Almost as bad as his critics!
The Conservative Treehouse gang is woozy. However, Sundance stays the course of “Sure it was another brilliant move by Trump” mantra by defending the missile attacks in Syria. I am not going to be critical about this, his guy won, but Sundance will need to get used to the fact that Trump is just unpredictable because he’s not moored in any party affiliation. Frankly, I like the idea, but Trump supporters shouldn’t blind themselves to the fact they are going to get hurt by Trump. He’s not the guy they think he is.
There is a predictable disconnect amid political followers who have not paid close attention to the direct Mid-East visitors to the Donald Trump White House regarding the origin of the chemical weapons use in Syria.
Focusing on who used chemical weapons is a moot point in the larger issue of the Syrian conflict. It doesn’t matter whether ISIS “rebels” deployed them or whether Bashir Assad used them against the “rebels” when contemplating President Trump’s response to stop using them. The victims are Syrians. The regional alliance members don’t care who used them. The message is to stop.
We could make a solid argument that either interested party: Bashir Assad or “the rebels” (al-Qaeda, ISIS, al-Nusra et al) had motive and opportunity to use chemical weapons.
We’ve written for several years about the manipulative intentions of both sides, all sides, in the Syrian conflict. We’ve written about President Obama’s policies toward Syria and how his administration armed and equipped all elements; gaining nothing except a horrific death toll and chaotic civil war as an outcome.
We’ve provided lengthy and cited research on arms into Syria from Obama, Clinton and Kerry. The Benghazi Brief outlined Man-Pads and chemical weapons delivered to Syria as an outcome of the collapse within Libya. We’ve outlined the Libyan weapons caches that became the Jihadist market/yard-sale. We’ve also documented weapons deliveries directly from the State Department using actual recorded audio admissions of Secretary Kerry to his Syrian benefactors.
Additionally, no-one questions whether Iraq’s Saddam Hussein, Assad’s BFF, delivered stock piles of his own chemical weapons to Syria, because it was well documented. Both Bashir Assad and Saddam Hussein previously used chemical weapons. Historically Hussein used Chemical Weapons to kill up to 300,000 Kurds in Northern Iraq.
None of this is in doubt.
I agree, but the issue here is which side is Trump going to be FORCED to land on? Let’s say the rebels- many who are AQ and ISIS affiliated- decide to launch a gas attack on Syrian soldiers. Will we find our cruise missiles heading towards Raqqa? If not, then Trump has picked sides, which is the EXACT thing he campaigned he was against.
In this area Trump is right. Sometimes events overtake policy and theory. The best example of this is 9/11 and GWB’s hopes of what he wanted to accomplish as President. I believe GWB was intending to focus on domestic issues like figuring out a way to implement his “compassionate conservative” approach to big government. 9/11 turned him into a war President. It was an act of God, he was President during 9/11 and not Al Gore, who would be still fumbling around while we got whacked again and again. KSM admitted to his interrogators they had three or four follow on attacks planned, assuming America would just absorb them, as it did during the Clinton years. He stated without reservation that the invasion of Afghanistan at the speed it occurred threw them off balance and all those plans were scrubbed, as the leaders of AQ fled for their lives.
But the counter-attacks executed by GWB were responses to a clear danger to America, Syria is not. Yes, it causes regional and European instability. It causes some issues here because we, under Obama, chose to take in Syrian refugees. We cut that off and that’s not a problem. Oddly, if we did, more than one Syrian would agree. They don’t want to come here, culturally it is like living on Mars to them. Many want to stay in Syria and go home after the war. Here is one guy taking that message to a CNN talking head, who squirmed under that revelation. Funny and illustrative at the same time. She tried to make HRC relevant and gets slammed!
Peter Hitchens points out the trick bag Trump could find himself in.
…And President Trump was playing host at the White House to the head of Egypt’s military junta, General el-Sisi, whose security forces undoubtedly massacred at least 600 protesters (probably many more) in the streets of Cairo in August 2013.
And then mark that the pretext for this bizarre rocket attack was an unproven claim that President Assad of Syria had used poison gas. Yes, unproven. The brutality of Sisi and the Saudis is beyond doubt. They didn’t use gas, but our leaders’ outrage at Assad’s alleged gas attack looks a little contrived if they keep such company.
Also what happened to the rules of evidence? Many people have written, spoken – and now acted – as if the charge was proven. Why the hurry?
Now, Mr Assad is not a nice person. I have been writing rude things about his bloodstained and wicked regime for years. But he is not insane.
He knows that the use of poison gas is the one thing that will make the USA intervene against him. They have said so. He is currently winning his war against Islamist fanatics, with conventional weapons.
He had even finally got the USA to stop demanding his dismissal. Five days before the alleged attack – five days! – America’s UN ambassador, Nikki Haley, announced: ‘Our priority is no longer to sit there and focus on getting Assad out.’ ….
All good points and his claim why would a sane person draw a target on his back has merit, but we’ve seen sane people do stupid shit for stupid reasons since the beginning of time, so… who knows.
On the other hand, it was a well executed attack, according to the UK Daily Mail photo record.
So what is going on here in this now mired Trump led swamp that Trumpsters are trying to get their head around? My theory is simple. Being President is a royal pain in the ass and reality is a fickle bitch that will do her best to slap you around. Good Presidents weather the onslaught, cowardly ones hide behind lies pushed out to a supportive MSM and the UN.
It is now obvious Susan Rice lied, Obama lied, Clapper lied, Brennen lied, Rhodes lied, the MSM knew it and they all stood shoulder to shoulder to protect their progressive agenda. The only person who probably told the truth, Mike Flynn, was run off and ruined by our intel community. Which goes to questioning their agenda does it not? Are we at a point where we realize this whole thing is Matrix like and they are all lying?
