Join us at our brand new blog - Blue Country Gazette - created for those who think "BLUE." Go to www.bluecountrygazette.blogspot.com

YOUR SOURCE FOR TRUTH

Tuesday, January 11, 2022

Shocking Things GOP and Trumpians Believe

facepalm.jpeg
Image by Sammy-Sander from Pixabay

With the Republican Party turning to Trumpism, and the Democratic Party returning to their progressive roots, will we have an honest debate this election year in our media?

“What you see is what you get” is an old cliche, but it’s endured all these centuries because there’s so much truth in it.  “Don’t listen to what people say, instead look at what they do” is another truism we can apply to inform us about today’s politics.

The past forty years have seen three Republican and three Democratic presidencies, and the modern priorities and values of each Party are now quite clear.

On the Republican side, Reagan laid the foundation for Bush and Trump to hand over $10 trillion in tax cuts to billionaires and giant corporations while spending an equal amount on senseless, unwanted and unwinnable wars, leaving us with a $20 trillion national debt.

Trump has since merged the Grand Old Party with the anti-democratic, oligarchic and male/white-supremacist values of the pre-Civil War South, leading his followers to proudly fly Confederate flags and strut around with as many large guns as they can carry.

On the Democratic side, there’s been a steady revival of the progressive movement, along with its efforts to lift up working class and poor Americans while cleaning up the environment and protecting the social safety net.

While the Democratic Party embraced neoliberalism for a while, from 1992 until 2016, the majority of elected Democrats today are committed to extending the benefits, freedoms and privileges of citizenship to all Americans, regardless of race, religion or gender identification.  

There’s an uncredited meme that’s been floating around the internet in various forms for a while, generally titled “Shocking Things Liberals Believe” that summarizes:

  • People who work full time shouldn’t live in poverty

  • Homelessness shouldn’t exist in the richest country in the world

  • Women deserve both equal rights and equal pay

  • Corporations and rich people shouldn’t be able to legally bribe politicians

  • Trashing the planet for profit is wrong and must stop

  • Every American should have world-class healthcare at little or no cost

  • Free higher education (and quality public schools) unlock human potential which benefits the entire country

  • Children should learn the true racial history of America so they can empathize with their peers who are still experiencing these problems and grow up to become well-informed adults

  • Women should make their own medical decisions, not politicians

  • Massively profitable industries, from oil/coal/gas to Walmart and Amazon, shouldn’t get billions in subsidies and tax breaks

  • Children shouldn’t fear getting shot at school

  • When Wall Street banksters steal from us all, they should be imprisoned instead of bailed out

  • No CEO is worth $10,000 an hour ($20 million a year) or more

It’s actually a pretty reasonable summary of the perspectives and positions of most Democrats who’d describe themselves as liberal or progressive today and, while not descriptive of every elected Democrat, shows the direction the Party is moving.

But it immediately provokes the counter-question: Now that Trumpism has taken over the GOP, what do they believe? 

Since the Party stopped publishing a Platform or clear positions on issues after the 2016 election, we pretty much have to look at their behaviors, but those, at least, have been consistent. Here’s what’s obvious, based on “what they do”:

  • “Free and fair elections” are for suckers

  • White men should run the country and the world

  • Violence is a legitimate tool in politics

  • Conspiracy theories like the one suggesting Democrats drink children’s blood as an “elixir of youth” are probably real

  • Rich people and their kids shouldn’t have to pay taxes

  • More guns means less crime and fewer deaths

  • The darker your skin, the more likely you’re a criminal

  • Leadership is about instilling fear, not vision

  • Women are men’s property

  • Climate change and evolution are tricks to take away our freedoms and ruin religion

  • Education makes people stupid

  • Going into politics is the ticket to riches and fame

  • Rich people should make a buck off everything the government does through privatization

  • Helping people who’re going through a rough patch is a waste of time

  • The “rule of law” only applies to minorities and the poor

  • Money and power are the only truly important things in life

  • Teaching the true racial history of America is a plot to make white children feel sad

  • LGBTQ people don’t deserve respect or rights

  • Wealth is proof of goodness; poverty is proof of moral failure

  • “Giving” citizens things like healthcare, education, family leave, etc. are all “socialism” and will destroy “the American way of life”

  • Government has no right to regulate pollution or protect consumers

  • “Fiscal responsibility” is a phrase that can justify just about anything

Both are obviously partial lists, an attempt to define our political parties based on their behaviors instead of just their words.  

