The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewAndrew Napolitano Archive
If You Can't Change Your Mind, Change the Subject
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

On the heels of his worst week in office, during which his crude comments about race were widely perceived as defending racism and hatred — comments that sent some of his natural domestic allies fleeing — President Donald Trump could not bring himself to articulate a mea culpa.

Instead, he purported to defend as “some very fine people” the monsters who shouted “Jews will not replace us” and “blood and soil” (a virulent Nazi slogan calling for lands where only Aryans may live) as they clashed with those who rejected their messages in Charlottesville, Virginia.

Police failure and general government indifference about the freedom of speech permitted one of the racists to kill one of those who had come to reject the hate.

After the deceased was identified, one of the neo-Nazis there said she deserved to die because she was “fat.” It is difficult for me to accept that I am writing about neo-Nazis calling for racial purity and rejoicing in the death of an innocent — in America in 2017. But here we are. They are among us, and these subjects must be addressed.

At first, the president made a rambling statement about bad people on “both sides”; then he read a nicely worded attack on racists; and then he held a disastrous impromptu news conference in which he was so morally ambivalent that he seemed to reject his duty as president.

Rejecting, as well, the pleas of those around him to renounce his own failure to renounce his moral ambivalence — which won him a public accolade from the most notorious Ku Klux Klan fanatic in the country — Trump decided to change the subject.

Like former President Bill Clinton after his disastrous public appearance before a federal grand jury that was investigating him, Trump decided to fight a war. But the war he announced we will “fight to win” earlier this week is the longest, most misguided, costliest and least understood war in our history, and we are fighting for people who hate us.

If these phrases and ideas sound familiar, they should. They are not my words — though I agree with them — but those of candidate Trump. He articulated them forcefully to the American electorate during last year’s presidential election campaign. He actually began attacking the war in Afghanistan long before he announced his presidential candidacy.

If he has been consistent on any public issue, it has been his opposition to this useless, lawless, costly war — until he needed to change the subject.

Why war? Because nothing strengthens the presidency and its occupant or commands the attention of the public or weakens domestic political opposition as effectively as war.

No rational person will argue publicly that our troops should die or lose or lack the resources to fight even an unjust war, and often even political opponents will jump on a wartime president’s patriotic bandwagon. We will witness that scene again soon.

With the last anti-war holdout in his inner circle — Steve Bannon — gone, Trump embraced the present and former generals with whom he has surrounded himself and surrendered to their arguments.

ORDER IT NOW

I wish he had been faithful to his promise to the electorate to bring the troops home. Instead, he will send an unannounced number of service members and accompanying equipment to Afghanistan — not to rebuild the bridges and roads the U.S. destroyed there but to fight, to kill and to “win.”

What are we doing there?

The British tried to tame this unruly barren wasteland, which has never had a modern-day central government, back in the 19th century, and the Russians tried to do the same in the 20th century. They both lost a generation of soldiers and a fortune.

What are we doing there?

On Sept. 11, 2001, the United States was attacked by 19 religious fanatics, most of whom were from Saudi Arabia. These monsters were funded by Saudi wealth.

But President George W. Bush needed some country to attack in the aftermath, so he convinced Congress that since we couldn’t attack the dead people who attacked us or our “friends” — the Saudis — who financed them, we should attack their ideological comrades residing in a safe haven called Afghanistan. Instead of attacking the 9/11 attackers’ sources, we attacked their friends.

What are we doing there?

During the Republican presidential primary debates, Trump himself savaged former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush so aggressively over his efforts to defend his brother’s decision to invade Afghanistan that the younger Bush quit the race; and Republicans voted for Trump in droves.

What are we doing there?

We have already spent more than 1 trillion borrowed dollars there, sent more than 100,000 troops there, killed countless innocents there, destroyed towns, cities and ancient artifacts there, lost billions in cash and equipment there; and whomever we have been fighting there for 16 years still controls more than 40 percent of the country.

What are we doing there? How will we know if we have won there? When will we come home for good from there?

The answers to these questions are deadly but easy — when the subject has been changed here.

Copyright 2017 Andrew P. Napolitano. Distributed by Creators.com.

