Debate Week dawns! Joe Biden and his predecessor will face off on CNN Thursday in an event the president’s team hopes can shake up the race.
An interesting logistical tidbit, per CBS News:
Mr. Biden’s team won a coin toss, CNN reported, which allowed them to determine either who gets to make the closing argument or where the candidates stand on stage. The president’s team chose his position on the stage, selecting the lectern on the right. That decision tees up Trump to cap the night with closing arguments.
This is strategically fascinating! We might have assumed that getting to close out the night would be a higher strategic priority than stage location—but maybe that’s why we’re journalists and not elite political strategists. Is Biden’s right side just his good side? Or is there some baked-in psychological benefit to manning the right podium? (And is that stage right or house right?)
If the president’s campaign gets back to us on any of these questions, we’ll let you know. Happy Monday.
Trump or Gen. Kelly: Who to Believe?
Donald Trump spoke Saturday in Washington, D.C., at the annual Faith [sic] and Freedom [sic] Conference.
As always, he told a variety of lies, big and small. I was struck by one of them.
Trump went out of his way to bring up the report that as president he’d called service members who’d died for the country “suckers” and “losers.” He was indignant about this:
They made up a ‘suckers’ and ‘losers’ statement. So terrible.
And my stupid people, when I wanted to refute it, said, ‘Sir, don’t dignify it with a refutal’ . . . or refuttal . . . what the hell word would that be? . . . ‘Sir, it should not be dignified, sir.’
I said, ‘I got to fight that.’
‘Sir, it’s going nowhere.’
Three years later it still simmers.
“It still simmers.”
So it does.
Which is why Trump, unhappy that this is the case, invents a bizarre lie about it: that he was persuaded by stupid staff not to refute this claim when it first came up. This presumably would have quenched the simmering.
But of course Trump did try to refute it when it first came up.
Jeffrey Goldberg’s article in the Atlantic appeared on September 3, 2020. Goldberg reported, base on four sources with firsthand knowledge, that Trump canceled his visit to the Aisne-Marne American Cemetery near Paris in 2018 in part because he believed the Marines who died in the battle of Belleau Wood during World War I were “suckers.” Trump asked, “Why should I go to that cemetery? It’s filled with losers.”
Goldberg also reported that during a visit to Arlington National Cemetery on Memorial Day in 2017, Trump had turned to the then homeland security secretary, retired Marine Gen. John Kelly, while standing in front of the grave of his Marine officer son killed in action in Afghanistan, and said, “I don’t get it. What was in it for them?”
Trump denied it all.
Shortly after Goldberg’s reporting, on September 3, Trump tweeted, “I never called our great fallen soldiers anything other than HEROES. This is more made up Fake News given by disgusting & jealous failures in a disgraceful attempt to influence the 2020 Election!”
Later that evening, Trump told reporters, “I would be willing to swear on anything that I never said that about our fallen heroes. There is nobody that respects them more. So, I just think it’s a horrible, horrible thing.”
So in fact Trump didn’t take his staff’s advice to ignore the report. He did try to refute it.
So why the lie now?
Because his refutation was unconvincing. It was unconvincing at the time, given Trump’s track record of similar statements.
And it became more unconvincing when Gen. Kelly went on the record to confirm the story. In a statement on October 2, 2023, Kelly said Trump is a person who “thinks those who defend their country in uniform, or are shot down or seriously wounded in combat, or spend years being tortured as POWs are all ‘suckers’ because ‘there is nothing in it for them,’” and that Trump says that those “who gave their lives in America’s defense are ‘losers’.”
Kelly also spoke on the record to CNN’s Jim Sciutto for Sciutto’s book The Return of Great Powers:
“Why do you people all say that these guys who get wounded or killed are heroes?” Kelly recalled Trump saying. “They’re suckers for going in the first place, and they’re losers.”
No one seriously believes Kelly simply made this up (to say nothing of the three others who confirmed the remark to Goldberg). Trump said it. He lied when he denied saying it.
But why did Trump bring this up Saturday? One would think it’s not in his interest to bring fresh attention to this controversy. But it’s clearly bothering him.
Needless to say, it’s not bothering him because he has a bad conscience about what he said.