This is an election year, and these differences should be the basis of our national conversation about who leads the country in 2023 and beyond.

Is our “reality TV” news media up to the task of comparing and contrasting the two political parties, and judging the most likely outcomes of the directions they’ve chosen?

It’s going to be a challenge as long as Republicans keep spewing crap like John Kasich saying on CNN this week, when discussing the January 6th attack, that “we have seen hatred on both sides.”  Or Joe Manchin grandstanding, using long-discredited “but the deficit!” and “but the filibuster!” GOP talking points, every time a camera shows up on Capitol Hill.

On the other hand, if enough of us are active in holding our Fourth Estate to account, particularly on social media, and can amplify truthful messages of compassion, clarity and sanity to our friends and neighbors, perhaps we can actually have a meaningful election year.

Tag, you’re it!

HartmannReport.com



 

Monday, January 10, 2022

She thought it was okay to be white, and didn't see any evidence for a vaccine

The Pfizer Covid-19 vaccine awaits administration at a vaccination clinic in Los Angeles, California on December 15, 2021. (Photo by Frederic J. BROWN / AFP) (Photo by FREDERIC J. BROWN/AFP via Getty Images)
So simple, so lifesaving.

This series documents stories from the Herman Cain Awards subreddit. tracking the COVID mis- and disinformation on Facebook that is leading to so many deaths. Today’s cautionary tale has finally found the evidence she pretended didn’t exist. 

We’ve seen the usual memes over and over again, so today we’re taking a break from that and keeping it short and sweet. 

1.jpeg

Did anyone say it wasn’t okay to be white? 

It’s not okay to be racist. Too bad these people can’t see the distinction. 

2.jpeg

Well, the official global tally is 5.5 million people, with the actual number likely multitudes higher. 

So what is “The Agenda,” actually? 

3.jpeg

A Facebook meme with no citations or data behind it declared something, so it must be real. 

That’s what “do your own research” truly means. 

4.jpeg

Uh-oh. 

5.jpeg
6.jpeg

Nineteen days! Just 19 days from “the evidence supports my stupid reluctance to reject a lifesaving vaccine” to death.

I wonder if she sees the evidence now. (Well, not now.) But during those last moments, gasping for air as COVID-19 ravaged her lungs. I wonder if she finally realized that the unjabbed were dying, that the evidence for the vaccines effectiveness exists, and whether surrendering her life in support of white supremacy was truly worth it in the end.

Sunday, January 9, 2022

Trump Must Have Day in Court for His Jan. 6 Crimes

 Trump Must Have His Day in Court for His Crimes on January 6 Trump supporters stand on a Capitol Police armored vehicle as others take over the steps of the Capitol, Jan. 6, 2021. (photo: Bill Clark/CQ-Roll Call/Getty Images)

Attorney General Merrick Garland said all the right things. His speech marking the anniversary of the Jan. 6 insurrection was a studied call for patience — and a promise of full justice. He explained how massive, complex criminal investigations proceed: Prosecutors work from the bottom up, from the small fry to the big fish.

Above all, he pledged that the Justice Department has “no higher priority” and would do “whatever it takes for justice to be done — consistent with the facts and the law.” Most important, he made clear that “the Justice Department remains committed to holding all January 6th perpetrators, at any level, accountable under law — whether they were present that day or were otherwise criminally responsible for the assault on our democracy.” (Emphasis mine.)

If Garland means what he says, then the investigative road must lead prosecutors to the individual most responsible for the events of Jan. 6: former president Donald Trump. To be sure, the Justice Department deserves plaudits for what it has done already: More than 725 people have been charged, and 165 have pleaded guilty. Seventy defendants have been sentenced, 31 to prison.

