Trump didn’t say THAT, did he? Well, sort of

President Donald J. Trump is a horse’s ass.

But he did not call for Iran to nuke Los Angeles and San Diego.

But his verbal blunder swung wide open the gates for his multitude of critics to come pouring through.

And they have. Democrats went ballistic, California Democrats wet their pants, even some Republicans were going WTF? (To the GOP, WTF means Where’s The Future?)

Reporter Salena Zito long ago accurately published this dynamic: “The press takes him literally, but not seriously; his supporters take him seriously, but not literally.”

And that’s why so many in the Nebraska crowd cheered when they heard Trump, well-known for tangled syntax, say something that sounded like an attack on L.A. and San Diego would be a “small price to pay.” The Cornhuskers knew it was the usual nonsense.

Here is what he actually said, in context:

“Remember, with the war, it’s just artificial. It’s a little bit high,” apparently referencing gas prices. “It’s a small price to pay for keeping the world safe, keeping our country safe. They could take out a city. Let them take — let it — let them take out Los Angeles. Let them take out San Diego.

“That’s — this is a very small price to pay, and it’s going to be over with very soon. It’s essentially almost over with.”

And now, from the respected FactCheck.org website, this opinion:

“But given the full context — as well as Trump’s numerous past comments on this issue and the White House’s later clarification — that’s not our reading of the president’s comments. While his wording is confusing, a more plausible interpretation is that he meant the war would prevent Iran from posing a threat to U.S. cities, and higher gas prices are a small sacrifice to make. He’s made versions of those points before, using similar language.”

That’s the rational explanation, but we are not living in rational times.

The remarks naturally made national, if not global, headlines, the fire fanned by the massive anti-Trump bias in the Mainstream Media. 

It’s hard to blame them since they are using Trump’s own words, but we have seen this movie before. Almost every time he opens his mouth to unscripted remarks, it’s a ride on the Wild Mouse.

Just recently, while entertaining the new prime minister of Japan, one of our closest allies, in answering a question about why the U.S. didn’t inform allies about the unannounced attack on Iran, he made this remark, with the prime minister steeling her facial expression: “We went in very hard and we didn't tell anybody about it because we wanted surprise. Who knows better about surprise than Japan? OK, why didn't you tell me about Pearl Harbor?”

The prime minister remained silent, working hard to keep her hair from standing up in spikes. What was going through her mind at that moment? That she had fallen into another dimension? Harakiri?

Was it a Trump gaffe? No, that is what he intended to say, not a slip of the lip or an unintended expression. 

Was it a one-off? No, and someone was kind enough to compilate the 52 most stupid remarks he has made. You may not agree with all, and some may think there are too few, but you can click here

Let me add that Snopes, another fact-checker, looked into the flap and concluded that reporting on his remark was  “correct attribution,” but declined to place it in an honest framework.

This is not excusing Trump, it is explaining Trump, as I’ve had to do a few times over the years at the risk of losing readers who are so seeped in hatred they can’t see straight.

—-

I was involved in a similar controversy, almost 20 years ago. It was a column published  Aug. 9, 2007, just in advance of the 6th anniversary of 9/11.

The headline read: “To Save America, We Need Another 9/11.”

Here’s how it started:

“ONE MONTH from The Anniversary, I'm thinking another 9/11 would help America.

“What kind of a sick bastard would write such a thing?

“A bastard so sick of how splintered we are politically - thanks mainly to our ineptitude in Iraq - that we have forgotten who the enemy is.”

The column bemoaned the disunity created by the war in Iraq, because “we like fast food and fast wars.” Trump is understanding that now because of his ill-advised adventure against Iran. I link to the column here, but suspect it is behind a paywall.

I ran through a lot of things that were distracting America. I pined for the national unity that welded Americans together after 9/11. As I approached my conclusion, the big bang you might say, I wrote this:

“What would sew us back together?

“Another 9/11 attack.

“The Golden Gate Bridge. Mount Rushmore. Chicago's Wrigley Field. The Philadelphia subway system. The U.S. is a target-rich environment for al Qaeda.”

Well, that did it. 

Critics — and there were thousands, this column attracting more comments by far than anything else I had ever written — thought I was suggesting targets to al Qaeda, a sort-of parallel to Trump writing off L.A. and San Diego. 

The difference is, I knew what I was doing and had given it serious thought.

The headline was slightly off by saying we need another 9/11 attack. And many of the critics, including the host of a Fox News show where I was interviewed (along with CNN and others), were coming off the headline alone and obviously did not read the column.

My text was slightly more subtle — subtlety not being my strongest suit — in saying unity would result from such an attack, while sorrowfully acknowledging the unity would not last the next time, just as it did not the last time.

This is all pretty gloomy, so let me close this way: We have successfully avoided another 9/11.