By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt defended President Trump’s two-week deadline for deciding on potential action against Iran, despite his history of setting similar deadlines and failing to meet them. Leavitt attributed past missed deadlines to Trump’s pursuit of diplomatic solutions, citing past negotiations between Russia and Ukraine as an example. However, a reporter highlighted Trump’s repeated use of this tactic, referencing instances related to the Ukraine conflict and the resulting skepticism surrounding this latest deadline. Leavitt countered criticism by blaming the Biden administration for the current global conflicts.
Read the original article here
Leavitt Gets Skewered on Trump’s Bogus ‘Two-Week Deadlines’
Leavitt’s attempts to defend Trump’s consistent use of “two weeks” as a deadline for various promises and pronouncements have been met with widespread ridicule. The sheer absurdity of this recurring motif, coupled with the complete lack of follow-through, has become a running joke, though a darkly humorous one considering the gravity of the situations involved.
This “two-week thing,” as it’s become known, is undeniably bizarre. It’s not merely a matter of broken promises; it’s a pattern, a deliberate tactic seemingly designed to postpone accountability indefinitely. The constant shifting of deadlines, always two weeks hence, has created a climate of distrust and disillusionment. It’s as if Trump believes simply stating a two-week timeframe renders the promise immune to criticism, regardless of whether it’s ever fulfilled.
The pattern is pervasive, encompassing a broad spectrum of issues. Remember the promised full evidence of innocence in the documents and election tampering cases? Two weeks. And infrastructure plans? You guessed it—another two-week deadline. The list goes on, encompassing promises about ending wars, lowering prices, releasing tax returns, and even achieving peace in Ukraine. Each promise, met with the same vague and perpetually deferred “two weeks” response.
Many observers have pointed out that Trump’s use of this two-week gambit is calculated. It allows him to deflect criticism and manipulate public perception by shifting attention to other topics while the original deadline fades into obscurity. He essentially exploits the news cycle’s short attention span, allowing his pronouncements to vanish before any meaningful follow-up can occur. This tactic, ironically, has proven remarkably successful in the past.
The repeated failure to meet these self-imposed deadlines has damaged credibility beyond repair. Those who still cling to belief in Trump’s pronouncements are, at best, wilfully blind to the obvious pattern of deception. His supporters appear to readily accept these broken promises, or perhaps they’ve become inured to the constant stream of false assurances.
The consequences of this behavior extend far beyond mere political posturing. The erosion of trust in institutions and authorities, fueled by such blatant disregard for truth and accountability, poses a significant threat to the democratic process. The casual dismissal of commitments, rendered meaningless by the repeated invocation of the “two weeks” trope, has normalized a level of dishonesty that is deeply concerning.
Leavitt’s defense, which attempts to portray this as somehow normal or acceptable, has backfired spectacularly. The sheer volume of broken promises, all conveniently shrouded by this recurring two-week veil, is simply too much to ignore. Leavitt’s efforts to gloss over this pattern only serve to highlight the profound lack of accountability within Trump’s sphere of influence.
Even Trump’s supporters, while initially willing to give him the benefit of the doubt, have likely started to notice the recurring pattern. Many have expressed concern that this “two-weeks” promise has become a symbol of Trump’s unreliability. This repeated failure is undermining his credibility not just among his critics but potentially even amongst his base.
It’s more than just broken promises; it’s a symptom of a larger problem—a disregard for truth, accountability, and the very foundations of democratic governance. The constant stream of “two-week” deadlines underscores the inherent unreliability and lack of integrity at the heart of the matter. The consistent failure to meet these self-imposed deadlines reflects a pattern of dishonesty and a deliberate effort to manipulate public perception. And attempts to defend such behavior only serve to exacerbate the issue.
Ultimately, the “two-week” deadline has become more than just a phrase; it’s a symbol of Trump’s governance – a testament to broken promises, a reflection of unreliability, and a demonstration of a blatant disregard for the truth. Leavitt’s attempt to defend it only serves to highlight the fundamental flaws at the heart of this pattern of behavior. The ongoing pattern is not only frustrating but damaging to the fabric of political discourse and public trust.