Fintan wrote:The following is extracted from a hit piece on Trump,
but it shows that media sources and even Woodward's book all confirm Trump's relentless behind-the-scenes battle against the neoliberal warmongers in DC:
Can Woodward be trusted to tell the truth about anything? If he told me that I like reggae, I'd start to question whether or not I really do.
In the last few weeks I've been wondering more and more about something that I read either just before Trump was elected or shortly after. The thrust of it was that there was a high-powered section of the military which had resolved to ensure that HRC would never become the POTUS. No matter what was required to thwart her, they would do it. That included an overt military coup, albeit as a last resort. Their preferred option, however, was for Rodham Clinton to simply lose the election to a candidate whom the military could accept. According to this version of events, Trump was sounded out by these officers a few years before 2016 and they asked him to run, promising him support and personal security protection. Of course, Trump had never been shy of stating that he might run for president one day but this account suggests that it was the approach from the military which made up his mind.
Okay. All well and good. There may be some truth in it or it may be a complete PR invention, designed for a particular target group of supporters. I don't know.
It has nevertheless got me wondering recently whether what we've seen over the last couple of years actually is a full-blown military coup with DJT as a willing figurehead. It would be a mirror image of the supposed attempted coup in 1934(?) when the corporate heads plotted to overthrow FDR and reckoned they'd need a popular, celebrated military figure (Smedley Darlington-Butler) fronting it to give themselves credibility with the public. This could be the other way round. The military plotted to overthrow the Bush-Clinton-Obama regime and reckoned the best frontman for the gig would be a popular, corporate celebrity.
This might all be a figment of my fevered imagination but I keep coming back to it because it does seem possible to me. After Trump was elected, my initial reaction was that his first priority was simply to stay alive and, billionaire or no billionaire, he simply wouldn't have the personal resources to stave off a determined bid by the Deep State to eliminate him. But if he was able to depend upon a sizeable number of professional soldiers who really meant it when they swore allegiance to the American Constitution, that's a different story. The very fact that it's nearly two years since he was elected and he's still very much in command makes me believe that he's got the military on his side (or he's on their side) and that makes me sceptical about Woodward's attempt to spin a tale showing Trump constantly battling against the brasshats.
At the same time, I don't doubt that there plenty of Strangeloves in the Pentagon but I'm idealistic enough to think that the American forces also contain thousands of honourable, patriotic professionals who have been preparing for a long time to restore their country to some semblance of what it was originally designed to be. The Strangeloves can rant and rave in frustration as they face the dying of the light (while Woodward polishes their turds at his laptop) but I reckon/hope/pray that they're on the back foot, standing at the edge of a precipice and watching an avalanche rushing down towards them.
On the other hand, maybe we're all screwed no matter what happens.
But I'm not investing any energy in that line of thinking.
Yes, he's a lying rat. But the quotes in his book simply 
