FactCheck.org’s Paul Cuno-Booth offers an interesting take on “The Context for Trump’s ‘Take Out’ Los Angeles, San Diego Remarks.”
President Donald Trump’s remarks about the possibility that Iran could “take out” Los Angeles and San Diego have sparked a firestorm of criticism, with Democrats claiming the president was either calling for a foreign adversary to attack the U.S. or portraying the destruction of two major cities as acceptable collateral damage.
But given the full context — as well as Trump’s numerous past comments on this issue and the White House’s later clarification — that’s not our reading of the president’s comments. While his wording is confusing, a more plausible interpretation is that he meant the war would prevent Iran from posing a threat to U.S. cities, and higher gas prices are a small sacrifice to make. He’s made versions of those points before, using similar language.
Trump’s remarks came during an Oct. 5 rally in Nebraska.
“Remember, with the war, it’s just artificial. It’s a little bit high,” he said, apparently referencing gas prices. “It’s a small price to pay for keeping the world safe, keeping our country safe. They could take out a city. Let them take — let it — let them take out Los Angeles. Let them take out San Diego.
“That’s — this is a very small price to pay, and it’s going to be over with very soon,” he continued. “It’s essentially almost over with.”
The speech quickly drew outraged responses from Democrats in California and nationally.
[…]
Trump’s remarks were admittedly confusing, in keeping with his characteristically roundabout style of speaking. His speeches at rallies frequently veer off on tangents before circling back to an earlier point. It doesn’t help that some in the crowd in Nebraska began cheering as he said, “Let them take out Los Angeles. Let them take out San Diego,” though Trump himself didn’t seem to react to or encourage the crowd’s response.
But taken in context, his remarks don’t appear to be “advocating” an attack on U.S. cities or suggesting their destruction would be an acceptable cost.
Trump first referenced the war in Iran a few minutes into his Nebraska speech. “We’re saving the world from what could be one of the worst tragedies ever,” he said, adding that the war would end soon and, when it does, the price of oil “will come tumbling down.”
After riffing on other topics, he eventually came back to the subject of the war, which is when he made his controversial comments about Los Angeles and San Diego. What immediately preceded those statements, however, suggests that Trump wasn’t calling for the destruction of those cities, but rather saying that protecting them is worth paying a bit more at the pump: “It’s a little bit high. It’s a small price to pay for keeping the world safe, keeping our country safe. They could take out a city.”
He was likely making the same point about paying more for gasoline when, after referencing the California cities, he said, “This is a very small price to pay, and it’s going to be over with very soon.”
Trump has used similar language before to argue that higher gas prices are worth it if the war prevents Iran from posing a threat to the U.S.
“The one thing already has happened is, Iran will never have a nuclear weapon,” he said in Iowa on Sept. 28. “That’s a very big thing, because if you want to see turmoil and a travesty, let them take out a city with a nuclear weapon. I’m not only talking about Israel and big parts of the Middle East, but let them hit us with a nuclear weapon.”
Speaking to reporters in the Oval Office in March, he said rising oil prices were “a very small thing compared to allowing them to have — you want to see the stock market go down? Start letting them hit you with nukes, OK? I said it this morning, I think it’s a very small price to pay.”
This is indeed a plausible take. (Scanning Cuno-Booth’s previous fact checks, he’s decidedly not biased in Trump’s favor.) As I noted yesterday, a review of the video does not give the impression that Trump was joking. Nor did he follow up with some variant of “there are some very bad people there.”
Still, the fact that the President of the United States routinely says wild things that have to be interpreted is less than ideal. When Joe Biden did it, we questioned his fitness for office.
