities where they did not exist with those who played by the standard post-WWII playbook. At the same time, before MAGA maniacs rep my post, it’s also highly likely that Trumpian policy presents new kinds of threats as well.
But really, neither one is actually outside the realm of possibility.
Could also be that the NK, having lost its test site and desperately short of actual cash…and!..having already demonstrated it possesses an actual threat…is more confident in its bargaining position. Why gamble on further tests that may fail? If you say you’re gonna resume your program, you have to test something sooner or later.
Trouble being, of course, that both of the main players here are certifiable. Trump might tell him to go home and get his shoe shine box…
Well he brushed ‘dandruff’ off of Macron’s shoulder, so what’s he gonna do with Kim - give him a titty twister? A wedgie? A Buddha belly rub?
“Little Rocket man’s great - he’s gonna be perfect. Just needs to drop a few pounds (as he rubs his belly).”
A wedgie.