Syria - Iraq 2.0?

From POLITICO

Has Trump wrestled with all of this complexity? The guy who spent the morning he learned about the chemical-weapons attack riffing to reporters about Susan Rice, Bill O’Reilly and the last time he rode the subway?

Only last Thursday, U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley was saying, “Our priority is no longer to sit and focus on getting Assad out,” and Tillerson, borrowing language from Russian diplomats, was announcing, “the longer-term status of President Assad will be decided by the Syrian people.”

Months ago, Trump was insisting that the focus of U.S. policy should be defeating ISIS, rather than ousting Assad. "You’re going to end up in World War Three over Syria if we listen to Hillary Clinton,” he told Reuters in an interview. "You’re not fighting Syria anymore, you’re fighting Syria, Russia and Iran, all right? Russia is a nuclear country, but a country where the nukes work as opposed to other countries that talk," he said. That was October. What happens next? It would be foolish to predict what Trump will do—he may not even know himself. But it seems we can dispense with the campaign-trail narrative that he is some kind of dove. Trump is a war president now: So far, he’s bombed both sides of the conflict in Syria; used military force in Yemen, where he dramatically escalated the number of drone strikes and authorized a special operations raid that led to the death of a Navy SEAL; and quietly deployed additional troops in Iraq (and Syria). Trump has also declared Somalia a combat zone, a designation that gives the military more leeway to launch airstrikes without seeking explicit White House approval.

Nobody expected Trump, of all people, to wage a campaign to avenge Syrian children—who, after all, aren’t even allowed to come into the United States as refugees. But this is a man who doesn’t like being predictable. Back in 2013, when he was still just a billionaire reality TV star with a Twitter habit, Trump said if he did attack Syria, ”it would be by surprise and not blurted all over the media like fools.”

Surprise.

We have a ******* goldfish for President. Every time he turns and swims the other direction in his fish tank, it's an entirely new experience. Trump is deeply ignorant in the ways of the world, doesn't read and, as far as I can tell, has never deeply contemplated anything more complex than promoting satisfying his next animal desire whether it be grabbing some woman or obtaining praise from his sycophants.

According to CNN.com at least 4 children were killed in this new U S attack. I'm not sure where this all is going. What will be next? As we have so often said,Trump is just too unpredictable. He ignores congress and wants to go solo.

drummerboy said:

As for telegraphing, this was telegraphed big time.

https://theintercept.com/2017/...

The Pentagon has developed plans for an airstrike against Syrian government targets in response to this week’s apparent chemical attack by Syrian government forces, according to two U.S. military officials.
Secretary of Defense James Mattis will present the proposals to Donald Trump later today at the president’s Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida.
One of the proposals drawn up is a “saturation strike” using dozens of cruise missiles designed to hit Syrian military targets — including military air fields — in an effort to limit future Syrian Air Force attacks on rebel positions, according to the two U.S. military officials.
The officials asked for anonymity to discuss classified plans.

ridski said:




However, as he so rightly pointed out in 2013 when Obama did something similar, he should have gone to Congress first. But it's really not surprising that he didn't, as he considers "telegraphing" military operations to be foolish and prefers to be unpredictable, as he mentioned so often on the campaign trail. This Trump is the one his voters want to see: unilaterally blowing up brown people and their stuff with little to no regard to the consequences.

Oh, come on. Everyone knows only Terp reads The Intercept.

tjohn said:

We have a ******* goldfish for President. Every time he turns and swims the other direction in his fish tank, it's an entirely new experience. Trump is deeply ignorant in the ways of the world, doesn't read and, as far as I can tell, has never deeply contemplated anything more complex than promoting satisfying his next animal desire whether it be grabbing some woman or obtaining praise from his sycophants.

Dude couldn't even read the script on his teleprompter, he was riffing on his own pre-written statement. After the usual request for God to Bless America, you could tell he was scrambling to find another way to say "And God bless us, everyone!"

"And God bless Earth?"

No.

"And God bless you all?"

No.

"And Gesundheit?"

No.

"And the entire world?'

That works.

ridski said:

Dude couldn't even read the script on his teleprompter, he was riffing on his own pre-written statement. After the usual request for God to Bless America, you could tell he was scrambling to find another way to say "And God bless us, everyone!"

"And God bless Earth?"

No.

"And God bless you all?"

No.

"And Gesundheit?"

No.

"And the entire world?'

That works.

