Ruth Marcus, in today’s Washington Post, has a column today titled Trump’s staggering dereliction of duty. It is occasioned by National Security Adviser Lt. General H. R. McMaster’s having said after Friday’s indictments that Russia’s interference in our 2016 election was “now really incontrovertible” and as expected the occupant of the Oval Office hitting back on Twitter. She reminds us that the book that made McMaster famous was written in the aftermath of Vietnam and titled Dereliction of Duty.
Marcus writes
McMaster was writing about military leaders’ failure to stand up to presidents who insisted on pursuing an unwinnable war. Now, in the White House in which McMaster serves, the dereliction of duty starts at the top. And, as the past several days have shown, President Trump’s failure is dereliction on a grand, unprecedented scale: We find ourselves at war without a commander in chief; in national mourning without a consoler in chief; and in political gridlock without a negotiator in chief.
Later in the column she writes
This much is clear: For whatever reason, Trump is unwilling to accept the reality of what happened in 2016 and, more alarming, unwilling to do his duty to seek to prevent it from happening again. We are at war with an enemy plotting to undermine our democracy, and our supposed leader, far from working to halt this, seems determined to ignore it. Where is Trump’s outrage now that the evidence against Russia is public, not that he needed to wait for that? It is invisible.
She reminds us
But there is no depth to which Trump will not sink in defense of the only thing he holds dear: himself.
and we see that in how he chose to attack the FBI in the wake of the Florida shooting with the clear intent of telling them to ignore the Russian meddling and focus on that instead, even though as some have reminded us that the two issues would be addressed by entirely separate parts of the FBI.
Marcus asks and then answers a potent and pointed question:
Did he? Did he really use dead children to attack an investigation into his campaign and his conduct in office? Yes, he did. This is a person devoid of empathy. He can experience the world only through the prism of his own ego.
After pivoting to Trump’s outright lies on wanting a bill of love to address the need of the Dreamers, something he clearly undercut with his veto threat, Marcus concludes like this:
“Dereliction of duty” is not a strong enough term to describe this man’s abysmal performance.
Agreed.
But I will not waste time attempting to come up with a more appropriate term.
You may if you choose do so in the comments.
It seems his only purpose is discernable from something he told Richard Branson some years ago, that he was the only man who could run for President and profit from it.
He is doing all he can to profit from his occupancy of the Oval.
He seeks to manipulate via social media (his tweets) the portion of the population referred to as is base to be able to deflect, to undercut anything that might undermine confidence in his victory — although that horse may have already left the barn even before Friday’s announcement of indictments of Russian interference via social media.
Trump’s performance is and has been abysmal.
His refusal to implement sanctions approved almost unanimously by the Congress by itself should force the Congress to act appropriately, which should be with at least censure if not beginning hearings on impeachment for his refusal to take care that the law be faithfully executed.
And perhaps that points at terms that are stronger than “dereliction of duty” to apply to Donald J. Trump.
Have at it.