What the columnists said

It used to be international “pariahs” like Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi and Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez who spouted “hateful nonsense” to the General Assembly, said Ryu Spaeth in NewRepublic.com. Now it’s the president of the United States. If Americans ever wondered what it’s like “to be led by a wild-eyed megalomaniac,” now we know. The Trump doctrine, if there is one, is “intellectually confused,” said Fred Kaplan in Slate.com. He claimed every government should respect the “national sovereignty” of other nations, yet in the same breath threatened North Korea and Venezuela. He chided Cuba and Iran for human-rights violations, but “said nothing about the similarly dreadful records of Russia, Saudi Arabia, or Turkey.” Why? Their leaders flatter him.

Let’s be fair here, said Jonathan Tobin in NationalReview.com. Every recent U.S. administration has “made exceptions for authoritarian governments it needed to work with.” They’ve also all promised to defend America’s interests “against aggressive rogue regimes.” The truth is, for all the “huffing and puffing” over the “shocking” language in Trump’s speech, the substance was “remarkably similar” to that of his predecessors.

But tone matters a great deal in international relations, said Doyle McManus in the Los Angeles Times. Diplomats know it’s important to treat their adversaries with respect “and provide them a dignified way to retreat from their original positions.” Trump did the exact opposite, “ridiculing” Kim and signaling that Pyongyang’s only option was to “give up its entire nuclear program.” If Kim crosses the “red line” Trump has drawn, the president will have only two options: “Back down or go to war.” If he chooses war, the “Rocket Man” speech “will be remembered as one of the first steps that took us there.”