Another perfect non sequitur
Kudlow called the document all seven
participants had approved before Trump left Quebec “a good communiqué.” Then he says it was Trump’s duty to take back
his approval of this good communiqué because when Trump was “barely on the
plane” Canadian P.M. Trudeau held a press conference and in response to one of
the questions affirmed that Canada would be proceeding with the imposition of
retaliatory tariffs as a counter-action to the U.S. tariffs on Canadian goods which
Kudlow’s beloved leader has now put into effect.
Kudlow acknowledged that Trudeau wasn’t
saying anything he hadn’t said before.
But he said this time was different because Trudeau said it after U.S.
approval of “a successful G-7 communiqué which President Trump and the others all worked in good faith
to put a statement together.”
One
wonders whether the other heads of government knew that if Trump worked with them
“in good faith to put a statement together,” they could never again say
anything displeasing to Trump. Perhaps
if they’d known this was part of the deal they would have walked away.
Kudlow
didn’t say in what way Trudeau’s remarks were inconsistent with the text of
the joint statement, or how anything said at the P.M.’s press conference made
the good communiqué any less good.
“No! No –”
Well, Yes, But the Other Guy Started It
Reminded by his interlocutor that Trump
reneged on the good G7 communiqué, Kudlow exclaimed “No!” Evidently sensing that such blank denial
might prove a difficult line to maintain, he quickly resorted to offering an
explanation. “Then Trudeau decided to
attack the President. That’s the key
point.” And as everybody knows, “if you attack [Trump] he’s going to fight
back.”
But if Trudeau was only saying the same
things he had said before the G7 meeting, and then it wasn’t so threatening an “attack”
on Trump that it kept him from coming to Quebec and working with the other
leaders to put together the good communiqué approved by all, why would Trudeau’s
saying the same things again be so frightening and dangerous an “attack” as to
compel the President to withdraw his approval of the statement?
Trudeau denounced the tariffs Trump
unilaterally imposed as illegal, implying that Trump’s use of the “national
defense” exception to America’s trade agreements is (at least as applied to
Canadian steel and aluminum) a sham. But
he said nothing at all about Donald J. Trump.
Apparently, Kudlow sees any criticism of Trump’s policies as an attack
on Trump, and thinks it’s not only desirable but noble and Presidential of
Trump to “fight back.”
But even if we take it for granted that
the personal feelings and proclivities of Donald J. Trump are what matter here,
next to which the friendships of great nations and the prosperity and welfare of
tens and hundreds of millions of ordinary humans count as nothing, why didn’t
our fearless leader turn Air Force One around, go back to Quebec, seek Justin
Trudeau out and punch him on the nose?
Or slap the weak Canadian’s face with one of his tiny gloves?
Why, even assuming Trump had been “attacked”
by Trudeau and might properly have sought to “fight back” against him, should
such fighting back take the shape of renouncing the good communiqué Trump worked
so hard with all the other leaders (five-sixths of whom were not Trudeau) to
put together? Why wasn’t publicly calling
our neighbor’s elected leader “weak and dishonest” enough of a personal counterattack?
And even if “weak and dishonest” wasn’t
nearly enough, maybe instead of withdrawing consent to the good communiqué which was the product of so much hard, collaborative effort (weren’t we
supposed to picture sweat pouring from Donald’s furrowed brow – long, long
after midnight?) the five non-sinning national leaders would have preferred
that Trump just heap some more of his intelligent insults on the Frenchified
little panty-waist. Stuck-up, stunted know-it-all.
Low-energy, crooked, goofy, crazy, lyin’ Justin. Assuming he could find good insults that aren’t
reserved for use on fellow Republicans, Trump might have fought back and
enjoyed himself, while letting previously settled international agreements
alone. Guess Kudlow didn’t think of
that.
On to
Singapore!
As far as I know, Kim Jong Un has only
identified the U.S. cities he would hit with his atom-tipped ICBMs. He hasn’t threatened Canada. Neither has Canada pledged that if necessary
it will use its nuclear weapons in defense of South Korea and Japan in order to
keep those states from renouncing the NNPT and developing bombs of their own. (For one thing, Canada hasn’t got nuclear
weapons.) But Kudlow says Trudeau “should
have known better” than to irritate Trump while he was flying off to shake
hands with the North Korean dictator.
Trump’s got to “stand strong” in Singapore, so he’s “not going to allow
the people to suddenly take pot shots at him.” What’s “sudden” about Trudeau saying the same
things he’s said before, things in no way inconsistent with the now-dishonored (by
Trump) communiqué, Kudlow doesn’t explain, but apparently it’s got something to
do with Trump’s travel plans.
I’m not sure if Kudlow means it’s OK
for Trump to “take it all back” as long as he does so before he lands in
Washington – a sort of aeronautical king’s-x.
(Maybe if he kept his little fingers crossed, too?) But we are only too likely to hope he does,
and Trump does, after the Singapore summit ends. The wily and blood-stained tyrant will
probably show the world why the Greeks considered sycophancy an Oriental
art. Likely he will outdo even
Lickspittle Larry, and so leave deal-maker Trump stripped down to his gold teeth.
Our next lesson will be that the Fearless
Leader, naked or not, remains fully clad in the eyes of his “base” until and
unless Fox News tells them otherwise. (And
why should it make that ratings-shattering mistake?) Woe to those who then look to Republican
Senators for salvation!