 
Hide 9 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
    []
  1. We have already spent more than 1 trillion borrowed dollars there, sent more than 100,000 troops there, killed countless innocents there, destroyed towns, cities and ancient artifacts there, lost billions in cash and equipment there; and whomever we have been fighting there for 16 years still controls more than 40 percent of the country.

    While we muddled about for all those 16 wasted years China has been laying train track across Afghanistan from Tajikistan to Iran as part of the Belt and Road project and taking care of business. If our world view does not change soon we will lose all credibility around the globe. Our only reaction to competition seems limited to killing any adversary. Poor way to run an empire.

    http://robertmagill.wordpress.com

    Read More
    • Replies: @Longfisher
    It would benefit the CITIZENS of the U.S. for the U.S. to loose credibility.

    Let's follow the British example and shrink from the international stage with dignity. Our "leadership" has ruined us.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    Sharing Comment via Twitter
    /anapolitano/if-you-cant-change-your-mind-change-the-subject/#comment-1981456
    More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  2. First things first:

    “… permitted one of the racists to kill one of those who had come to reject the hate.

    It might be a reasonable finding of fact that he was a racist, but less reasonable to say she was there to reject hate. One might plausibly argue she was there to suppress the freedom of speech of other citizens. In any case, Trump praised her effusively without any real knowledge of the person. He does that a lot.

    Second:

    “What are we doing there?”

    1) Denying China easy access to strategic rare-earth minerals.

    2) Distracting the Iranians by destabilizing the region.

    3) Supporting the cultivation of poppies and production of heroin that is further destabilizing Iran, Russia, India, and a number of other countries in the region.

    4) Testing weapons and tactics that might be employed elsewhere in the neighborhood.

    5) Using up stores of weapons and munitions to justify buying more to prop up the bloated “defense” industry.

    6) Misleading the American people that their government is actually doing something to fight terrorism rather than supporting it.

    7) Whipping up terrorist fervor and recruiting so that we continue to have an enemy to “fight” and waste billions dollars to further line the pockets of the “defense” Industry.

    8) Justify having at least 17 intelligence agencies, many of which are oriented to monitoring the American people.

    Yeah, it’s a shame we didn’t go to war with Saudi Arabia, because those terror-sponsoring pu**ies would have folded like a cheap tent in a matter of days.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  3. @Robert Magill

    We have already spent more than 1 trillion borrowed dollars there, sent more than 100,000 troops there, killed countless innocents there, destroyed towns, cities and ancient artifacts there, lost billions in cash and equipment there; and whomever we have been fighting there for 16 years still controls more than 40 percent of the country.
     
    While we muddled about for all those 16 wasted years China has been laying train track across Afghanistan from Tajikistan to Iran as part of the Belt and Road project and taking care of business. If our world view does not change soon we will lose all credibility around the globe. Our only reaction to competition seems limited to killing any adversary. Poor way to run an empire.


    http://robertmagill.wordpress.com

    It would benefit the CITIZENS of the U.S. for the U.S. to loose credibility.

    Let’s follow the British example and shrink from the international stage with dignity. Our “leadership” has ruined us.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. Dear Judge N._________

    You write,

    It is difficult for me to accept that I am writing about neo-Nazis calling for racial purity and rejoicing in the death of an innocent — in America in 2017. But here we are. They are among us, and these subjects must be addressed.

    This should be no surprise to anyone, really. The combined forces of Big Left have been obsessing on race for the last 40 to 50 years. They’ve even had their own form of dissembling racism going on, such as the appearance of a fake Indian senator from Massachusetts or a fake NAACP member from — where was it? Montana?

    When everything is all about race all the time, then some people are going to look in the mirror and declare that that is the team they’re going to play for. And why shouldn’t they? When most of the body politic is handing out favors and goodies based on what color you are, what’s your basis for telling these nutjobs they’re all wrong, and that they should favor a different race at the expense of their own?

    Here’s hoping you see this comment and answer the question, as it’s sincerely asked.

    Best wishes,

    The Grate Deign

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  5. Instead, he purported to defend as “some very fine people” the monsters who shouted “Jews will not replace us” and “blood and soil”

    Interesting to see Judge Napolitano repeat that media lie. President Trump certainly did not defend the people who shouted “Jews will not replace us” and “blood and soil” as “some very fine people”. President Trump correctly noted that there were both bad people and good people in Charlottesville on both sides of the statue removal debate.