He called the kids killed in the attack "God's children." Well, not exactly.

If he knew what "Deus Vult" meant, he'd have blurted it out last night.

You may have missed this

South_Mountaineer said:

terp said:

I'll admit its anecdotal, but I'm watching CNN and MSNBC which have been brutalizing Trump. They are cheering right now.

I've had them on, and all I saw were solemn faces, experts pointing out the risks of the attack with respect to Russia and Iran, and comments on what members of Congress might be looking into as a result. I wouldn't call it "cheering".

his "speech" last night was absolutely awful. Horrible delivery, complete lack of emotion, reading TelePrompTer at a weird angle. Sound quality was poor. Guess Mar-a-Lago is not set up for professional quality press conferences.

Sorry, I wasn't glued to the TV the entire time. I didn't get home until late, and didn't know anything had happened until I got into my car about 9:30 last night. So, I missed the comments of Mr. Williams.

The article you linked has the headline, "Brian Williams Calls Trump's Airstrikes 'Beautiful' ". You have to read down to realize that's not what he did. Even from the article you linked, it doesn't seem at all that he was cheering. He seemed to be contrasting the look of the pictures with what they represented. He used the phrase, "they are beautiful pictures of fearsome armaments". Since his discussion of the pictures referenced the lyrics of a Leonard Cohen song, he obviously understood the ironic use of the word.

As he continued his discussion (the parts I did see but which are ignored in the article you rely on), the fact that he wasn't cheering is even more obvious. But if you leave all that out, you can distort the meaning of one phrase.

So the lesson is, be careful what you say, because of the people in your audience who are too damn literal and will accuse you of saying something you didn't say.

terp said:

You may have missed this

South_Mountaineer said:

terp said:

I'll admit its anecdotal, but I'm watching CNN and MSNBC which have been brutalizing Trump. They are cheering right now.

I've had them on, and all I saw were solemn faces, experts pointing out the risks of the attack with respect to Russia and Iran, and comments on what members of Congress might be looking into as a result. I wouldn't call it "cheering".

Post edited to add - There are more important things to discuss on this thread, but I guess I responded because of the use of BS "evidence" as a response to something I wrote.

irony dies on TV.

MSNBC was showing footage of the missiles in the background throughout their reporting. They talked in awe regarding the power of these weapons repeatedly.

I think you're confirming my earlier take on your previous post.

terp said:

MSNBC was showing footage of the missiles in the background throughout their reporting. They talked in awe regarding the power of these weapons repeatedly.

I was impressed with Fox News coverage by Shepard (sp?) Smith last night. How can they have such solid reporting and such dreadful commentary? It makes no sense.

Tulsi Gabbard speaking the truth on CNN now about Syria and the lack of evidence for responsibility for CW.

I fully think that Clinton would have gone with a very similar military response.

Tulsi is on Fox (Tucker Carlson) now.

paulsurovell said:

Tulsi is on Fox (Tucker Carlson) now.

Tucker Carlson even shut up and let her speak.http://www.foxnews.com/politic...

Not that this would be possible given his personality and attitude, but -

If Trump had instead presented a request to Congress for authorization (as a prelude and warning, not to automatically use it), spent time working for consensus from other nations, and put pressure on Russia, it would probably have had more of an effect than his one-off airstrike. Apparently, the base was back in business yesterday.

paulsurovell said:

Tulsi Gabbard speaking the truth on CNN now about Syria and the lack of evidence for responsibility for CW.

She's definitely worth listening to. The fact is that this chemical weapons attack did not require an immediate response. And, while I know of one plausible scenario where Assad would use chemical weapons, it is equally plausible that one of the groups fighting Assad would also use chemical weapons. In any case, Gabbard is confirming or denying nothing. She is making the valid point that we should take a breath, gather the facts and, above all else, remember that it is up to Congress to approval decisions to go to war.

I was watching Brian Williams when he said that in real time.

It was, frankly, disgusting. And kind of shocking.

He mis-interepreted the Cohen line, btw.

The reverence in his voice for those beautiful images was despicable.

What an Ahole.

I just hate, hate our millionaire media.

South_Mountaineer said:

Sorry, I wasn't glued to the TV the entire time. I didn't get home until late, and didn't know anything had happened until I got into my car about 9:30 last night. So, I missed the comments of Mr. Williams.

