By John Q. Hosedrinker 
During an interview with TIME magazine, former President Trump claimed involvement in the 2024 pager attacks in Lebanon, which were orchestrated by Israeli operatives and resulted in numerous casualties. While initially attributing his comments to a misunderstanding, the White House later confirmed Trump’s support for the attacks, which targeted Hezbollah and caused widespread devastation. This admission, however, was quickly followed by criticism from the White House regarding the attack on Qatar last month. The former president’s statement has raised questions about his cognitive abilities, especially following other recent instances of confusion in his public appearances.
Read the original article here
Trump, 79, Bizarrely Claims He Greenlit Deadly Pager Attacks | The president declared that “All of those attacks were done under my auspices” despite not being in office at the time. This is one of those moments where you just have to shake your head and try to process what you just heard. Here we have Donald Trump, at the age of 79, making a seemingly unbelievable claim: that he authorized deadly attacks carried out with pagers, despite the fact that he wasn’t even the president when these supposed attacks took place. It’s hard to know where to even begin with this.
The immediate reaction is, of course, confusion. How can someone who wasn’t in office, without the authority to make such decisions, claim responsibility for acts of violence? It’s a statement that appears to defy logic and common sense. Then, the realization dawns that this is not an isolated incident; it’s a pattern of behavior. Trump has a long history of making outlandish statements, of taking credit for things he didn’t do, and of rewriting history to suit his own narrative. His rhetoric has often been criticized for being delusional, often filled with lies and exaggerations. This latest claim, however, pushes the boundaries of what most people would consider believable.
The use of the word “auspices” itself is noteworthy. It’s a somewhat formal term, implying authority and control, which makes it even more bizarre coming from someone who wasn’t in a position of power. It’s almost as if he’s trying to sound official, but the words don’t fit the context. One has to wonder if he even fully grasps the meaning of the word itself. One could surmise that it’s just a word he picked up somewhere and found useful for his storytelling.
The implications of this claim, if taken at face value, are significant. If Trump were telling the truth – and, realistically, it is impossible to believe he is, given the context – he would be admitting to a serious crime. Authorizing foreign attacks while not in office would be a massive breach of law and protocol. It would be a case of a private citizen meddling in international affairs, possibly violating the Logan Act, which prohibits unauthorized individuals from negotiating with foreign governments. But the fact that this is not the truth makes it even more troubling, as it displays a blatant disregard for reality and truth.
It seems clear that Trump is operating in a world of his own making, where facts are malleable, and he can claim credit for anything that suits his purposes. This behavior is consistent with the diagnosis of malignant narcissism, which describes someone with an inflated ego, a need for admiration, and a lack of empathy. In this case, Trump seems to need to feel powerful and in control, even if it means fabricating events and claiming responsibility for things he had no part in. This is nothing new for the former president, and the fact that he continues to garner support despite his erratic behavior is a reflection of the polarized political climate.
Furthermore, the response of Trump’s supporters is often a matter of concern. Many of them will likely believe his words, no matter how outlandish, and will defend him to the end. They seem to accept his lies as truth, turning a blind eye to any evidence that contradicts his claims. His base is so loyal that they don’t even question the things he says. They seem to find his behavior entertaining. This blind faith in a leader, despite his flaws, is a dangerous trait. It allows misinformation to spread unchecked, and it undermines the principles of a democracy.
The question then becomes: What is the purpose of these statements? Is it simply a desire for attention? Is it an attempt to maintain relevance? Or is there something more insidious at play? Perhaps it’s a way to solidify his position as a strong leader in the minds of his supporters. The consistent stream of false information could also be a method to control the narrative and distract from any real issues.
This situation also highlights the need for critical thinking and media literacy. It’s essential for people to be able to discern truth from falsehood, to evaluate information critically, and not accept everything they hear at face value. A healthy society needs its citizens to be informed, engaged, and willing to challenge those in power, especially when they make outrageous claims.
In the end, Trump’s latest claim is a disturbing reminder of the challenges facing our political system. It’s a testament to the power of misinformation, the dangers of blind loyalty, and the need for vigilance and critical thought. The fact that such a claim can be made and that it will likely be accepted by a significant portion of the population underscores the severity of the problem. It is imperative that voters remain sharp and aware of who they are supporting for public office.