It’s bothering him because he senses the issue is hurting him. Perhaps his campaign’s polling found President Biden’s participation in the D-Day ceremonies, and his visit to Aisne-Marne Cemetery in France, helped Biden some. Perhaps his campaign has further polling suggesting Trump’s contempt for military service, if more widely known, could hurt Trump even more.
And so Trump’s both denying it all again, and blaming his staff for the story continuing to “simmer”—a very Trumpian demonstration of vanity and deflection of blame.
And there’s one more thing: Perhaps Trump brought this up over the weekend because the upcoming debate is on his mind, and he fears what Biden will say on Thursday. What if Biden repeats Trump’s statements and says how reprehensible he finds them? Trump will lie and deny he said them. Biden will cite Gen. Kelly as the source.
And I assume the next day—or even that evening—Gen. Kelly will, if asked, confirm once again that Trump said what he denies he said.
The simmering issue of Trump’s contempt for military service could then come to a full boil. This is why Trump is anxious. As he should be.
—William Kristol
Israel and Hezbollah Inch Toward War
While the world focused on Biden’s ill-advised pier, bickering between Netanyahu and Biden’s administrations, and failed ceasefire attempts, the IDF methodically proved my point a few weeks ago: They could take Rafah even with Biden’s restrictions. The fighting has been slow, but after the IDF secured the Philadelphi corridor—the border area where Gaza abuts Egypt—it was only a matter of time before the they completed the operation. Although the IDF paid a heavy price, they are very close to degrading the final two Hamas battalions in Rafah.
But then what? Who governs Gaza? And just as importantly, will the IDF pivot to fight the far more lethal enemy to its north, Hezbollah?
With fighting between Israel and Hamas intensifying last week, President Biden sent envoy Amos Hochstein to the region to try to find a way out of a very bloody war.
Hezbollah has been attacking Israel since October 8. While both Hamas and Hezbollah are Iranian proxies, Hezbollah is the most lethal paramilitary force in the region. Its ranks are filled with Iranian-trained operatives with decades of experience fighting in Syria and Iraq. But the real danger is a missile arsenal capable of raining down destruction throughout Israel. If the IDF were to try Hezbollah to push Hezbollah beyond the Litani River, as the UN Security Council nominally requires, Hezbollah could inflict severe damage on the IDF and Israeli civilians.
There’s a window of opportunity to de-escalate tensions: Neither side is necessarily itching to fight. The IDF has been at war for eight months, and their reservists need to go back home. Further, the IDF has shown an ability to kill senior Hezbollah leaders with ease, something that likely plays into Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah’s calculus.
But that window is closing quickly. Tens of thousands of Israelis who have been internally displaced from their homes in northern Israel since October need to return home. Kids have to go back to school. Life must go on. But Hezbollah continues to make that impossible with a daily barrage of missiles.
Last week, Nasrallah stated that he did not want “total war” with Israel but warned that the group was prepared to inflict severe damage on Israel. After the IDF finishes its combat operations in Rafah, the IDF could declare “major combat operations” over, which may provide Hezbollah an off-ramp to de-escalate tensions.
But I’m not optimistic. Four years in Iraq and Afghanistan taught me one thing: War has a logic of its own. War is not rational. It is filled with primordial violence, hate, and enmity, and once those emotions are lit aflame, it’s very difficult to put them out.
President Biden’s team will press Israel Defense Minister Yoav Gallant on these issues during his visit to D.C. Gallant, who has a tense relationship with Bibi, could prove key to dialing back tensions and finding a suitable replacement for Hamas in Gaza.
However, if Israel can’t move its people back to their homes, they will use force to push Hezbollah back. Nobody wants that. But signs are starting to point toward a war.
—Will Selber
Catching up . . .
Biden-Trump debate a rematch, but will muted mics, other new rules make a difference? ABC News
After months of slamming his cognitive capacity, Trump is suddenly talking Biden up: CNN
Democrats seek to emphasize Trump’s role in the end of Roe: New York Times
Sweltering heat wave puts 44 million under warnings as Midwest reels from floods: NBC News
Masks are going from mandated to criminalized in some states: Washington Post
Quick Hits: Brace for Quakes
The central story of the 2024 horse race so far has been its remarkable stability, with just a point or two separating Trump and Biden in the polls for months. But as A.B. Stoddard notes for the site today, there’s plenty of major events just around the corner that could reshape the dynamics of the race:
From the first debate to the Supreme Court’s decision on Trump’s bid for immunity, from Trump’s July 11 sentencing in the New York court that found him guilty of 34 felonies to his announcement of a running mate and then his nominating convention on July 15, developments will come swiftly that could alter the strategies of both campaigns as well as the candidates’ poll positions.
