Thomas Lifson’s spin on events in Hanoi sounds rational to me.
Although he doesn’t mention it, another factor in the negotiation is the fact the president must stand for election here shortly. The North Koreans may prefer to wait and deal with a Kamala Harris or a Beto when it is over
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
Trump went to the meeting a ridiculous and weakened figure. He made it clear that his number one objective was to come home with a “win.” He telegraphed that objective when BEFORE the meeting the United States suddenly dropped its demand for full accounting of the North Korea nuclear materials which had been our position for more than a decade. With that said, I will give Trump credit for balking when Kim – sensing his weakness – pushed for too much. His statement that “sometimes you walk away” is entirely fair and accurate.
The linked article tries very hard to spin this summit as not a failure. They are wrong. It was an embarrassing failure and it happened because Trump’s belief in his personal negotiating prowess is a delusion. What should have happened before this summit was that our “deep state” and the Korean “deep state” uh, that is professional diplomats, should have worked out an agreement in advance and the summit should have been only about signing it. For the second time, the only winner was Kim who got the prestige and stature of such a meeting without giving up anything.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “For the second time, the only winner was Kim who got the prestige and stature of such a meeting without giving up anything.”
We didn’t give up anything, either. Prestige and stature are mere illusions that don’t cost a thing. But apart from that mind-reading the president is a waste of time and a fairly stupid way to evaluate his actions.
LikeLike
The prestige of a Summit is a bargaining chip that ALL past Presidents have held onto. Trump has given it up twice now without result.
LikeLike
I don’t doubt it’s a bargaining chip. I said it is a bargaining chip with nearly zero value in any meaningful sense.
LikeLike
You are not making sense. You agree with the fact that the offer of a summit with the President of the United States IS a bargaining chip and then say it has zero value? That is contradictory. The fact it has no monetary value is irrelevant. It is something that NK has tried to get for three decades or more. It was something of value TO THEM and was, therefore, a bargaining chip. Now more or less given away.
LikeLike
_RE: “That is contradictory.”
How so? Some bargaining chips are worth more than others. The value of an illusion strikes me as negligible.
LikeLike
It is contradictory because it cannot be both a bargaining chip and something of no value. You claim that such a meeting was of “nearly zero value in any meaningful sense” but that does not seem to be what is in the historical record. North Korean dictators have been angling for such a meeting for decades, have asked for it repeatedly and been refused.
LikeLike
_RE: “North Korean dictators have been angling for such a meeting for decades”
So what? Drunks “angle” for booze, even though it is of little objective value to them.
LikeLike
If Kim would really rather negotiate with Kamala Harris than Donald Trump then he is even dumber than he looks. Why do you think the Putin gang did everything in their power to kick the White House to the Republicans?
LikeLike
RE: “Why do you think the Putin gang did everything in their power to kick the White House to the Republicans?”
They didn’t, or if that was their intention, they didn’t do much to advance it.
LikeLike
They didn’t? Obviously, the evidence that they did exactly that and with great vigor is overwhelming but why would evidence have any impact on what YOU want to believe?
LikeLike
I don’t know what evidence you are talking about. I’m aware of Russian Twitter trolls and about $100,000.00 worth of Facebook ad buys, but these things are pitifully insignificant. If you have something more substantial to share, please do.
LikeLike
Read the report issued by ALL of our national security agencies.
http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/page/politics/the-intelligence-community-report-on-russian-activities-in-the-2016-election/2153/
It is really tiresome when trying to engage with Trump enthusiasts to be constantly faced with flat denials of things that have previously been well established and documented.
LikeLike
I read that report when it came out. It may have been “issued by ALL of our national security agencies,” but it was authored by only one, and many of its assertions are unsubstantiated.
LikeLike
That it was authored by only one agency is irrelevant. It pulled data from the efforts of several and all the agencies who are signatories concur with it.
Your claim that “many of its claims are unsubstantiated” is yet another example of the corrosive influence of Donald Trump. You would rather believe his lies and those of the gangster Putin that the work product of the people striving to protect us from foreign manipulation.
LikeLike
_RE: “all the agencies who are signatories concur with it.”
Actually, they don’t. The NSA ,for example, declined.
LikeLike
The NSA did not decline.
The NSA WAS among the agencies issuing the report so you have again swallowed some baloney. How is it that falsehoods like this keep turning up whenever a Trump enthusiast offers a “fact” to support their opinion? Are they all liars? Or just eagerly gullible and susceptible to lies?
Click to access ICA_2017_01.pdf
You will find that NSA is one of the three agencies preparing this report and that their seal is on page v of the introductory “Key Judgments” frontispiece.
LikeLike
That the NSA declined to concur with the other authors of the ICA is reported in the document itself. Here’s one example (page ii):
“We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him. All three agencies agree with this judgment. CIA and FBI have high confidence in this judgment; NSA has moderate confidence.”
The text of the quote also illustrates that the report contains no substantiated findings, only assertions of opinion by the hand-picked writing team that compiled it. No one takes them seriously, especially in light of the intelligence communities’ similar assessments “proving” WMDs in Iraq.
LikeLike
Not surprisingly, the North Koreans have sent their Foreign Secretary out with the message that Trump is lying his ass off about what happened at the failed Summit. It is a symptom of Trumpism that rational people have no way to know who to believe – the President of the United States or the dictator of North Korea.
LikeLike
RE: “Trump is lying his ass off about what happened at the failed Summit.”
That’s a characterization, not a fact. But I’m not surprised you accept North Korean spin unquestioningly.
LikeLike
I did NOT accept North Korea’s spin. Unquestioningly or otherwise. Can’t you read and understand plainly written English? Or is an egregious insult just too tempting to resist?
My point was clear – it is not a good thing when the North Koreans have just as much credibility as our President. And they do. And not because they are credible but because he isn’t.
My observation was not offered as a fact. It was not a “characterization.” It was a paraphrase of the position stated by the North Koreans. Again, the actual point is that it is hard to know what is factual when two liars make contrary claims. So, it is a downright dirty shame that our President is a habitual and possibly pathological liar.
LikeLike
Your point was to exploit a North Korean lie which you don’t even believe for the purpose of bashing the president for things he didn’t do.
LikeLike
The point again is that neither you nor I have any way of knowing that “a North Korean lie” exists. If it was Obama’s word against Kim’s, of either Bush’s word against Kim’s there would be little doubt. With Trump, betting on the percentages, it is rational to not believe anything he says and prudent to believe the opposite. This is an example of why his proven pathological lying matters.
LikeLike