Tag: nato
Americans Reject Monarchy, But We Admire The King For Upholding Democracy

Americans Reject Monarchy, But We Admire The King For Upholding Democracy

I've always been both a small-r republican and an Anglophile, so I looked upon the British monarchy with at least a pinch of smug superiority. The Windsors are revered for nothing more than birth — not talent, nor accomplishments, nor virtue. It's all a throwback to an earlier stage of human development, when people were not mature enough for representative democracy.

I wasn't feeling smug as I watched King Charles III address Congress the other day. Quite the opposite. Though I remain a small-r republican, I couldn't help but be embarrassed at what we supposedly mature, self-governing Americans have wrought.

Seated behind Charles were the vice president and speaker of the House, among the highest officers of the land. But befitting our descent from mature self-government, they were both bedecked in the MAGA uniform — blue suits, white shirts and red ties. Everything about them — every word, every gesture and even their clothing — attests to their fealty to their liege lord. Ditto for more than half of the representatives and senators in attendance. While they didn't all wear the uniform (they weren't on camera), the Republicans in Congress have surrendered their self-respect and independent judgment to the man who would be king. They are far more subservient to Trump than any member of Parliament is to Charles.

Trump revels in the servility of his vassals. The White House tweeted a picture of the two men with the caption "two kings." Yes, this tweet is partly a troll to enrage the "libs," but frankly, it doesn't go far enough. Trump aspires not just to be a king but to be a god-emperor. Look around — the massive Trump banners defacing official buildings, the renaming of the Kennedy Center and U.S. Institute of Peace, the coins, the proposed triumphal arch, the Trump ballroom, the reflecting pool (which will now look like Mar-A-Lago north), the new passports, the Trump class battleships, the national park passes, to say nothing of sidelining Congress, disregarding court orders, making unilateral war, and attempting to criminally prosecute his critics — all of it flagrantly un-American. And this from the party that garlands itself in flags and showy patriotism.

King Charles had a tricky task. His government (did you notice the way he referred to Kier Starmer as "my" prime minister?) and our other European allies are both horrified and scared about what Trump is doing to the transatlantic relationship. They've been adopting different tactics — concessions, flattery, toughness — to deal with the unhinged president who has stooped even to threatening military action against a NATO ally. Are the British questioning the "special relationship" with the United States?

Oh, yeah. In contrast to King Charles' soothing words, the Financial Times reports that Britain's ambassador in Washington, Sir Christian Turner, told a visiting group of students in early February that the phrase "special relationship" was "quite nostalgic, quite backward looking" and that the only country that currently enjoys a special relationship with the United States is "probably Israel." He did add that "there is a deep affinity between us, particularly on defense and security," but the message was clear. Trump has strained, if not quite ruptured, relations.

The king's visit can thus be interpreted as one more effort by the spurned Europeans to keep Trump on their side. Starmer, aware of Trump's imperial pretensions, played the "King Charles" card. The pomp, the state visit, the photo ops, and the speech to a joint session of Congress are all in service of both flattering and taming the disordered president.

King Charles, despite his title, is not free to say what he thinks. And yet he managed, subtly, to convey his awareness of the threat Trump poses not just to the relationship with the United Kingdom but to the values on which the Euro-American relationship is based. Referring to the shared legal traditions of the United States and Great Britain, he said:

"The U.S. Supreme Court Historical Society has calculated that Magna Carta is cited in at least 160 Supreme Court cases since 1789, not least as the foundation of the principle that executive power is subject to checks and balances."

The King also mentioned September 11, and reminded his audience that it was the first and only time that NATO invoked Article V. The allies came to our aid, not the reverse — a pointed rebuke to the president who has repeatedly disparaged Europeans' contributions to NATO and to our wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. He then added, "Today, Mr. Speaker, that same, unyielding resolve is needed for the defense of Ukraine and her most courageous people."

The king's speech closed with an invocation of Abraham Lincoln (hard to top), and a prayer:

"I pray with all my heart that our alliance will continue to defend our shared values, with our partners in Europe and the Commonwealth, and across the world, and that we ignore the clarion calls to become ever more inward-looking."

