Logical Crazy and Illogical Crazy

jb

Choosing Joseph diGenova to head his legal defense team was extraordinarily imprudent, but makes logical sense in its own crazy frame of reference. A conspiratologist client wants a conspiratologist lawyer to sell his conspiratologist fantasies to the prosecutors, the public, and the courts.

Won’t work. Perfect example of Trump’s perennial failure to grasp the consequences of his acts. (When little Aardvark stuck a metal object into an electrical outlet, he gained a valuable life lesson in the need to foresee the results of your choices. Apparently, little Donald never had a similar experience.)

But if you are going to stake your liberty on a conspiratological theory of the case, you might as well pick someone who sounds like he believes in the crazy conspiracy theory. Makes sense. In that the conclusion follows logically from the faulty premise.

Bolton’s appointment is in another realm altogether. You already know why, but David Frum nails it:

The Bolton appointment … could be seen as the strangest Trump surprise yet. Remember, Trump campaigned as the candidate of anti-interventionism. He sneered at the foreign-policy views of rivals like Jeb Bush, Marco Rubio, and Ted Cruz: “I don’t even call them hawks,” he told three reporters from The Washington Post in September 2015. “I call them fools.” But of course, those were John Bolton’s views, too.

Trump claimed to have opposed the Iraq war. That may or may not have been true in 2003, but since 2006, Trump has repeatedly insisted that the United States would be better off today had Saddam Hussein remained in charge of Iraq. “He was a horrible guy, but it was a lot better than it is right now.”

About that point of view, John Bolton had this to say in 2013:

Let us consider a few of the prevailing myths [about the Iraq war]:

Iraq is worse off now than under Saddam. This charge could come only from people with a propensity to admire totalitarianism … And, in any event, the issue was never about making life better for Iraqis, but about ensuring a safer world for America and its allies.

Premise: I need a national security advisor who can go on the talk shows and be aggressively belligerent.

Conclusion: I think I’ll pick someone whose views I have described as those of a fool.

Because, surely no one will ask about the conflict.

Ladies and germs, this is not clear thinking.