    To any honest person it was clear that Trump was referring to the people opposed to the statue’s removal who weren’t violent, weren’t carrying torches, and weren’t chanting chanting racial slogans as “some very fine people”. And, yes, those people did exist in Charlottesville no matter how much the Democrats, media, and establishment Republicans try to convince us otherwise.

    Read More
    • Agree: Bubba, RadicalCenter, David
    • Replies: @KenH
    I don't see how carrying torches or chanting "Jews will not replace us" or "blood and soil" makes one a bad white person. I didn't know torches symbolized evil or that peaceful chants about Jews supporting policies racially replacing whites was cause for teeth gnashing and soul searching even among people on the right.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  6. KenH says:
    @Frank DeScushin

    Instead, he purported to defend as “some very fine people” the monsters who shouted “Jews will not replace us” and “blood and soil”
     
    Interesting to see Judge Napolitano repeat that media lie. President Trump certainly did not defend the people who shouted "Jews will not replace us" and "blood and soil" as "some very fine people". President Trump correctly noted that there were both bad people and good people in Charlottesville on both sides of the statue removal debate.

    To any honest person it was clear that Trump was referring to the people opposed to the statue's removal who weren't violent, weren't carrying torches, and weren't chanting chanting racial slogans as "some very fine people". And, yes, those people did exist in Charlottesville no matter how much the Democrats, media, and establishment Republicans try to convince us otherwise.

    I don’t see how carrying torches or chanting “Jews will not replace us” or “blood and soil” makes one a bad white person. I didn’t know torches symbolized evil or that peaceful chants about Jews supporting policies racially replacing whites was cause for teeth gnashing and soul searching even among people on the right.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  7. Well, I can scratch Andrew Napolitano’s name off the list of people whose opinions I’ll give a rat’s ass about ever again.

    Charlottesville was a staged event, a fake protest designed to drum up popular outrage against the True Right, scheduled to coincide with the de-platforming of various right-wing voices from Youtube, Twitter, Google, Facebook, and others. The staged incident was a fiasco, but they went ahead with the de-platforming anyway.

    The death of Heather “fat-ass” Hayer was not intentional. It was the result of a man in fear of his life driving his car through a crowd of belligerent rioters who were blocking the street.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  8. KenH says:

    Instead, he purported to defend as “some very fine people” the monsters who shouted “Jews will not replace us” and “blood and soil” (a virulent Nazi slogan calling for lands where only Aryans may live)

    It’s a fact that virtually all organized Jewish groups strongly support amnesty for illegals and replacement level immigration levels. It’s anti-semitic to notice. If this hurts the ears of American Jews then they are free to emigrate to Israel.

    If the judge recoils at “blood and soil” then perhaps he can explain why the first naturalization act of 1790 restricted citizenship to “free white persons of good moral character”, or why our immigration laws were designed to favor a European super majority until 1965. Or that Operation Wetback thing in the 1950′s.

    …..as they clashed with those who rejected their messages in Charlottesville, Virginia.

    Clashed? This is an old media trick when the media doesn’t want to admit who started the fracas. More like antifa attacked the lawful alt right protesters with urine and feces bombs, acid, rocks and pipe and the alt righters were forced to fight back anyway they could. The judge, Bill O’Reilly and other media heavies are clearly siding with a violent, ultra left wing group who subscribe to an ideology (communism) that murdered 100 million people.

    But here we are. They are among us, and these subjects must be addressed.

    Sounds like Mr. Constitution is on board with free speech and Constitution rights for everyone except white people who don’t hate themselves. It will be difficult to take the judge seriously from this point forward given his obvious bias and lack of objectivity.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  9. neutral says:

    This idiot is a good example of how libertarians are simply SJW lite. People had the right to protest, they were then physically attacked by others that now are very openly are against free speech, the real scandal here is how people exercising the first amendment are now the villains.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
Current Commenter says:

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone


 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments become the property of The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Andrew Napolitano Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
Are elite university admissions based on meritocracy and diversity as claimed?
A simple remedy for income stagnation