We all know who is issuing those clarion calls. One of the callers hosted the state dinner, and another was sitting over his right shoulder. The actual king has never looked better than in contrast to the American pretender to a throne.

Mona Charen is policy editor of The Bulwark and host of the "Beg to Differ" podcast. Her new book, Hard Right: The GOP's Drift Toward Extremism, is available now.

Reprinted with permission from Creators


'Please Keep Bombing': Trump Insists Iranians Want To Suffer For 'Freedom'

'Please Keep Bombing': Trump Insists Iranians Want To Suffer For 'Freedom'

If President Donald Trump wanted to make the case that there’s no reason for Congress to consider invoking the 25th Amendment, he undermined it bigly during his latest press briefing on the Iran war.

“Your messaging on the war has moved from ‘the war is coming to an end’ to ‘we're going to be bombing Iran to the Stone Ages,’” one reporter said about Trump’s shifting motives and timeline. “So which is it?”

“I can't tell you. I don’t know,” Trump responded. “We're giving them ‘til tomorrow, 8 o'clock Eastern time, and after that they're gonna have no bridges, they're gonna have no power plants. Stone Ages. Yeah, Stone Ages.”

When asked whether threatening to destroy Iran’s infrastructure amounted to punishing innocent people, Trump claimed that Iranians are begging him to bomb them.

“They would be willing to suffer that in order to have freedom,” he responded. “We’ve had numerous intercepts: ‘Please keep bombing.’ Bombs are dropping near their homes. ‘Please keep bombing. Do it.’

Trump added, “And these are people that are living where the bombs are exploding, and when we leave and we're not hitting those areas, they're saying ‘please come back, come back, come back.”

It’s hard to believe that the children who were killed during a U.S. strike of a school last month would share that sentiment.

Then when asked about NATO, Trump offered up a version of events that only Russian President Vladimir Putin could appreciate.

“I've always said NATO's a paper tiger. Putin's not afraid of NATO. Putin's afraid of us—very afraid of us—and he's explained it to me a lot of times. I got to know him very well. I know him very well,” he said.

“NATO’s a paper tiger,” Trump repeated. “NATO is us.”

Reprinted with permission from Daily Kos

Fox News Hosts Scapegoat NATO For Trump's Botching Of Iran War

Fox News Hosts Scapegoat NATO For Trump's Botching Of Iran War

Fox News’ MAGA stars, unable to acknowledge that the war in Iran that President Donald Trump launched with their support is spiralling into a strategic defeat, have landed on a scapegoat: NATO and its member states, which were not consulted by the United States before it joined Israel in starting the war and have since refused participation.

Laura Ingraham, Jesse Watters, and Sean Hannity respectively denounced NATO on Wednesday as “kind of a meaningless ally” that “we’ve had it with” for purportedly “abandoning us.” Hannity and Ingraham each suggested that Trump should withdraw the U.S. from the alliance (which he is barred from doing unilaterally under a bill Secretary of State Marco Rubio cosponsored in the Senate that became law in 2023).

Trump has spent the last several weeks raging over the refusal by U.S. allies to send their navies into the active war zone to escort oil tankers and other commercial ships after Iran, in an obvious strategic countermeasure to the U.S. attack, closed the Strait of Hormuz. Over the weekend, Spain, Italy, and France refused to allow their military bases or airspace to be used by U.S. or Israeli aircraft involved in the war, triggering a new wave of vitriol from the president and his top aides.

Trump claimed in a Wednesday interview to be “beyond reconsideration” of the U.S. role in NATO after “they weren’t there for us” in Iran. (NATO is a defensive alliance — in response to the 9/11 attacks, its members deployed forces alongside the U.S. military in Afghanistan but are not bound by the treaty to participate in offensive wars.) In an address from the White House that night, the president urged the “countries of the world” to “build up some delayed courage. … Go to the strait and just take it, protect it, use it for yourselves.”

The looming strategic failure of the U.S. war in Iran — its regime is intact and in control of its uranium stockpile and the strait, and altering those circumstances that would likely require a risky escalation involving American ground troops — has placed Fox’s hosts in a bind. They have assured their viewers that the war is an historic success and appear unable to break with Trump due to his support among their viewers. That makes our NATO allies an appealing target as the war grinds on.

