Kim/Trump Summit Disaster

[Dill]

(03-01-2019, 02:17 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: I'll be honest, I expected that post to get a lot of blowback, I'm pleased to see the logic of it was considered and not the potential visceral reaction or interpretation of victim blaming.  As to the last point, I agree Trump should not have put his acceptance of Kim's denial in such effusive terms.

I had several points of oblique disagreement with your post. I am busy working on a response to your previous, well-thought-out evaluation of Trump's diplomacy, but will take time for a few comments on this one.
 
Trump's options at the summit were more in number than "lambasting" Kim or claiming to believe him. But there is no evidence in this or past summits that Trump can recognize and utilize the range of options available to him when put on the spot.  

You've agreed T did not need to be "effusive." I add that this effusiveness, the claim to believe Kim, also has diplomatic repercussions, as US allies will continue to question Trump's judgment--the most important factor in keeping his (and the nation's) credibility, which they need to continue working with us. One can only speculate what North and South Koreans make of a U.S. president confirming Kim's lies/propaganda at a summit like this. Everyone but Trump knows quite well that Kim monitors the status of every American bargaining chip grabbed in North Korea. Each one is part of a calculation in future diplomacy. I doubt much that saving face for Kim at a critical moment has "kept diplomacy alive" or some such. 

There is a prior problem anyway, in that there should not have been a summit, no place for questions like that to be posed amidst diplomacy aimed at reducing a nuclear threat. This is really a series of mistakes, as I'll be discussing shortly.