President Donald Trump is frequently quick to respond to foreign acts of terrorism, especially when the victims are white Christians. His response to a terror attack in London was so quick and brutal it prompted a rebuke from Prime Minister Theresa May.
But Trump’s response to Thursday night’s horrific well-planned terror attack on not one but two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, killing at least 49 people is leaving many confused, empty, and angered.
The President waited about nine hours before issuing a statement, via Twitter.
The President did not condemn the attack.
He did not even call it terrorism or an act of terror.
Instead, Trump sent his “warmest sympathy and best wishes,” and said, “God bless all!”
He said the victims, horrifically gunned down, massacred in their houses of worship, “senselessly died.”
My warmest sympathy and best wishes goes out to the people of New Zealand after the horrible massacre in the Mosques. 49 innocent people have so senselessly died, with so many more seriously injured. The U.S. stands by New Zealand for anything we can do. God bless all!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 15, 2019
The White House issued a statement before the President tweeted:
“The United States strongly condemns the attack in Christchurch. Our thoughts and prayers are with the victims and their families. We stand in solidarity with the people of New Zealand and their government against this vicious act of hate.”
While stronger than Trump’s remarks, it too did not call the attack on the mosques terrorism.
New Zealand, including its Prime Minister, has labeled the attacks terrorism.
Trump’s response to this horrific event is critical because one of the alleged terrorists left a supposed manifesto and posted video. He reportedly has named President Trump as a “as a symbol of white identity and common purpose.”
(NCRM will not propagate the terrorists’ messages or names unless there is a legitimate need, as in this case.)
It was important for Trump to call this terrorism, as New Zealand authorities have, and to denounce it in the strongest possible terms.
He did neither.
Here’s how some are responding:
You’ve demonized immigrants
You’ve banned Muslims
You’ve claimed Islam “hates us”
You’ve described white supremacists as “very fine people”
The shooter called you a “symbol of renewed white identity”
And all you can give is your “rarest sympathy” and “best wishes” https://t.co/jMa3i6Ko0n
— Danielle Campoamor (@DCampoamor) March 15, 2019
Condemn the white supremacists, Mr President. All of them. https://t.co/poOhRaOT3W
— Piers Morgan (@piersmorgan) March 15, 2019
Call. It. Terrorism. https://t.co/HuD1YxcO45
— Franklin Leonard (@franklinleonard) March 15, 2019
I’ll never get used to the president tweeting his grievances on the morning of a mass terrorist attack. He just never really cares unless the victims are white. https://t.co/NcUiK2cXqu
— Matthew Miller (@matthewamiller) March 15, 2019
Murdered. They were murdered. They didn’t up and “senselessly die.” https://t.co/sehCegIfRS
— Alyssa Leader (@alittleleader) March 15, 2019
The terrorist massacre right? The radical right wing terrorism? Is it hard to say that? How about condemn or denounce or disavow? This ain’t a birthday party https://t.co/zf8vJ1MWlT
— Troy Brunner (@troyjbrunner) March 15, 2019
Anything you can do? How about not constantly demonizing Muslims as sub-human terrorist threats to the point where they’re slaughtered by your fans? https://t.co/6dVOtHHYM5
— Alan MacLeod (@AlanRMacLeod) March 15, 2019
No, you are not expressing your warmest sympathy and best wishes.
Instead, you have said this more than two years ago.
‘I think Islam hates us’ (3.9.2016) https://t.co/2diBw08jgp
— İlker Sezer / إيلكر سيزار (@Ilkersezerrr) March 15, 2019
“Warmest sympathy and best wishes”? Dude, this isn’t a Christmas card https://t.co/g4Ii3rRgzk
— Deep State Wisco🏴☠️ (@Wisco) March 15, 2019
Enjoy this piece?
… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.
NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.
Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.
Right Wing Pundit’s Claim Conservative SCOTUS Justice Alito Is Also Considering Retiring Sets Off Court Watchers on Both Sides
Could the two most-conservative Supreme Court justices retire before the November election? Rumors are swirling. Here’s why.
