No. of Recommendations: 2
When Trump cancelled the SS protection for certain individuals from his first term, I initially was OK with it, it is costly and unless life-time like an ex president, it has to end sometime. I won't dwell on that because I have been enlightened and changed my weak MAGA mind.
This morning, on the Network that shall not be named, there was an interview with an advisor involved in an ongoing review of SS performance, Butler et.al. She had a number of enlightening comments among which was a persuasive case that those pesky Iranians are still seeking vengeance on the people responsible for crispifying (my adjective) Suleimani in 2020. They need and deserve SS protection as should any citizen under direct threat from a foreign government. Her perspective seems entirely reasonable to me.
Then there was a reference to a recent opinion piece by Hugh Hewitt concerning the cancellation of the security details. So I looked up Hewitt's article, and here is the gist of it:
Pulling security from anyone who is a target of an enemy state is weakness on parade and constitutes waving a red flag in front of the mullahs and the IRGC.
Now having thought more deeply on the subject, it is apparent that Trump went too far with the cancellations and they should be restored ASAP, along with an apology from Trump and a free round of golf at Mar-a-Lago. Another way I look at it is that the Iranian threat will be neutralized in the short term so these SS details won't necessarily be forever anyway.
BTW, reading various articles on Trumps actions, I learned there were 50 cancellations and I am by no means saying they all should be restored but certainly those involved with the direct action against Iran such as Mike Pompeo, John Bolton, and Brian Hook should be restored. Just like the J6 pardons, Trump should take time to parse the list, one size fits all is not a good way to operate. Oops, is that second non-existent criticism?
No. of Recommendations: 5
Oops, is that second non-existent criticism?
I think not. At least, not in the sense that was being raised above.
After reading the replies to my Lindsay Graham link, I think the critique is that while some MAGA supporters are willing to note that they have some differences on policy with the President (such as "I think there should be more federal efforts to restrict abortion"; "I think there should be fewer H1-B visas"), none of them are willing to move beyond observing a policy difference to actually criticizing Trump himself.
For example, there's a difference between expressing disagreement with Trump's J6/SS security detail decisions and taking the next step to observe, "Hey, Donald Trump is hasty or doesn't thoroughly consider the consequences of his actions or is often motivated more by political affiliations/grievances than actual considerations of what's good for the country." When members of the opposing parties do things that MAGA disagrees with, they are always evidence of those members' deep flaws - either they have malicious intent towards America or they have huge personal defects. But when Trump does something they disagree with, it's never because of any flaw with Trump.
TBH, I don't think this is unique to MAGA. Everyone tends to believe that their "in group" people are doing the best they can, have the best interests of the country at heart, and so might just have some reasonable differences or make mistakes - but that members of the opposing "out group" have genuinely bad motivations or are irredeemably corrupt or what have you.
But that's the larger criticism.
No. of Recommendations: 1
She had a number of enlightening comments among which was a persuasive case that those pesky Iranians are still seeking vengeance on the people responsible for crispifying (my adjective) Suleimani in 2020
FOXNews or OAN, obviously.
That connection has been out there since Trump jerked the protective details….
As well as Trump’s response when he was asked if he would bear any responsibility if Bolton or Pompeo were assassinated.
