A metaphor too many
Well Snopes messed this one up.
GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump delivered a campaign speech in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida in which he called President Obama the “founder of ISIS.”
He made the statement after reiterating the claim that he, Trump, had opposed the war in Iraq, calling it a “terrible mistake” and saying it had destabilized and “unleashed fury” in the Middle East:
And then Obama came in, and normally you want to clean up. He made a bigger mess out of it. He made such a mess. And then you had Hillary with Libya, so sad. In fact, in many respects, you know they honor President Obama. ISIS is honoring President Obama. He is the founder of ISIS. He is the founder of ISIS. He’s the founder. He founded ISIS. And I would say the co-founder would be crooked Hillary Clinton. Co-founder. Crooked Hillary Clinton.
The crowd responded with chants of “Lock her up! Lock her up!”
To be clear, even though Trump has flirted in the past with conspiracy theories about Obama’s supposed allegiance to Islam, he was not literally in this instance claiming that Obama and Clinton were founding members of the radical Islamist group (despite doubling down on the claim in a radio interview the following day). But the context shows he meant it metaphorically, at least, his intent being to lay all the blame for the “fury” unleashed in the Middle East and the rise of ISIS after the Iraq War on the actions or inactions of the Democratic incumbent and presidential nominee (while not mentioning that the war was started during the administration of President George W. Bush).
Excuse me? Yes he was. He said he was, in that interview in which he “doubled down.” You don’t get to say he wasn’t when he himself insisted that he was.
Snopes also let Jill Stein off the hook, declaring that Stein must not be anti-vaccine, because hey, here’s a quote from her saying “I’m not anti-vaccine.” As if that isn’t what every anti-vaxxer declares.
“Facts eclipsed by our inability to understand them.”
I don’t remember which genius said that, but I guess that’s Snopes’ problem. First there’s the , “Wait! What?” then the, “No. Impossible. Can’t be. Nobody would ever …” etc. etc.
That was exactly my first reaction. Of course he means stokes extremism, yadda yadda yadda. And then the next day he’s up there saying, no, Obama’s the actual literal founder.
I’m backing into my very own conspiracy theory: this is all a giant experiment by the white mice to see how far he can take this….
quixote: I strongly recommend watching Cracked.com’s take on it:
http://www.cracked.com/video_20056_what-if-donald-trump-just-elaborate-prank.html
It’s some of the darkest humor I’ve seen in awhile, and accounts for just about everything….
I figure it’s really just that Trump talks the same way he campaigns: all ‘gut’, no brain. Whatever his thickened hind brain figures might get a reaction is where he goes. So it’s contradictory to the point of incoherence, or just incoherent all on its own, whatever. If it may pump up the equally unreflective hate mob whose reactions are his barometer for ‘success’, out his festering maw it comes. He may have to say something entirely different tomorrow, but whatever, they’ll rationalize it well enough, if that’s even the word.
He’s boasting today the hated media ‘can’t figure him out’. Ah, but no, dear. I think they’ve got your number well enough. You’ll say anything might pump up certain of the bought in, that’s all. But they still gotta point out how full of it you are, add you zig and zag to do just that. That’s their job. That you keep thinking you can stuff it all down the memory hole by saying something dumber tomorrow, well, good luck with that, now.
(as you zig…)
… (will add, mebbe mostly ‘cos would-be pedants are everywhere, with apologies to those whose intelligence it may insult even to mention: if you wanted only to argue what troops are where and when certainly can have fairly direct effects on how insurgent groups prosper, and if you could actually tolerate expressing something approaching nuance, you could probably make a plausible argument for a different foreign policy than the current administration followed. I’d then have to request _your_ actual concrete, plausible suggestions, and as if we’d ever get those from this shallow well. As even before engaging such considerations, again we run up against the limitations of Trump’s essentially reptilian ‘gut’. Even people giving him a friendly enough (even too charitable) opening to qualify are dismissed, if the meat he smells there isn’t red enough.)