Buried within Washington Post national political reporter Robert Costa’s analysis Wednesday that Trump supporters are hoping “to use conservative anger at Justice Roberts” as an “energizing moment” for the President’s troubled campaign, is the news that far right Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas is “privately seen by Trump’s aides as the most likely to retire this year.”
The potential retirement of Justice Thomas, who by most measures is the most conservative jurist on the nation’s top court, set off a firestorm on social media among some court-watching conservatives and liberals – even though Costa noted that “Thomas has not given any indication” he is retiring.
Costa’s reporting was, he says, seen by far right wing pundit Hugh Hewitt, who told his “radio audience this morning that he hears from several leading conservatives that Justice Alito, 70, is considering retirement, and adds that he also hears the Alito family is ready to leave Washington, D.C.”
Hewitt, in his usual self-aggrandizing way, told his listeners, “I’m hardly a ref, but I got a column in the Washington Post, and so they start working me about, ‘You know this person would be great if Alito quit.'”
Whether or not Alito is considering retirement, the mere prospect of not just one but possibly two Supreme Court seats opening before the election is giving conservatives hope, and liberals terror.
Not even trying hard to hide their excitement, some on the religious right are especially ecstatic President Donald Trump might get to place one or two more radical jurists on the Supreme Court.
An attorney for the far Christian-right law and anti-LGBTQ advocacy firm First Liberty Institute responded with thinly-veiled glee, couching his happiness as concern for Justice Alito’s family.
These rumors—which we heard months ago before they initially died down—have indeed really picked up steam over the past couple of weeks.
Sam Alito is a terrific justice who would be difficult to replace, but we should all hope he makes the best decision for his family. https://t.co/OmBVFuBIVb
— Josh Hammer (@josh_hammer) July 1, 2020
The Justice Correspondent for The Nation, Elie Mystal, responded to a legal correspondent for New York’s local Fox station, implying Alito might be more likely to retire than Thomas.
Two important points:
1. Clarence Thomas loves his job.
2. Sam Alito hates his job. https://t.co/p94j7I8NAc
— Elie Mystal (@ElieNYC) July 1, 2020
Vox Senior Correspondent Ian Millhiser, who literally wrote the book on the Supreme Court, also puts more weight in Alito retiring:
Hewitt is the opposite of a reliable source, but it wouldn’t surprise me if Alito does retire. Alito is the most reliable partisan on the Court, and the best thing for the Republican Party is for him to step down and be replaced by a younger Republican. https://t.co/8e9qBCvVzp
— Ian Millhiser (@imillhiser) July 1, 2020
Of course, on the left, Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is also of retirement age and has (successfully) faced health issues.
Whoever is President at 12:01 PM ET on January 20, 2020, may have an opportunity to move the court fully one way or the other.
Experts Are Not Buying Trump’s Claim for Why He Called Off Strike on Iran in Mid-Air
“These are not strategically sophisticated people”
Many agree President Donald Trump made the right call when he called off the strike on Iran, in retaliation for their downing of a $130 million unarmed, unmanned U.S. Military surveillance drone.
But he is the one who ordered the strike in the first place, so there’s no “credit” there.
Friday morning the President took to Twitter to defend his actions, saying he stopped the assault 10 minutes before the actual strike was about to happen.
“I asked, how many will die. 150 people, sir, was the answer from a General.”
….proportionate to shooting down an unmanned drone. I am in no hurry, our Military is rebuilt, new, and ready to go, by far the best in the world. Sanctions are biting & more added last night. Iran can NEVER have Nuclear Weapons, not against the USA, and not against the WORLD!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 21, 2019
(The drone was actually downed early Thursday morning, not Monday.)
Many are asking, how was this not a part of the decision-making process before he gave the order to strike?
Others just point-blank don’t believe it wasn’t.