But however guilty they might be, these defendants do not and should not bear the ultimate responsibility for the attack on Congress and the Constitution. As Judge Amit B. Mehta told defendant John Lolos at his sentencing, “I think you are a pawn. You are a pawn in a game that’s played and directed by people who should know better.”

As the pawns meet their fates, the man who led them to try to stop the peaceful, democratic transfer of power remains safe in his Palm Beach palace. As Mehta put it, “People like Mr. Lolos were told lies, falsehoods, told the election was stolen when it really wasn’t.” Those lies were Trump’s.

And not only did Trump deceive the mob, but also he directed it. Trump urged the rioters to come to Washington on Jan. 6, promising it would be “wild!” On that day, he told his supporters to march on the Capitol, to “fight like hell” — and warned that “if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.” He told the crowd that “our country will be destroyed” if Joe Biden took office, and that “we’re not going to stand for that.”

Trump’s intent was obvious well before Jan. 6. I tweeted on Dec. 26, 2020, “It’s pretty clear now that @realDonaldTrump’s next desperate play is to encourage disruption, if not violence, in Washington on January 6.” I wasn’t being prescient; I had just listened to what Trump had been saying. As Rep. Liz Cheney (R-Wyo.) said in announcing her vote to impeach, “The President of the United States summoned this mob, assembled the mob, and lit the flame of this attack.” He did it all in plain sight.

So now the question is, will the Justice Department hold Trump responsible for his role in the attack? If Garland truly means that perpetrators at any level will be held accountable, and that “there cannot be different rules for the powerful and the powerless,” then the department can, it should, and it must.

Garland must not fear that prosecuting Trump would be viewed as a partisan act. He need only look to the words of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who, after voting against an impeachment conviction on the (meritless) ground that Trump had left office, all but called for Trump’s prosecution. “We have a criminal justice system in this country,” McConnell said. “President Trump is still liable for everything he did while he was in office,” McConnell added. “He didn’t get away with anything yet. Yet.”

The Justice Department has plenty of statutory tools available to make sure Trump doesn’t get away with what he did. Most notably, it could invoke one of the same provisions it has applied to individual rioters: Title 18, section 1512(c)(2) of the U.S. Code punishes “whoever corruptly … obstructs … or impedes any official proceeding.” The statute makes clear that an “official proceeding” includes one “before the Congress.” At least one judge handling Jan. 6 cases has already held that it includes Congress’s joint session for counting electoral votes.

That Trump himself wasn’t present at the Capitol doesn’t shield him from liability for obstructing the electoral vote count or for any other crimes committed that day. The criminal code provides that whoever “aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces or procures” the commission of an offense, or “willfully causes … another” to commit an offense, “is punishable as a principal," as though they had directly committed the deed himself.

A number of criminal law experts have noted that you can aid and abet a crime simply by doing nothing — if you have a duty to intervene but don’t. A bystander who watches a store break-in and does nothing hasn’t committed a crime. The store security guard who sees the break-in and does nothing, knowing that his dereliction is allowing the crime to proceed, has.

As president, Trump had the duty to intervene. Instead, as the Jan. 6 select congressional committee is learning, he spent hours watching the mayhem on TV. And that dereliction of duty, along with his open and manifest desire to stop the electoral-vote count, should suffice to make him guilty of a crime. The evidence is already bad for him, and it can only get worse.

If the attorney general means what he says, Trump’s day in the dock will come — if not soon, then soon enough.

Can we get him behind bars before he gets us - and ruins democracy in the process?

Saturday, January 8, 2022

PENNYFARTHING IS BACK: Hoo-boy! These MAGA Jan. 6 takes are simply and utterly gobsmacking

CNN reporter Donie O’Sullivan has done yeoman’s work this year exposing the kookaburra right’s myriad election delusions. In August, for example, he covered Pillow Man Mike Lindell’s infamous cyber symposium, which revealed no proof of election fraud but did strongly suggest Lindell may have personally “inspected” a bit too much ballot-printer toner. (Lindell is friends with renowned brain surgeon and Egyptologist Dr. Ben Carson; I fear Carson performed some light elective surgery on his pal and accidentally left a sponge and/or spongecake in his head. But I have no proof. Not yet, anyway.)

