We’re still feeling the aftershock of Tuesday’s tweet by President Donald Trump about his nuclear button. CNN’s Brian Stelter called it “madness” and questioned the president’s mental fitness, while Vox founder Erza Klein wondered if “increasing the risk of nuclear war” was a violation of Twitter’s terms of service.
But did Trump’s tweet literally “increase the risk of nuclear war”? A small group of protesters gathered outside Twitter headquarters last night to demand Trump be banned from using the service, and Valerie Plame still thinks she can raise $1 billion through GoFundMe, purchase a controlling interest in Twitter, and then ban President Trump from tweeting, thus saving the world from war with North Korea.
But let’s back up a bit. What does the intelligence community think? Did Trump’s tweet literally increase the risk of nuclear war with North Korea? Trump doesn’t think so.
With all of the failed “experts” weighing in, does anybody really believe that talks and dialogue would be going on between North and South Korea right now if I wasn’t firm, strong and willing to commit our total “might” against the North. Fools, but talks are a good thing!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 4, 2018
Two senators, Martin Heinrich and Rob Wyden, aren’t so convinced, and they’ve sent a letter to Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats requesting that the Intelligence Community assess the risk to the United States arising from President Trump’s latest North Korea tweet.
I’m calling for the Intelligence Community to assess the risk to national security arising from President Trump’s latest North Korea tweet. https://t.co/GItUFHVmzl
— Martin Heinrich (@MartinHeinrich) January 4, 2018
In light of the current serious risk of conflict, including nuclear escalation with North Korea, @RonWyden and I want @ODNIgov to assess whether POTUS rhetoric serves as deterrent or provocation. pic.twitter.com/0LE73Dz4qj
— Martin Heinrich (@MartinHeinrich) January 4, 2018
It sounds ridiculous, but it’s not such a bad idea — let the experts weigh in on whether the president’s tough-talking tweets serve as a provocation or a deterrent … not that either answer will satisfy the anti-Trump mob.
The letter reads, in part:
In particular, we request that the assessment address the likely North Korean response to the President’s January 2 tweet and the President’s other threatening tweets and statements, and whether this rhetoric serves as a deterrent or a provocation. We also ask the Intelligence Community to assess the impact of the president’s message on U.S. credibility and leadership with regard to our regional and international partners and allies.
They’re really asking the Director of National Intelligence to assess the threat level of a tweet … what a time to be alive.
Surely….you are not intellectually serious!
— Wayne Musatics (@TruckTang) January 4, 2018
He’s serious … and stop calling him Shirley.
https://twitter.com/faverino/status/948999464332742656
As long as they’re at it, we wouldn’t mind a similar risk assessment done of the eight years of the Obama administration and whether total inaction allowed North Korea to pursue its nuclear program uninterrupted. Didn’t Susan Rice say recently that Trump should tone down the bluster and learn to “tolerate” North Korean nukes?
Yes, we’d be very interested to see that analysis as well.
Related:
Getting Trump banned from Twitter over his nuke button tweet is the new impeachment
OMG: Susan Rice’s advice about what US should ‘tolerate’ from N. Korea explains a LOT
Join the conversation as a VIP Member