One, a CNN political analyst, says there’s a lot of speculation it was Fox News’ Tucker Carlson’s comments that led Trump to back off – Carlson advised against the strike.
Lot of officials speculating today Trump called off the Iran strike literally while watching Tucker Carlson.
— Josh Rogin (@joshrogin) June 21, 2019
Here’s what some others are saying.
Contributor to The Nation:
Does anyone believe that the military didn’t brief him on projected casualties until he asked them 10 minutes before the strikes?
If not, then why buy any of it? Guy’s a serial liar surrounded by equally mendacious sycophants.
— Joshua Holland 🔥 (@JoshuaHol) June 21, 2019
CNN national security analyst:
1/ This is one time when the President’s indecision may have saved thousands of lives. But having been part of military CONOPs briefings, they always include an assessment of casualties on both sides at the front end.
— Sam Vinograd (@sam_vinograd) June 21, 2019
NY Times White House correspondent who co-authored the story about Trump calling off the strike in mid-air:
A source told me 30 minutes ago that Trump was pleased with his own performance last night, loved being in command by ordering the strikes and by then ordering the stand-down. And the president just… tweeted it. https://t.co/tUPSym7inn
— Maggie Haberman (@maggieNYT) June 21, 2019
Former Special Counsel at the Dept. of Defense:
This explanation doesn’t smell right.👇
The assessments of casualties would have been prepared, known, and discussed long in advance (part of the “CONOP”)
Is Trump saying he asked that question of the General only after authorizing the strike, and when US planes were en route? pic.twitter.com/z6DyNSwKVz
— Ryan Goodman (@rgoodlaw) June 21, 2019
CNN Chief National Security Correspondent:
The president revealed the number and type of Iranian target the US was going to hit and the exact US estimate of Iranian casualties. Did he reveal normally classified information?
— Jim Sciutto (@jimsciutto) June 21, 2019
Former Postdoctoral Research Fellow at The Fletcher School at Tufts University and at the University of Pennsylvania, focused on international security and foreign policy, and emerging technologies and urban warfare:
These are not strategically sophisticated people. They don’t understand or care about how signaling to foreign powers works, if they did, we’d see consistency, minimal uniformity of msg, resolve, and/or directionality of some kind. 2/
— Rita Konaev (@RitaKonaev) June 21, 2019
Again. Very nice or very unfair TO HIM. Not the country, not the people, not his supporters, not his party, not his cabinet. HIM or anything he sees as an extension of himself, such as his brand, financial interests, business acumen, ratings and maybe sometimes his children. 4/
— Rita Konaev (@RitaKonaev) June 21, 2019
We have to see this administration and President for what they are, not for what our theories say they should be. 6/6
— Rita Konaev (@RitaKonaev) June 21, 2019
‘Projection of Incompetence’: White House Out of Control, Commander-in-Chief Not in Charge – Experts Speak Out
Americans and much of the world either went to bed Thursday night or woke up Friday morning to the news that President Donald Trump ordered a strike against Iran over a downed drone, then called it off in progress, mid-air.
Calling off the strike was the fourth critical action he took in the span of less than 12 hours. Ordering the strike was the third action. Saying a rogue Iranian military official probably was to blame was the second, and threatening Iran, possibly with military action was the first.
That was Thursday.
By late Thursday night The New York Times had broken the news of the strike that wasn’t.
But additional reporting reveals many disturbing facts, leading to one unmistakeable conclusion: this is a White House out of control, with a Commander-in-Chief not in charge.
Take a look, for example, at this disturbing report from CNN’s Alexander Marquardt, a Senior National Correspondent focusing on National Security. He makes clear Trump’s not the one calling the shots, and is only making decisions to fend off internal bickering and power plays in his administration.
Sr WH official tells me it’s Bolton vs Trump on how to proceed on Iran. Trump does not want conflict. Pompeo, Pence, Esper are “swing votes.” Pompeo is “a triangulator,” source tells @MichLKosinski, “the goal is re-establishing deterrence, but that is still very risky.”