Well, believe it or not, you’ll find even barmier characters than Lindell among the Trumpian rookeries that dot the wholesome heartland of America. 

Case in point: By and large, Trump supporters seem to think Jan. 6 had nothing to do with Trump—or his followers. 

Just peep this bowlful of bonkers:

LISA: “The Jan. 6 attack was not the Republicans nor Trump. It was the Democrats were behind it all. They’re the ones that caused it all.”

O’SULLIVAN: “You really believe that?”

LISA: “[Scoffs] I know it, and there is no way that a Republican would act that way and there is no way that Trump had anything to do with what happened on Jan. 6.”

O’SULLIVAN: “What about all the Trump supporters that have been charged and indicted?”

LISA: “Because it’s all Democratic judges and people that were on the take from the Democrats.”

Gee, thanks for instilling unshakeable faith in our court system, Donald. I guess all that talk of “Obama judges” had its intended effect. Too bad “Trump judges” don’t feel the corrupt sense of fealty you always assumed they would. 

ANITA GERMANO: “I think the whole reporting of it is a giant hoax.”

MARGE MATHIEU: “We are very peaceful people, so it was a total setup. To me, it was the FBI had set it up. I don’t believe that they were Trump supporters that did that.”

Hmm. No wonder the back of my Froot Loops box had this fun “find the FBI agent” game printed on it this morning:

Trump supporters clash with police and security forces as they storm the US Capitol in Washington, DC on January 6, 2021. - Demonstrators breeched security and entered the Capitol as Congress debated the a 2020 presidential election Electoral Vote Certification. (Photo by ROBERTO SCHMIDT / AFP) (Photo by ROBERTO SCHMIDT/AFP via Getty Images)

O’SULLIVAN: “You said the whole thing was a setup. You don’t really believe that, do you?”

JEANIE JOHNSON: “I do. I do. Because Trump won the election, they've proven it over and over again.”

Narrator: “They haven’t.”

VICTORIA PERRY: “I think that it was set up and I think that people didn’t know what was happening, and I think that they went in there and they were caught in a trap, if you will.

O’SULLIVAN: “You’re suggesting that Jan. 6 was a setup?”

PERRY: “Yes, I am. Mmm-hmm.”

O’SULLIVAN: “But you would acknowledge that there was a lot of Trump supporters involved in the violence that day.”

PERRY: “I didn’t see any Trump supporters in the violence; I saw people that pretended to be Trump supporters in that violence.”

Really? I wouldn’t even know how to begin to pretend to be a Trump supporter. My brain rebels against it; in fact, it’s now so offended, I fear it may drop out of my head entirely. I assume the MAGA hat is a key feature, but do you wear it to cover up the railroad spike in your head or to better accentuate your mullet? You’d need at least a month-long seminar to pull this off, and the FBI didn’t have nearly that much time. 

LARRY: “I really don’t think Trump had much to do [with it], other than there were people who were his supporters for him, some were involved, but I think they were enticed by the FBI, and by undercover agents.”

Anyone who saw the events of Jan. 6 unfold knows from whence they originated. And I don’t mean the FBI—unless that stands for Fatuous, Bloviating Incompetent.

Thanks, Fox News, for greasing the skids for fascism. I assume you’ve already been promised a hefty stake in the profits from any future Soylent Green factories. Your dystopian hellscape awaits. Enjoy it while you can.

As is our wont, we close this latest episode of the Jan. 6 chronicles with a shot of the gallows erected by those fake Trump supporters.  Oh, Nancy...  Oh, Mikey...

Friday, January 7, 2022

Bravo Macron! [Yes, piss off the superspreaders]

 

"The unvaccinated, I really want to piss them off. And so, we're going to continue doing so until the end. That's the strategy," Macron told Le Parisien newspaper....

 

For once, President Macron tells it like it is

                   French President Emmanuel Macron said on Tuesday he wanted to "piss off" the non-vaccinated, in a slangy, cutting remark that prompted howls of condemnation from opposition rivals less than four months before the next presidential election.               

