Posted on 04/10/2018 8:58:22 AM PDT by DoodleDawg
The Summit of the Americas this Friday and Saturday in Peru was to be the centerpiece of President Trump's first visit to Latin America, and the first time he met many of the region's leaders. Now, Trump has suddenly announced he won't be attending after all — he's staying in D.C. to focus on Syria and sending Vice President Pence in his stead.
Why it matters: Jason Marczak, director of the Atlantic Council's Latin America Center, says Trump's decision is a "significant blow" to the chances of improving relations with the region and with those leaders, many of whom are wondering what "America first" means for them. "He's missing an opportunity to establish a rapport" with key strategic and economic partners, while "ceding an opportunity to the Chinese," Marczak says.
(Excerpt) Read more at axios.com ...
I don't see where Syria is more important than our own backyard.
China can have it.
The deep state coup is staging an advance. Best to stick close to home.
Yep, remember Gorby was on vacation in 1991, when the coup happened.
Trump is popular in Colombia....I know. Just spent 4 months here.
Trump needs to stay to beat-back the deep state who are trying to involve him in war.
There is more to this than meets the eye. I suspect that the President caught wind of massive (state-sponsored?), ugly protests, perhaps with chaotic violence. Also, the possibility exists that several of the leaders of LatAm were conspiring to do speeches excoriating him.
Not sure, but I think so.
Castro will be there.The South must choose.
Axios: Washington (com)Post with a fancy Greek name.
So where is the article wrong? Trump is going to the summit? China's influence isn't growing in South America? An opportunity to get to know South American leaders isn't a good thing? What?
If that's his fear then Trump should stay in D.C. and never travel anywhere. But I suspect the President is more courageous than that.
Trump is being ill advised to skip this.
Brazil, Argentina and Chile are all three turning rightward, now, and to Latin America Trump staying away does not seem to care a damn about that.
Seriously, as we did not and were not going to have an overnight military reaction vis-a-vis Syria, waiting awhile longer is neither a diplomatic or security hazard.
Well, reading the perverted info in Axios is a good way to get a perverted view of the facts.
Obviously, Trump isn’t going because the time isn’t right to go. No good deals to make.
Yeah, it is an important area that has been woefully disregarded.
But “doing something” is not the same as “doing what’s good”.
When is the time right? After China has the continent locked up?
I was commenting on the veracity of the source, not the article’s contents — and I firmly believe that the source’s trustworthiness should always be taken into account. But I see your point... perhaps my post would have been more appropriate on a thread devoted to media issues.
There’s a lot going on or he wouldn’t have even considered going.
I guess that has to come to fruition.
Real negotiations are more important than PR events.
Thanks for your condescending response. You gave an extreme interpretation of what I was implying. Then you made an extreme conclusion of what that would mean ("Trump should stay in DC and never travel").
The real meaning of what I wrote is that, perhaps, the secret service has determined that some intel from the area indicates that the local gendarmes are neither capable of, nor willing to, prevent serious trouble.
Nowhere do I express nor imply that Trump is less than courageous. He is the most courageous president I can think of. What I was expressing was that sometimes, prudence dictates what course he should take. Rather than "he should never leave DC", I would rather cast my statement as implying that he should go only when and where his safety and that of his entourage can be assured.
When has the Secret Service ever said that they were incapable of protecting the President?
I would rather cast my statement as implying that he should go only when and where his safety and that of his entourage can be assured.
Outside of D.C. and Mar a Lago where would that be? If you're suggesting that Trump will only travel to places where there won't be protests and which his safety is 100% guaranteed then those are about the only two places I can think of. And even then protests are possible.
The Secret Service keeps some things secret.
Anyway, you seem to have this all figured out. It also seems you will continue to gainsay and miscast any statement I make on the matter, so I will leave you to your smugness; enjoy,
Facts are facts. But the discussion doesn’t end there.
During the Cold War, I visited a Soviet exhibit at the Canadian National Exposition. The exhibit had all the attributes of a book store with very low prices. The books, of course, were all Soviet but in English. I bought several, one of which was titled British Foreign Policy in WWII.
It was interesting, if slippery. Since historians around the world pretty much acknowledge the facts of the war, Soviet denial of Allied actions would be hard to maintain.
But the spin Russia put on the events of the war left you in cloud cuckoo land. Every possible negative was emphasized and positive stuff was just left out.
The Soviet book wasn’t lying about the facts, but when they’d finished re-interpreting them, you’d be forgiven for thinking Russia won the war despite the Allies.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.