The article you linked has the headline, "Brian Williams Calls Trump's Airstrikes 'Beautiful' ". You have to read down to realize that's not what he did. Even from the article you linked, it doesn't seem at all that he was cheering. He seemed to be contrasting the look of the pictures with what they represented. He used the phrase, "they are beautiful pictures of fearsome armaments". Since his discussion of the pictures referenced the lyrics of a Leonard Cohen song, he obviously understood the ironic use of the word.

As he continued his discussion (the parts I did see but which are ignored in the article you rely on), the fact that he wasn't cheering is even more obvious. But if you leave all that out, you can distort the meaning of one phrase.

So the lesson is, be careful what you say, because of the people in your audience who are too damn literal and will accuse you of saying something you didn't say.

terp said:

You may have missed this

South_Mountaineer said:

terp said:

I'll admit its anecdotal, but I'm watching CNN and MSNBC which have been brutalizing Trump. They are cheering right now.

I've had them on, and all I saw were solemn faces, experts pointing out the risks of the attack with respect to Russia and Iran, and comments on what members of Congress might be looking into as a result. I wouldn't call it "cheering".

Post edited to add - There are more important things to discuss on this thread, but I guess I responded because of the use of BS "evidence" as a response to something I wrote.

Actually, based on the fact that Trump's attack was, apparently, relatively harmless, I bet Clinton would have picked a more extreme attack.

And maybe she would have been right.

My attitudes on this issue are in flux right now.

Gilgul said:

I fully think that Clinton would have gone with a very similar military response.

Tulsi Gabbard on CNN yesterday. Undaunted by the power structure, the media and their war propaganda:

Well Bill did bomb the sh t out of Serbia for far less.

South_Mountaineer said:

Not that this would be possible given his personality and attitude, but -

If Trump had instead presented a request to Congress for authorization (as a prelude and warning, not to automatically use it), spent time working for consensus from other nations, and put pressure on Russia, it would probably have had more of an effect than his one-off airstrike. Apparently, the base was back in business yesterday.

In response to your "Trump-Putin collusion" cartoon, here's a spot-on commentary excerpted from a larger, brilliant analysis of the Syrian strike by Glenn Greenwald:

https://theintercept.com/2017/...

6. Like all good conspiracy theories, no evidence can kill the Kremlin-controls-Trump tale.

Central to the conspiracy theories woven for months by Democrats is the claim that Putin wields power over Trump in the form of blackmail, debts or other leverage. As a result, this conspiracy theory goes, the Kremlin has now infiltrated American institutions of power and controls the U.S. Government, because Trump is unwilling – indeed, unable – to defy Putin’s orders.

Yet here is Trump – less than three months after being inaugurated – bombing one of the Kremlin’s closest allies, in a country where Russia has spent more than a year fighting to preserve his government. Will any of this undermine or dilute the conspiracy theory that the Kremlin controls the White House? Of course not. Warped conspiracy theorists are not only immune to evidence that disproves their theories but, worse, find ways to convert such evidence into further proof of their conspiracies.

Already, the most obsessive Democratic conspiracists have cited the fact that the U.S. military advised Russia in advance of the strikes – something they would have been incredibly reckless not to do – as innuendo showing that Trump serves Putin. If Trump tomorrow bombed Red Square, Democrats – after cheering him – would quickly announce that he only did so to throw everyone off the trail of his collusion with Putin.

You've gotta love The Donald. Every time a Tomahawk cruise missile gets launched, he gets paid. To say nothing of the bills from Mar-a-Lago for the visits of the heads of state. One could say we will own the joint by the time Trump's four years are up. But we'll still have to pay for membership to use the gold-encrusted toilets.

rawstory.com: Trump Personally Profited from Missile-Maker Raytheon's Stock

https://www.rawstory.com/2017/...

nytimes.com:  First Family's Needs Strain Secret Service

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/0... 

Observations:

Paul - did Greenwald call out Russia like Tillerson did: Secretary of State Rex Tillerson is taking a hard line against Russia on the eve of his first diplomatic trip to Moscow, calling the country “incompetent” for allowing Syria to hold on to chemical weapons and accusing Russia of trying to influence elections in Europe using the same methods it employed in the United States.

And yet, he always finds time to take a jab at Hillary.

Here's the view of Patrick Lang, retired military intelligence officer:

http://turcopolier.typepad.com...