The president regularly tunes in to Fox to guide his communication and policy decisions. If he was watching before or after his speech on Wednesday, he heard vigorous support for pivoting from his inability to defeat America’s foes to punishing its friends.

Hannity: NATO is “a one-sided alliance,” by leaving “we'll probably save a lot of money”

Hannity, of the network’s three major evening hosts, is the one most committed to the U.S. war in Iran (which he had demanded for decades), the closest personally to Trump, and the loudest voice currently denouncing NATO.

Following Trump’s speech, he panned NATO as “a one-sided alliance where we only go and protect Europe” and suggested its member states had become too culturally Muslim. In response, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) uncorked a screed in which he called for the redeployment of U.S. forces from Europe because “when we needed them the most and when the world needed them the most to stop a religious Nazi regime from having a nuclear breakout, they took a pass.”

“I think that there's going to be a reevaluation and I believe America's contribution just went down dramatically, and we'll know more in the weeks ahead as this now begins to wrap up,” Hannity replied.

Later in the broadcast, the host said it was “unimaginable to me that the NATO alliance would shatter” thanks to the purported refusal by its members to agree to what “should not be a controversial assist on their part.”

“I've got to imagine the ramifications of them abandoning us in this effort is going to — this is going to be deep, profound, and long-lasting,” he added.

Fox contributor Mike Pompeo, who served as secretary of state in Trump’s first administration, characterized NATO as “feckless, not to be able to convince their own people” of the importance of the Iran war, while retired Army Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg, another former Trump administration figure, said the U.S. should withdraw from the alliance and form a new one.

“Yeah, I think you're right and we'll probably save a lot of money,” Hannity replied to Kellogg. “But the fact that they did not have a moral clarity when you're dealing with the No. 1 state sponsor of terror potentially this close to acquiring nuclear weapons is breathtaking to me. And this will have reverberations, I believe, going on for decades to come.”

Ingraham: NATO is “kind of a meaningless ally” due to “weakness in Europe”

Ingraham had recently warned about potential downsides of the war, but quickly pivoted back in line with her colleagues. While previewing Trump’s speech on Wednesday’s broadcast, she claimed that “NATO turned out, in this case at least, to be what Donald Trump had predicted: kind of a meaningless ally, if allies at all.”

Her guest, the Heritage Foundation’s James Carafano, responded with the evening’s most vigorous defense of the alliance. “I don't think NATO is the problem,” he said, instead pointing to “some very weak leaders inside NATO who have made some very cowardly decisions” and “look like complete yahoos.”

“What we're going to see is not NATO disbanded,” Carafano. “That's nuts. But what we're more likely to see is NATO step back up to the plate under pressure from Donald Trump, and countries throw out their own leaders because they’re weak-kneed yahoos.”

But Ingraham responded by saying that disbanding NATO should be on the table.

“Well, I'm not sure I agree with that,” she replied. “I think there's just a lot of weakness in Europe, period. Period, there's weakness. … We're so lucky we have Donald Trump as president of the United States.”

Watters: “We’ve had it with these people”

Watters joined in the NATO criticism on Wednesday, albeit in a somewhat less aggressive tone than his colleagues.

“The NATO allies, I put allies in quotes,” he said. “I mean, it's been a great alliance over the years. It's really kept the Russians off the continent until the Ukraine invasion. But it's been really one-sided, and now a lot of people are looking around at them saying no, you can't use the airspace. You can't use the base.”

“They've had it,” he added. “We've had it with these people. We love them, but we've had it.”

Reprinted with permission from Media Matters

Fight The MAGA Bully -- And See How He Keeps Backing Down

Fight The MAGA Bully -- And See How He Keeps Backing Down

Does it sometimes seem as though too many people have never learned the lessons of the schoolyard? If you capitulate to a bully, you will be bullied forever. If you stand up to him, he will back down. What's true on the playground is also true in the office, in politics and in international relations.

