The U.S. travel technology firm Sabre may not ring an immediate bell, and perhaps you’ve not yet heard…
CFIF on Twitter CFIF on YouTube
On Sabre/Farelogix Merger, DOJ Mustn’t Undertake a Misguided Antitrust Boondoggle

The U.S. travel technology firm Sabre may not ring an immediate bell, and perhaps you’ve not yet heard of its proposed acquisition of Farelogix, but it looms as one of the most important antitrust cases to approach trial since AT&T/Time-Warner. The transaction’s most significant aspect is the way in which it offers a perfect illustration of overzealous bureaucratic antitrust enforcement, and the way that can delay and also punish American consumers. Specifically, the transaction enhances rather than inhibits market competition, and will benefit both travelers and the travel industry by accelerating innovation.  That’s in part because Sabre and Farelogix aren’t head-to-head market competitors, but rather complementary businesses.  While Sabre serves customers throughout the…[more]

January 13, 2020 • 03:53 pm

Liberty Update

CFIFs latest news, commentary and alerts delivered to your inbox.
Jester's CourtroomLegal tales stranger than stranger than fiction: Ridiculous and sometimes funny lawsuits plaguing our courts.
On North Korea, a President Who Tried Something Different Print
By Byron York
Thursday, June 14 2018
Put it together, and what seemed to some critics like a reckless strategy worked - or worked enough to pressure the North Koreans into at least temporarily stopping their provocations and wanting to talk.

Reaction to President Trump's summit with North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un has broken down along the usual Trump-anti-Trump divisions. The truth is, it will take a while before it's clear whether the summit achieved anything or not.

But give the president credit for trying a new approach to an intractable problem.

Trump had no electoral mandate on North Korea. Despite the oversized role it has played in his presidency, the issue of Kim Jong Un did not come up much in the 2016 campaign. It was rarely discussed in the GOP primary debates and wasn't a factor in the Trump-Clinton general election debates.

Even when it did come up, the discussion could be pretty unedifying, as when rival GOP candidate Sen. Marco Rubio compared candidate Trump to Kim. "You have a lunatic in North Korea trying to get access to nuclear weapons," Rubio said in February 2016. "We have a lunatic in America trying to get hold of them, too."

To the extent that he had a position on North Korea, Trump's was that he would be willing to hold direct negotiations with Kim. While he said he would not travel to North Korea to see Kim, and would not honor him with a White House dinner, Trump made clear he saw benefit in talking to the North Korean leader.

"I would speak to him," Trump said in May 2016, shortly after effectively clinching the Republican nomination. "I would have no problem speaking to him."

Of all the controversial proposals that Trump made during the campaign  that wasn't one of them. And that was because of the long record of failure of talks between the U.S. and North Korea. What was wrong with suggesting a new approach to a problem no other president had been able to solve?

The problem was, North Korea became a front-burner issue almost immediately after Trump took office, when Kim began a series of provocative acts to test the new president. On Feb. 12, 2017, North Korea tested a new ballistic missile. On March 6, it fired four ballistic missiles into the ocean near Japan. On April 5, it fired another missile. On April 16, another missile. On April 28, another. Later, there was a nuclear weapons test. And so on.

In response, Trump came up with something called "maximum pressure and engagement." He imposed sanctions on top of the sanctions that have long been in place against North Korea. He made more progress than previous administrations in enlisting China to help. And he made military plans.

Have you heard people say war is not an option in North Korea, or that it is unthinkable? Trump started thinking about it. His top military officers worked through a number of scenarios for war on the Korean peninsula. And while they were doing it, Trump escalated his anti-Kim rhetoric to unheard-of levels. Kim was "Little Rocket Man," and North Korean aggression would be "met with fire, fury, and frankly power, the likes of which this world has never seen before."

Trump later explained he did it because he believed the old way had not worked. "Other administrations ... had a policy of silence," he told Fox News' Sean Hannity after the summit. "That's not the answer. That's not what you have to do. So I think the rhetoric  I hated to do it, sometimes I felt foolish doing it  but we had no choice."

So while Trump bellowed threats, his administration quietly planned to make good on those threats, if it came to that.

Put it together, and what seemed to some critics like a reckless strategy worked  or worked enough to pressure the North Koreans into at least temporarily stopping their provocations and wanting to talk. And when, after the talks were on track, the North Koreans resumed their provocative statements, Trump abruptly canceled them  and the North got back on board.

So now the talks have happened, and North Korea has agreed  much like it has in years past  to denuclearize. Critics rightly point out that Kim and his predecessors never kept their promises before. On the other hand, these talks were the result of a series of events unlike those in the past.

Maybe Trump's plan will work. Maybe it will work a little and not work a little. Or maybe it will fail altogether. But it's the result of a president re-thinking a problem that desperately needed a new approach.


Byron York is chief political correspondent for The Washington Examiner.
COPYRIGHT 2018 BYRON YORK

Question of the Week   
Which one of the following was the first African-American soloist to appear at the Metropolitan Opera House in New York City?
More Questions
Quote of the Day   
 
"If there were such egregious misconduct that the public was convinced of the need to remove Trump, such that two-thirds of the Senate would ignore partisan ties and do just that, there would be no partisan stunts. Democratic leaders would have worked cooperatively with their GOP counterparts, as was done in prior impeachments. They would have told the president: 'Sure, you can have your lawyers here…[more]
 
 
—Andrew C. McCarthy, National Review
— Andrew C. McCarthy, National Review
 
Liberty Poll   

Should witnesses be called for the Senate impeachment trial, which could take weeks or even months, or be restricted to the record and evidence already produced by the House?