In light of the Supreme Court’s February decision to consider a ruling on presidential immunity, the two critical federal cases that could have rocked the election are unlikely to wrap up, if they even proceed at all, before November. Court watchers expect a decision to come this week, as soon as Wednesday, though a busy docket could push some decisions to be announced next week.
Trump has demanded “absolute immunity” from criminal prosecution for actions he took while in office. This would place presidents above the law, and Trump has it in his head that the six justices nominated by Republicans, three by him, are going to rule in his favor.
But the conservative Court is not likely to grant broad immunity from crimes to presidents. They are also, based on the oral argument, not likely to reject Trump’s argument entirely—which would no doubt send the former president into a spiral of trashing the Court and those he appointed to it while opening up the possibility that he is either a defendant again before November, or that he is convicted in the election subversion case if he loses on November 5.
Cheap Shots
 | A guest post by
|
Unless you're part of the cult, Trump's comments about our soldiers aren't going to sit well. Of course, if you weren't already aware of them, you've been living under a rock and may not hear about them yet. I will say this, though. There is never ever going to be another 100th anniversary of the end of WWI. Trump skipping out on the ceremonies because he's too dainty to get his hair wet while denigrating the warriors buried there is infuriating, and superlatively despicable on that particular landmark occasion. And this is all out there, for everyone to know, yet there is support for this man and a chance he will become president again. And it really has me down on the country. Biden isn't perfect, mostly because of his age, but he isn't the bastard who's applying to be Commander-in-Chief while lying to the public about his contempt for the sacrifices of the people he would be asking to sacrifice.
And it has me down on the men and women in uniform, too, who tend to vote Republican but will still by a majority vote for THIS Republican. How can they not see what's going on here?
There is something intriguing about lying and why people do it. Most times it is done strategically, to cover up an embarrassing or damaging experience. Occasionally it is done to protect someone else who is vulnerable (the "little white lie"). But then there are the serial lies, told by people who are so used to doing it that they don't hear themselves doing it anymore and think nothing at all of doing so. Normal people feel remorse or anxiety inside about it, knowing that it is wrong and potentially harmful. Others feel like George Costanza ("It isn't a lie ... if you believe it."). With DJT it is Costanza on steroids, likely combined with an inherent mental and/or character flaw, that makes more lies than truth come out on an ongoing basis. We all know that. Which makes the issue in some ways less about the liar and more about the rest of us, those who hear the lies and choose to disregard them and their impact. Who is worse: the willful liar or those who allow the lies to stand and go uncontested? It is yet another reason why I say that this presidential election is less about the candidates and more about the character of the nation. The winner will tell us more about who we are than who they are. We know who they are. But who are we?
2) I keep hearing about voters who are disenchanted about Joe Biden's position on Israel's war against Hamas and how it impacts Gaza, that he is not doing enough and not making a difference. So I keep asking, to no response: just what is he supposed to do about it?. It isn't his war. He can put forth a peace plan. He can engage in shuttle diplomacy and back channel negotiations, out of our sight. But in the end it is about the participants, not outside sources with no power of enforcement. They have to want peace more than we can impose it, and they have to be flexible enough to make a deal when no one else can drag them to it. Then there is that thorny question that also no one is answering: how would DJT handle the situation better?. Please ask during the debate(s). And press him for a specific plan in comparison. It matters.
3) True dat to the notion that too many people ruin special moments with their failure to separate politics and other personal opinions from the bigger picture of what is happening around us. I suppose that, in this social media and device-addiction era, we think everything is all about us first and that dignity and ceremony and decorum come in a distant second. Or some people are simply selfish jerks who think that no social rules apply to them. The feeling is kind of like seeing a friend or someone else whose judgment you've come to trust post one of those stupid, superficial memes about a topic that makes them look prejudiced or unthinking or inherently ignorant, and feeling profoundly disappointed that they are not the person you thought they were, and that you can't unsee or unremember it. Yet again technology and social media are more of a curse than a blessing.