"The unvaccinated, I really want to piss them off. And so, we're going to continue doing so until the end. That's the strategy," Macron told Le Parisien newspaper in an interview published late on Tuesday.

Of course, the snowflakes on the right were outraged.

Good.

It is far, far nicer than what I want to call them.

Stop whining and get fucking vaccinated.

France is a society and not getting vaccinated is antisocial behaviour, and they should be treated as spoilt children. No milk and cookies.

Merde indeed.

Wednesday, Jan 5, 2022 · 8:01:37 AM MST · LaFeminista

Rough translation of his words

I'm not for pissing off the French I rant all day at the administration when it blocks them. Well, there, the unvaccinated, I really want to piss them off, "he explains, accusing the antivax of" a huge moral fault ". “They are coming to undermine the strength of a nation. When my freedom threatens that of others, I become irresponsible. An irresponsible person is no longer a citizen.

Pretty mild by French standards.

Wednesday, Jan 5, 2022 · 10:21:17 AM MST · LaFeminista

The wailing and faux outrage of the media and politicians is pathetic.

It is them that is out of touch.

Wednesday, Jan 5, 2022 · 12:48:15 PM MST · LaFeminista

My feeling is that Macron is a better politician than a good deal of media talking heads give him credit for, there are many here “emmerde” by the anti-vaxers and have not a voice. Perhaps that explains the opposing politician reactions.

Such a simple concept to comprehend - the vaccine will save your freakin' life.

Tuesday, January 4, 2022

Trump called her an ‘incredible woman,’ but Ashli Babbitt was a Q-nut with a violent past

WASHINGTON, DC - JANUARY 06: Protesters gather on the door of the U.S. Capitol Building on January 06, 2021 in Washington, DC. Pro-Trump protesters entered the U.S. Capitol building after mass demonstrations in the nation's capital during a joint session Congress to ratify President-elect Joe Biden's 306-232 Electoral College win over President Donald Trump. (Photo by Tasos Katopodis/Getty Images) 
Trump's henchmen at work on Jan. 6, 2021.

Ashli Babbitt has been heralded by Trump and his MAGA supporters as a martyr, but the reality tells a vastly different story. 

Babbitt, 35, was an Air Force veteran who was fatally shot by a Capitol Police police officer as she attempted to climb through a broken window of a door leading to the Speaker’s Lobby inside the U.S. Capitol during the terrorist attack on Jan. 6. 

Since her death, former President Donald Trump has praised Babbitt, calling her an “innocent, wonderful, and incredible woman,” taped a posthumous video for her birthday, and demanded the Justice Department reopen an investigation into her death. Trump supporters idealize her as a soldier for justice who was wrongfully murdered. Her name and photo have been emblazoned on T-shirts and flags at Trump rallies. 

However, Associated Press spoke with a woman by the name of Celeste Norris who says the Babbitt she knew was dangerous and violent. “I lived in fear because I didn’t know what she was capable of,” Norris told the AP. “I was constantly looking over my shoulder.”

Norris’ first encounter with Babbitt took place on July 29, 2016, when Norris says Babbitt rammed her SUV in a road-rage incident in Prince Frederick, Maryland. 

“She pulls up yelling and screaming,” Norris told AP. “It took me a good 30 seconds to figure out who she was. … Just all sorts of expletives, telling me to get out of the car, that she was going to beat my ass.”

Norris says Babbitt had been having an affair with her boyfriend, so Norris called Babbitt’s husband and told him. 

Norris was in a six-year relationship with Aaron Babbitt when she discovered he’d been having an affair with Babbitt, who then went by her married name Ashli McEntee. Her ex-husband’s name is Timothy McEntee. 

“He was telling me about this foulmouthed chick that’s on his shift, blah, blah, blah,” Norris said. “Come to find out a few months later ... they were basically having this relationship while they were at work.” 

On the day that Norris was hit by Babbitt, she told AP she was sitting at a stop sign. A white Ford Explorer passed her going in the opposite direction. The SUV made a U-turn and then began speeding up behind her, forcing the car between them to move aside. When Babbitt got behind Norris she rammed her rear bumper, and then again and then again all while the two SUVs drove down the road. 