— Alexander Marquardt (@MarquardtA) June 20, 2019
A Fellow at the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center notes that the CIA is not supposed to be in the business of making policy decisions.
Not the most important thing right now but why is CIA Director Haspel recommending policy options according to NYT report. Aren’t intelligence agencies not supposed to wade into policy. https://t.co/v38Z7Wn5sr
— Zachary Keck (@ZacharyKeck) June 21, 2019
A professor at the U.S. Naval War College who is an expert on Russia, nuclear weapons, and national security affairs sums up what’s going on:
No benefit of the doubt here, especially after he was warned off by Putin.
But I’d rather two more years of humiliation than a pointless war led by a CinC who is in over his head, has alienated our allies, surrounded by Actings and temporaries, and has no idea what he is doing. https://t.co/NKP8rE7HVq
— Tom Nichols (@RadioFreeTom) June 21, 2019
Then there’s this warning from former Deputy National Security Advisor Ben Rhodes:
This is precisely why politics isn’t a game, diplomatic agreements should be honored, and temperament, intellect and judgement are what matters in who is President. It should never have come to this.
— Ben Rhodes (@brhodes) June 21, 2019
The absence of any rational, coherent process for national security decision-making has always been a clear risk under Trump. Now we see what that looks like in a crisis
— Ben Rhodes (@brhodes) June 21, 2019
Former Republican U.S. Congressman David Jolly delivers a breathtaking blow:
There’s absolutely nothing about this aborted Iran strike that looks good on the world stage tonight. Nothing. Nothing strategic. Nothing geopolitically advantageous. Nothing reflecting well on US political leaders. Nothing reassuring to allies. Only a projection of incompetence.
— David Jolly (@DavidJollyFL) June 21, 2019
Here’s a professor of international relations, political scientist, and journalist:
Even though Trump blinked re: Iran–not a sign of restraint so much as evidence of indecision and bumbling–the situation remains very dangerous and prone to accidental escalation and/or spinning out of control.
— David Rothkopf (@djrothkopf) June 21, 2019
And if you think this episode is over, Newsweek reports it very well may not be.
#BREAKING Update: @Newsweek has learned from a Pentagon official that regional U.S. military assets, including the Ticonderoga-class guided-missile cruiser USS Leyte Gulf, have been put on 72-hour standby to potentially strike #Iran #Trump https://t.co/OCWZGcJPG0
— Jim LaPorta (@JimLaPorta) June 21, 2019
- MAD MAN3 days ago
Trump Goes on Unhinged ‘Fox & Friends’ Rant – and Tells Horrified Hosts He’s Going to Call in Every Week
- CRIME2 days ago
Attorney General Who Killed Man With His Car While Reporting Hitting a Deer Now Says ‘I Discovered the Body’
- NOT GOING TO WIN MANY VOTES THAT WAY2 days ago
‘Lying Through His Teeth’: Trump Voter Who Told President He ‘Threw Vulnerable People Under the Bus’ Slams Response
- AMERICAN IDIOTS2 days ago
‘Ambush’: Fox News Panics After Trump Faces Voters’ Questions at ABC News Town Hall
- News1 day ago
‘Shocking and Saddening’: More Than One in Three Adults Under 40 Say Holocaust Is a Myth, Exaggerated, or Haven’t Heard About It
- AMERICAN FASCIST2 days ago
Watch: Michael Caputo ‘Sedition’ Conspiracy Theory Video – ‘I’m Not Going Anywhere. They’re Gonna Have to Kill Me’
- RUSSIAN ASSET OR USEFUL IDIOT?3 days ago
Trump’s 9/11 Ad Said ‘Support Our Troops’ — but Featured Images of Russian MiG-19 Fighter Jets
- AMERICAN IDIOT2 days ago
Watch: Trump Ludicrously Claims ‘Herd Mentality’ Will End COVID-19 Pandemic ‘Without the Vaccine’