Standing up to bullies is not free of risk. You might get bloodied in the process. But afterward, the bully, having learned that there is a price, will hesitate to push you around, whereas if you fail to stand up to him, he will grow ever more menacing.

All of the bowing and scraping before the reelected Donald Trump last year by corporate leaders, university presidents, major law firms, leading journalistic outlets and European allies wasn't just demoralizing — it was foolish. If he had met firm opposition in all directions, his power would have been diminished. Each pushback would have inspired others, creating a flood. Instead, we saw a cascade in the other direction — a cascade of capitulation.

But the other path — etched in tragedy and martyrdom in Minneapolis — has shown repeated success. When you stand up to the bully, he backs down.

We don't yet know from whence a national political leader will arise, but the people of Minneapolis have reminded us that this country is still planted thick with inspiring, selfless, heroic people who will put their very lives on the line rather than submit to MAGA's naked barbarism. Renee Good, Alex Pretti and so many others who have braved bitter cold, pepper spray and tear gas and even being shot are the best of us. All honor to them.

That's the spiritual message of Minneapolis. The political message is this: The bully backed down. In the face of opposition not just from his opponents but from some of his allies who found that their vocal cords were actually operative, Trump announced that the Border Patrol ogre Greg Bovino was being demoted and removed from Minneapolis in favor of the slightly less brutal Tom Homan. Republican Sens. John Curtis (R-UT), Bill Cassidy (R-LA), Susan Collins (R-ME), Lisa Murkowski (R-AL), Thom Tillis (R-NC), Dave McCormick (R-PA) and Jerry Moran (R-KS) called for investigations of Pretti's murder. Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) has asked the heads of ICE, CBP and USCIS to testify on the Hill.

Before there was Minneapolis, there was Chicago. Recall that in September, Trump posted that "I love the smell of deportations in the morning. ... Chicago about to find out why it's called the Department of WAR."

The governor of Illinois struck back, vowing that his state "won't be intimidated by a wannabe dictator." Other Illinois elected officials joined in. Thousands thronged the streets in protest, and lawsuits were filed challenging the legality of Trump's National Guard deployment. Eventually, the courts ruled against the administration, and Trump backed down.

Trump's climbdown from the asinine "Liberation Day" tariffs was so swift that it inspired the acronym TACO, for Trump Always Chickens Out. The pushback in that case came from the markets, but the principle holds — when there's resistance, Trump can be rocked back on his heels.

Trump's operating assumption on trade has always been that no one can counter U.S. market power and must tamely accept our terms. But in October, China reminded him that it isn't 1970 anymore and they have cards to play as well. They announced new restrictions on the distribution of rare earths. This is a vulnerability for the United States, which acquires 70 percent of these minerals from China. When the two sides met in South Korea in late October, the Trump administration backed off its threats and agreed to reduce its tariffs on China to levels comparable to other Asian nations. As one analyst put it, "Xi was ready for Trump in his second term and has a powerful weapon in rare earths. China is getting the better of the US in these recent truce negotiations."

Finally, the catastrophic Greenland threats, talking menacingly of getting the island "the easy way or the hard way," demonstrated to the Europeans that appeasing this ravenous bundle of appetites was not a successful strategy. Europe got tough and Trump deflated — yet further proof that standing up to him works. Our (former?) allies let it be known that they were finished capitulating. Eight NATO nations deployed troops to Greenland to participate in military exercises. The Danish prime minister declared that "Europe will not be blackmailed," and adding teeth to this position, a number of European diplomats spoke openly of deploying Europe's "trade bazooka" that would limit intellectual property protections for American businesses and deprive U.S. companies of access to public procurement opportunities in Europe, among other things. Trump caved.

This is not to say that Trump is a paper tiger. He is erratic, frequently irrational, flagrantly immoral and endlessly acquisitive. If he could confiscate all the wealth of the world, he would do so and still be unsatisfied. He's dangerous — but the only counter is to resist with everything you've got. It's the right thing to do, and it works.

Mona Charen is policy editor of The Bulwark and host of the "Beg to Differ" podcast. Her new book, Hard Right: The GOP's Drift Toward Extremism, is available now.

Reprinted with permission from Creators


Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World