Donald Trump Is An International Law Breaker

Donald Trump's decision to launch cruise missile strikes on a Syrian Air Force Base was based on a lie. In the coming days the American people will learn that the Intelligence Community knew that Syria did not drop a military chemical weapon on innocent civilians in Idlib. Here is what happened:

1. The Russians briefed the United States on the proposed target. This is a process that started more than two months ago. There is a dedicated phone line that is being used to coordinate and deconflict (i.e., prevent US and Russian air assets from shooting at each other) the upcoming operation.
2. The United States was fully briefed on the fact that there was a target in Idlib that the Russians believes was a weapons/explosives depot for Islamic rebels.
3. The Syrian Air Force hit the target with conventional weapons. All involved expected to see a massive secondary explosion. That did not happen. Instead, smoke, chemical smoke, began billowing from the site. It turns out that the Islamic rebels used that site to store chemicals, not sarin, that were deadly. The chemicals included organic phosphates and chlorine and they followed the wind and killed civilians.
4. There was a strong wind blowing that day and the cloud was driven to a nearby village and caused casualties.
5. We know it was not sarin. How? Very simple. The so-called "first responders" handled the victims without gloves. If this had been sarin they would have died. Sarin on the skin will kill you. How do I know? I went through "Live Agent" training at Fort McClellan in Alabama.

There are members of the U.S. military who were aware this strike would occur and it was recorded. There is a film record. At least the Defense Intelligence Agency knows that this was not a chemical weapon attack. In fact, Syrian military chemical weapons were destroyed with the help of Russia.

This is Gulf of Tonkin 2. How ironic. Donald Trump correctly castigated George W. Bush for launching an unprovoked, unjustified attack on Iraq in 2003. Now we have President Donald Trump doing the same damn thing. Worse in fact. Because the intelligence community had information showing that there was no chemical weapon launched by the Syrian Air Force.

Here's the good news. The Russians and Syrians were informed, or at least were aware, that the attack was coming. They were able to remove a large number of their assets. The base the United States hit was something of a backwater. Donald Trump gets to pretend that he is a tough guy. He is not. He is a fool.

This attack was violation of international law. Donald Trump authorized an unjustified attack on a sovereign country. What is even more disturbing is that people like Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis, CIA Director Mike Pompeo and NSA Director General McMaster went along with this charade. Front line troops know the truth. These facts will eventually come out. Donald Trump will most likely not finish his term as President. He will be impeached, I believe, once Congress is presented with irrefutable proof that he ignored and rejected intelligence that did not support the myth that Syria attacked with chemical weapons.

It should also alarm American taxpayers that we launched $100 million dollars of missiles to blow up sand and camel ****. The Russians were aware that a strike was coming. I'm hoping that they and the Syrians withdrew their forces and aircraft from the base. Whatever hope I had that Donald Trump would be a new kind of President, that hope is extinguished. He is a child and a moron. He committed an act of war without justification. But the fault is not his alone. Those who sit atop the NSC, the DOD, the CIA, the Department of State should have resigned in protest. They did not. They are complicit in a war crime.

paulsurovell said:

Here's the view of Patrick Lang, retired military intelligence officer:

http://turcopolier.typepad.com...

Donald Trump Is An International Law Breaker

Donald Trump's decision to launch cruise missile strikes on a Syrian Air Force Base was based on a lie. In the coming days the American people will learn that the Intelligence Community knew that Syria did not drop a military chemical weapon on innocent civilians in Idlib. Here is what happened:

1. The Russians briefed the United States on the proposed target. This is a process that started more than two months ago. There is a dedicated phone line that is being used to coordinate and deconflict (i.e., prevent US and Russian air assets from shooting at each other) the upcoming operation.
2. The United States was fully briefed on the fact that there was a target in Idlib that the Russians believes was a weapons/explosives depot for Islamic rebels.
3. The Syrian Air Force hit the target with conventional weapons. All involved expected to see a massive secondary explosion. That did not happen. Instead, smoke, chemical smoke, began billowing from the site. It turns out that the Islamic rebels used that site to store chemicals, not sarin, that were deadly. The chemicals included organic phosphates and chlorine and they followed the wind and killed civilians.
4. There was a strong wind blowing that day and the cloud was driven to a nearby village and caused casualties.
5. We know it was not sarin. How? Very simple. The so-called "first responders" handled the victims without gloves. If this had been sarin they would have died. Sarin on the skin will kill you. How do I know? I went through "Live Agent" training at Fort McClellan in Alabama.

How does one confirm point number 3?