Trump, by acting, showed the world and Americans, that we can’t trust anything we saw or heard for a long time. That is a sad, but educational moment- and it drives the Left crazy. Right now there is pitched battle between the crazy right (which has been correct a few times- there ARE conspiracies) and the newly out of power and flailing against reality Left, which has joined the conspiracy nuts. This is great stuff!
We need to get the right-wing and left-wing conspiracy theorists together to hash this out. Was Assad’s chemical attack in Idlib a false flag perpetrated by some shadowy agent (Syrian rebels, the “deep state,” Mossad, etc) to give Trump’s new establishment masters a pretext to lead him into war? Or was it a real attack cynically exploited by Trump a la “Wag the Dog” to change the subject from bad news here at home (the Russia probe, health-care failure, sagging job approval, etc), possibly with the cooperation of Vladimir Putin? Under the first theory, American hawks are trying to push Trump into conflict with Russia and Assad. Under the second theory, Trump and Putin are trying to create the appearance of conflict to give him cover on Russiagate and other matters. Which is it?
I go with door number three. Trump is a man who takes things personally, loves his country and love the IDEA of America- which stands for being the guy who punches bullies in the nose when they deserve it. He has said as much. I do not think he is brilliant (In fact I believe he has adult ADHD and may be a little dyslexic, reports of his inability to read any long reports is out there.). I do not think he is a deep thinker, or better put, well read, which may be because of the above conditions. But I believe he loves the idea of America. He sees it from his youth, sees it from the seventies and eighties when he was coming up. I get that. So do I.
An alternate theory via McKay Coppins: Despite the many approving noises about isolationism that he made as a candidate, Trump is a Jacksonian. He’s impulsive and obsessed with projecting strength, especially in contrast to Barack Obama. When the opportunity to enforce Obama’s “red line” presented himself, he couldn’t resist. Occam’s Razor.
Though Trump lacks the level of knowledge and grasp of history necessary to form an all-encompassing foreign policy doctrine, he has consistently articulated a belief that America’s enemies around the world can be terrified into submission—if the commander-in-chief is willing to send a strong message. Even if Trump had opted to stay out of the Syrian conflict, that belief of his—paired with a general aversion to the compromises of diplomacy—likely would have led him to abandon whatever isolationist tendencies he harbored sooner or later…
Beyond fighting terrorism, Trump has often said the U.S. needs to be more “unpredictable” on the world stage. While running for president, he pointedly refused to take the potential use of nuclear weapons off the table, even in places like Europe. That probably wasn’t because he had big plans to bomb Estonia; it was because he wanted to place as few constraints on himself as possible, believing that the more nervous he made the world as commander-in-chief, the less likely it was that adversaries would mess with America. Some have identified this approach as a return to the “Madman Theory,” Richard Nixon’s belief that if his enemies thought he was unbalanced, he would have a stronger negotiating position against China on the Vietnam War.
You never know when a displeased Jacksonian might punch you in the face, an important lesson early in Trump’s presidency not just for Assad but for, among other people, Kim Jong-un. But explaining away Thursday’s bombing by citing Trump’s erratic bellicosity does him a disservice in that it implies he doesn’t care much about Syria on its own terms. On the contrary, reports CNN, he’s been talking privately about action there for months, since before the inauguration:
Months earlier, during an off-the-record holiday gathering with reporters at his opulent Mar-a-Lago estate a week before Christmas, Trump spoke at length about the carnage of the Syrian civil war, revealing that the issue was weighing on him as he prepared to take office. Trump spokeswoman Hope Hicks authorized CNN on Friday to report the contents of his remarks on the topic at the gathering, which CNN attended.
He described the slaughter of civilians in Syria as a “holocaust,” and remarked on the “high pain threshold” of the population there.
Trump also described in detail a video he had seen of an elderly woman being shot multiple times in Syria, struggling as she tried to continue to walk.
And then, he acknowledged that the US had a “responsibility” over the devastating Syrian conflict — the same word he would use months later before approving the launch of 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles to target a Syrian Air Force base.
But he needs to contain that urge. This world is NOT the world of the eighties, where the dying Soviet Union was our most troublesome foe. Plus, the progressive corruption in the government and the bureaucracy could motivate those he has to trust to do bad things and set him up. There is nothing good here.
Oddly, I think Trump, for all his faults, has a moral compass unlike Obama and gang. His people around him are the same way. It is like adults are now driving the car, instead of spoiled, petulant, lying ten year olds on a sugar high, like the last eight years.
Reagan didn’t fight every battle. He did fight the ones that solved problems and changed the world. Trump needs to find that niche. I hope he does.
Not that it will make a difference to the now totally unhinged Left.
Actually, as loony as she is, she may be right on one thing. Putin wants the airfields, the ports and the pipeline. He doesn’t care about Assad. He is a means to an end. Putin hates Islamic terrorism and sees it in the light of a Crusaders- them or us. If I were Trump I would trade. Give Putin what he wants, replace Assad with another Alawite more willing to concede to change, restructure Syria into zones where the western side belongs to them and controlled by the Russians, and give the east to the Syrians who want their nation back. Provide EU money to rebuild. Send back the Syrians from all the countries and let them resettle. In time, Syria will either stay two, or three depending on the Kurdish demands, or come back together. The truth is the Middle East is unstable because the separate tribes were forced together by European nations. Let them break back up into tribal or religious regions and then they can go back to trading with or whacking each other like the Bedouins they are, and have been for the last four thousand years.