Babbitt got out of her car and began banging on Norris’ window. Norris says she had no idea initially who Babbitt was, so she called 911. Deputies arrived within minutes. 

On the day of the altercation, Norris says she was so shaken by the event she went with a friend and filed a peace order, a kind of restraining order, against Babbitt. 

Babbitt initially claimed the accident happened because Norris had backed her car into her SUV, but once the case went to trial, Norris told AP, Babbitt admitted to colliding with Norris but alleged it was an accident. 

AP reports that Babbitt was issued a criminal summons on charges of reckless endangerment, a misdemeanor defined under Maryland law as engaging in conduct “that creates a substantial risk of death or serious physical injury to another” and is punishable by up to five years in prison and a $5,000 fine. She was also charged with malicious destruction of property for the damage to Norris’ SUV, and later reckless driving, negligent driving, and failure to control a vehicle’s speed to avoid a collision.

A year later, Norris filed another restraining order against Babbitt citing harassment and stalking. Norris says Babbitt called her repeatedly in the middle of the night and was following her. 

In 2019, Norris filed a personal injury suit against Babbitt seeking $74,500 in damages. The case was settled with Babbitt’s insurance. 

AP reports that in the months prior to her death, Babbitt had become obsessed with the “big lie,” and made numerous violent threats on her now-defunct social media platforms. She railed against Democrats and was a devout anti-masker, QAnon follower, and xenophobe.

The day before the insurrection, Babbitt tweeted, “Nothing will stop us,” and “They can try and try and try but the storm is here and it is descending upon DC in less than 24 hours....dark to light!”

Aaron Babbitt’s attorney, Terrell Roberts III, has said the shooting “was tantamount to an execution without trial.” Adding:  “Given her background as a 14-year veteran of the Air Force, it is likely that Ashli would have complied with simple verbal commands, thereby making the use of any force unnecessary.” 

Roberts has raised over $375,000 via a Christian crowdfunding site and has threatened to file a wrongful lawsuit against the Capitol Police for his Babbitt’s death, AP reports. Roberts alleges that Babbitt, a 5-foot-2 and 115-pound former military police officer, “could have been stopped by a single trained officer” and that Babbitt “was entitled to a warning and chance to surrender before she was shot to death.”

Lt. Michael Byrd, the Capitol Police officer who shot Babbitt, was cleared by both the U.S. Capitol Police and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia, finding that he acted in defense of members of Congress and in self-defense.

“I tried to wait as long as I could,” Byrd told NBC News. “I hoped and prayed no one tried to enter through those doors. But their failure to comply required me to take the appropriate action to save the lives of members of Congress and myself and my fellow officers.”

Lest we forget, these Bozos wanted to hang Pence and Pelosi, and they damn near succeeded as Bozo Trump watched from the White House with obvious relish.

Saturday, January 1, 2022

Unbearable Double Standard of US Press, Judging Biden Harshly and Forgetting Trump's Antics

 The Unbearable Double Standard of the US Press, Judging Biden Harshly and Abruptly Forgetting Trump's Bizarre Antics 'I am not the only analyst to see an extraordinary set of double standards applied in the U.S. media to Joe Biden in comparison with Donald Trump.' (photo: Forbes)

I am not the only analyst to see an extraordinary set of double standards applied in the US media to Joe Biden in comparison with Donald Trump. It is almost as if reporters and anchors are willing to forget every one of Trump’s perfidies but never willing to forget even one of Biden’s missteps. It is hard to know what drives this weird amnesia. Maybe it is a desire to appear even-handed, given the rabid email rebukes they would receive from Trump loyalists if they reported on the former president as he deserves. Maybe it is an attempt by for-profit news to get Republican readers. Maybe it is sensationalism and clickbait. Maybe the handful of big corporations that purvey to us most of our news would really like to have Trump back. After all, he put viewership way up by his constant trolling of the public, and he cut taxes on the rich and corporations, so what is not to like?

Biden’s pull-out from Afghanistan was admittedly a disaster. But it was a disaster because the Afghanistan army and government put in place by the US nearly twenty years ago unexpectedly and abruptly collapsed. It was not a disaster because Biden decided to pull out of Afghanistan.

