Home | About | Donate

Trumpwashing 70 Years of Crimes: Under Guise of Criticizing President, Times Pushes Pro-US Ideology


Trumpwashing 70 Years of Crimes: Under Guise of Criticizing President, Times Pushes Pro-US Ideology

Adam Johnson

What exactly is this "liberal, rules-based international order," and when did "the world" view the United States as its most reliable anchor?

Mark Landler's New York Times


Uh, maybe when we saved the Philippines from domestic terrorism?  Or when we rescued Hawai’i from its rest­less natives on behalf of Dole Pineapple?? Or before then, when we opened up South Dakota so peaceful gold miners could go prospecting without interference???   Maybe even earlier than that — it’s really hard to tell ex­actly, but probably not before 1620.   Way more than just 70 years ago, that’s for sure!   After all, we had Spain, Portugal, Holland and England to show us The Way . . .


Actually it was W who most accurately espoused the official US foreign policy:
“Either you’re with US, or you’re against US.”
…out of the mouths of babes and fools…


Maybe he drank way too much kool-aid the night before, you know the joint where there is a T out front. I don’t know but I sure hope he doesn’t get any on his shoes. :slight_smile:


The US will violate any rule of law, morality and economic sensibility to retain their perception of the nation on top of the world.


What was it Eisenhower said? Something about being wary of a military/industrial complex?


Nice takedown of journalistic puffery, Adam!


Fluff piece. The L.A, Times writer must believe his own and the nation’s ideology. I spent the better part of today reading and writing about ideology. For those interested with a few hours to kill: https:// Medium.com/@jrallen1200. I’ll leave it to curious minds for exploration. Liberal; Ha Ha Ha…!


Or even earlier; Bush I; “What we say, goes” 2/02/'91, NBC News.


Landler and the Times are yet another example of American Exceptionalism brainwashing. The rest of the world knows, better.



Less than 2% of the population works for it and benefits greatly from it.

Yet, 95% of the voting electorate supports it and it’s deadly agenda.



Historically, the collapse of empires is followed by chaos and bloodshed. This was certainly true following the end of the Soviet empire in the 1990s, as it was when the Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman empires dissolved after the Great War. When Britain relinquished control of greater India in 1947, millions died and the repercussions are still felt today. So at the risk of losing my leftist credentials, I would say that there are some clear advantages to empires. I’d rather have lived in Vienna in 1898 than 1938, and who wouldn’t?

Since 1945, American dominance created enough stability for global trade and travel to flourish, and for relatively liberal values to spread to many parts of the world that had previously known little more than feudalism and colonial oppression. Trump may well be the logical outcome of long term trends at the center of the American empire, but his inability or unwillingness to take any of the imperial responsibility seriously has already cost many lives, and will cost many more. The recent defeat of ISIS was accompanied by an outright slaughter of civilians in the ISIS-occupied zones by US generals who were told that they no longer needed to minimize such casualties or answer to civilian authority. A general serves as Secretary of Defence and two more run the White House, with the result that bodies are piling up. As Mattis famously said, it’s “fun to shoot people.” Clearly, he and his colleagues have no larger vision than that, and empires do not last long when lethal force is employed without any larger goal of creating stability.

I don’t disagree with any of the charges made by Adam Johnson against previous US administrations, but the goal of those presidents was to maintain and strengthen a certain order in the world. Trump is not motivated by any such values.


Thanks for your thoughts coming into a New Year Olhippy.

I believe we may be the same age.

                               From an Old Freak.


Nice…your new home at Medium, bookmarked it, may join, may not.


Pretty squared up counterpoint but the whole concept behind Landler’s assumption and your defense of Empire, is toast when you mention the phrase " colonial oppression ". The American Revolution then becomes just one bunch of outlaws and pirates replacing another bunch of same. Using Latin and French to make it sound more wordly but skipping the old, " ipso facto " part. The historical part that matters because " actions speak louder than words ", almost always. And, since the 1780s they’re telling the world’s masses, yearning to be free ( from oppression ), that really is not exactly what we meant.
So, if like my ancestors you came to escape British genocide or European endless war ( being pacifists ), you still have to zip a lip when we decide to rape, plunder and pillage in the name of spreading liberal values, democracy and the rule of law. And hey, do it without laughing your ass off, while you watch the world go by. Or, with any of the clowns in the White House since Truman, really go bye bye, for good.

Plus, you get the other inside joke of Empire, the rich and powerful aren’t going to pay for it, you and your friends are. That’s one that should get everyone rolling around in the streets, laughing hysterically like mad men. Except now, the Police & Security State could actually make you disappear, for doing that, like they do in all those countries around the world, where we brought our sacred values to; liberating them of all matter of nasty things. Like life, liberty and the chance to be left the hell alone, for a change.


Come on now Mr. Johnson, this is the New York Times you’re talking about. You know, Judith Miller and Michael Gordon.


Adam Johnson:

Superb takedown of the pieties we’ve been steeped in!


Adam kicks ass.