Trump or Wolf: Which foul mouth should get a Nobel?
I’m on record, around my house anyway, saying President Obama should have refused his Nobel Peace Prize. Maybe that confers credibility when I say to those, including South Korean President Moon, suggesting the next one ought to go to Trump, “Not so fast.”
The question is to what extent Trump had anything positive to do with potential Korean peace, and the answer is, who knows? Was his uninformed bellicosity instrumental? If so, was it deliberate strategy? If the answers to both are yes, then, OK, give him a slice. So far, though, pledges to end the Korean War and denuclearize the peninsula seem to have happened absent the U.S.
Which leads me think the two Korean leaders decided to do it on their own; because, based on Trump’s desire to renege on the Iran agreement, th Trans-Pacific Partnership and Paris climate accord, they figure they couldn’t trust any accord to which the U.S. was signatory. Is there a Nobel Prize for untrustworthiness?
Other factors: the literal collapse of NoKo’s nuclear facility (tinyurl.com/boom2kim); Kim’s secret meeting with China’s President Xi; Kim’s existing nukes, which, after his meeting with Pompeo, there was no mention of removing. That, it seems, is between the two Koreas. Aware Trump’s promises are worth less than a reverse Stormy denial, Kim cleverly asked for assurance we wouldn’t invade. It’s meaningless, but it gives cover for both of them. Moon knows Nobely flattering Trump accrues points for later. For that matter, Binyamin Netanyahu knows deceptions about the Iran agreement will impress Trump and the Foxified. (Vox: tinyurl.com/bibi2iran)
But, sure: if sustainable peace and verifiable denuking happens, if Trump avoids harshing the mellow, and if the Swedes want to include him in their prize, they should. (My fantasy: It goes to Kim, Moon, and Pompeo.)
More praise for Trump: I agree the White House Correspondents’ Dinner should go away. It’s become an embarrassment, especially to the White House press. Their job is not to make nice with any administration; it’s to keep skeptical distance while calling them to account. Given a chance to affirm those truths last week, they blew it. Ironically, at the bizarre, grandiose rally Trump held during the dinner, he passed the 3,000 official untruths mark. (Metro: tinyurl.com/3grand)
Yes, Michelle Wolf was crude and nasty, though not compared to Trump’s most rabid — if easily offended — base. (NSFW proof: tinyurl.com/2compare) But, more than many in her audience whose job it is, she spoke truth to power. She owes Sarah Sanders and Kellyanne Conway apologies? No. They owe us. They accept money to tell lies, about Trump, about the press, furthering Americans’ disregard for truth. Sordid lies from the White House vs. vulgar humor from a comedian: which damages our country more? Yet leadership of the press corps and several of its members condemned the speech.
https://www.heraldnet.com/opinion/schwab-trump-or-wolf-which-foul-mouth-should-get-a-nobel/?utm_source=DAILY+HERALD&utm_campaign=1bf21aee03-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_d81d073bb4-1bf21aee03-228635337
= new reply since forum marked as read