Historian Timothy Naftali was on CNN on Wednesday arguing that the withdrawal was an unforced error on Biden’s part. He could not be more wrong.

Trump was the one who pulled out of Afghanistan. He reduced troop strength from some 14,000 to only 8500 in 2019. He made a peace treaty with the Taliban in February of 2020, in which he gave an iron clad pledge to get all US troops out of the country by May 1, 2021. You hear pundits say that the US troops had not been attacked lately. But that was why. The Taliban had a truce with Trump. By the way, Trump negotiated the surrender to the Taliban without so much as a by your leave regarding the Afghanistan government. They were not allowed to be at the table. Also, Trump said he thought the Taliban might take over the prosecution of the war on terror for us. Trump tried to order the US troops out of Afghanistan in October of 2020 by Twitter, but the Pentagon would not take the hint. The former president had it in his head that the withdrawal would be popular with the white working class resentful of spending money on foreign boondoggles and might help him get elected.

Biden postponed the US withdrawal from May 1 to August 31 without starting back up a war with the Taliban, but the latter warned that if he tried to stay later than that, they would go to war. We now know that they actually controlled most of the country by last summer, so if Biden had tried to stay, he would have had to fight the Second Afghan-American War. Given that 20 years of massive US support to the tune of $2 trillion had not produced a government or an army that could stand on their own feet, to go to war all over again in 2021 raises the question of “are you effing kidding me?” The NYT’s intrepid Azmat Zahra’s reporting on the massive unacknowledged civilian casualties of US air and drone wars has lessons for us about how the US was only able to stay in Afghanistan by bombing the bejesus out of the rural population year after year, which kept US troops from just being tossed out of the country but made the country’s population more and more determined to do just that.

But Naftali voiced the common wisdom among the chattering classes, slamming Biden for a situation that Trump created and not even once remembering that Trump hoped the Taliban would take up the war on terror for us.

It is like we had President Elmer Fudd and then we had a normal human being, and the pundits want Elmer Fudd back; he can’t shoot a rabbit to save his life, but by God he’s entertaining.

Then there is all the angst about whether Biden is being “weak” in facing Putin. If you read Fox News headlines you’d think “weak” was the president’s middle name. Biden on the contrary has been so firm with Putin that Putin has asked for a call today, Thursday, clearly concerned that the Ukraine crisis could get out of hand.

So let’s recall about Trump being Putin’s lap dog. The unrecorded conversations he insisted on having, with no US interpreter present (a breach of protocol). The way he kept telling his adoring cultist crowds that better relations with Russia would be a good thing. The time 2 years ago when CNN had the wit to observe 37 times Trump was soft on Putin are long gone. Trump said Putin did “an amazing job” taking over Crimea from Ukraine, and said people in Crimea were much happier this way.

Can you imagine the weeks-long piranha-like frenzy in the US press today if Biden had said something like that?

Trump met with a Russia delegation including Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and let them know that Israel had a highly placed spy in ISIL. Trump tried to invite Russia to the G7 meeting although any pretense that Russia is a democracy had long since been dropped, and he ordered the CIA to share intelligence with Russia.

Trump had all the spine of a garden slug in dealing with Moscow.  So now Biden, who is tough and forthright with Putin, is being pilloried as weak?

And don’t get me started on the treatment of Biden’s pandemic response, in which he called out troops and the national guard and pulled out all stops to get 200 million Americans vaccinated, in the teeth of Republican opposition, and saved 1.1 million lives this year that otherwise would have been lost. Trump in contrast actively sabotaged the Covid response in 2020 and suggested people shoot up with chlorine, so that Deborah Birx suggested he killed off 130,000 to 160,000 people that hadn’t needed to die.

Biden like any other president should have his policies critiqued. That is the democratic task of the press, and I’m glad to pile on where I see bad policy. But Biden’s Afghanistan withdrawal was not an unforced error out of the blue, and he hasn’t been weak in dealing with Vladimir Putin, and his Covid response has been an amazing success, and you just would not know that from watching or reading news in America.

Trump had all the spine of a garden slug in dealing with Moscow.