Woulda Coulda Shoulda
trump doinged a insurrectioned, they write in crayon
Seven retired flag officers have an op-ed piece in the New York Times today warning that Trump is bad, the only non-Covid topic left to the American news media: “We Are Retired Generals and Admirals. Trump’s Actions on Jan. 6 Were a Dereliction of Duty.” Put aside your personal feelings about Trump, pro or con, and read the thing with a critical eye. The piece is remarkable for what it claims, what it doesn’t claim, and how it frames the weird little claims it sort of halfway drops on the page. Here’s the second paragraph:
In the weeks leading up to that terrible day, allies of Mr. Trump also urged him to hold on to power by unlawfully ordering the military to seize voting machines and supervise a do-over of the election. Such an illegal order would have imperiled a foundational precept of American democracy: civilian control of the military.
1.) The things Trump did were bad.
2.) For example, people urged Trump to do X.
3.) If he had done X, it “would have” been bad.
4.) Therefore, Trump is bad.
The meat of the claim that Trump did bad things is…a discussion of something he didn’t do. Truly. Go read the whole insane thing, if you doubt this. Here’s the nut graf:
The events of Jan. 6 offer a demonstration on how military and civilian leaders execute this relationship and what happens when it comes under threat. When a mob attacked the Capitol, the commander in chief failed to act to restore order and even encouraged the rioters.
They don’t prove any of this, or try to, or mention a single detail. Note, for example, that they don’t say he “encouraged the rioters” to riot, an impossibility given Trump’s speech telling people to go to the Capitol “peacefully.”
And then, finally, this happens in an op-ed that sets out to show that Trump was an insurrection-fomenting monster:
In the end, the National Guard deployed not in response to those pleas but under lawful orders issued by the acting secretary of defense, Christopher Miller.
You idiots, who did “the acting secretary of defense, Christopher Miller” work for? The claim is that Trump is bad and refused to send the National Guard; for example, his Secretary of Defense, his direct subordinate in the chain of command, sent the National Guard, and wasn’t prevented from doing so by the commander in chief who employed him.
The whole op-ed is an empty box. The thing the headline claims doesn’t appear in the text. They hint in its direction, but they never say what they’re there to say.
You can hate Donald Trump and still see the point: This flood of specious chickenshit doesn’t mean anything, and isn’t going anywhere.
Additional thought, ten seconds after hitting the "post" button:
Trump's political opponents have argued, or tried to, that Trump CAUSED an "insurrection," that his words and actions were the motive force behind the events of January 6. How does a headline that frames his actions on January 6 as "dereliction" –– as negligence, as a choice to not act –– serve the claim that he's THE CAUSE?
None of the people making these claims are thinking about them anymore. They're performing an oppositional role, ritually chanting their politics.
Sigh… the TDS is beyond belief. I work with people who, even now, have weekly Zoom meetings to Hate on Trump. With appropriate wine and cheese pairings of course. I hope they all start eating bugs for their 2 Minute Hate sessions.
The National Guard, which Trump offered to send in was refused by the DC Honchos who were responsible for DC security. They refused.