“He quit because of the madness”

mattis

Some great reporting Washington Post reporting here (27 current and former White House officials) on the Mattis departure:

Here is a taste:

President Trump began Thursday under siege, listening to howls of indignation from conservatives over his border wall and thrusting the government toward a shutdown. He ended it by announcing the exit of the man U.S. allies see as the last guardrail against the president’s erratic behavior: Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, whose resignation letter was a scathing rebuke of Trump’s worldview.

At perhaps the most fragile moment of his presidency — and vulnerable to convulsions on the political right — Trump single-handedly propelled the U.S. government into crisis and sent markets tumbling with his gambits this week to salvage signature campaign promises.

The president’s decisions and conduct have led to a fracturing of Trump’s coalition. Hawks condemned his sudden decision to withdraw U.S. troops from Syria. Conservatives called him a “gutless president” and questioned whether he would ever build a wall. Political friends began privately questioning whether Trump needed to be reined in.

Read the rest here.

And then, as if the chaos was not bad enough, last night Trump sent out Stephen Miller to try to calm things down:

Or maybe Miller sent himself out.  He may be running the country right now.

3 thoughts on ““He quit because of the madness”

  1. This is “reporting”? Reads to me like an extended, anti-Trump editorial (which, of course, is exactly what journalism now means at leading Resistance organs like the WaPo and the NYT).

    Before we unpack a representative paragraph, I should note that I believe pulling out of Syria is a huge mistake (and likely what pushed Mattis over the edge and out the door); Mattis is a true hero, one of the most impressive, keenly intelligent and honorable men in America, and his resignation is a grievous loss; if Trump were capable of introspection — signs point to: he isn’t — he would ruminate long and hard over the concerns Mattis set forth in his pointed resignation letter.

    But now, let’s sample the WaPo’s idea of reporting:

    “At perhaps the most fragile moment of his Presidency…” (Really? What’s the factual basis for this assertion? We’ve been assured since day one of the Trumpenreich that things were in crisis, that it was teetering on the brink, that all those nooses were tightening, that the end was verily nigh, etc., etc., ad hysterium. For the WaPo’s reportorialists, every day is the most fragile, fraught and — as Mattis might say off mic — FUBAR day.)

    Let’s continue. “Vulnerable to convulsions on the political right.”
    You know that political right — always “convulsing.” Query: do you think the WaPo has ever used this phrase to describe the political left? You’ll Google search in vain. It’s also a lovely bit of concern-trolling: Trump is upsetting the mouthbreathers! All is tumult!)

    “Trump single-handedly propelled the government into crisis.” Crisis, I say! All by himself! Defcon 1 klaxons are blaring on the Mall! What exactly is this crisis? Yes, it doesn’t exist. Trump made a controversial foreign policy decision, and a key member of his cabinet is leaving. The political ramifications of this will continue to play out, but there is no “crisis.” In fact — and this cannot be overstated — many of the people on the Left now spleen-venting about Syria, were perfectly fine (indeed, cheerleading) when Obama, in deference to his (convulsing? Gyrating? Quivering?) base, pulled our troops out of Iraq, against the advice of his military advisors (sound familiar?) and created a vacuum which gave rise to the decapitative JV Team. I don’t recall similar hand-wringing from the usual suspects speaking truth to power.

    “Gambits” to “keep campaign promises.” In eight years under Obama, we had not one, single gambit. Only wise and nuanced policies, pragmatically leading from behind into a better, shinier, transformative future. Obama had “priorities.” Trump has gambits.

    Disagree all you want with Trump’s policies. There is much to disagree with. But this is not reporting. It’s Aaron Sorkin writing in his daily diary.

    Like

      • It appears that Donald Trump’s leadership style does ruffle a few feathers. No big secret in that, but I would not trust the impartiality of The Washington Post. Any reporter can claim twenty-seven sources, seventeen sources, or seven “highly reliable” sources. How is anyone to know? All reporters state that they respect the confidentiality of the people giving them information, thus they cannot divulge names. Who then can attest to the facts? The editors? No. The editors at The Post are all Democrats who have long ago abandoned the veneer of old fashioned, fair journalism. Of the twenty-seven sources maybe one was the janitor and another was responsible for watering and pruning the potted plants in the West Wing while five sources were composite personages creativity scripted. It’s the reporter’s word we have to accept, and The Post has a clear agenda. Their new slogan about democracy dying in darkness is risible. It’s like something out of a bad novel.

        Like

Comments are closed.