Back in 2017 DNI pick Tulsi Gabbard visited Syria and met with brutal dictator Bashar al-Assad. Throughout the war she repeatedly voiced support for Assad's regime crushing the Syrian Revolution.
Last month, Nikki Haley noted Gabbard had gone "to Syria in 2017 for a photo-op with Bashar al-Assad while he was massacring his own people. She said she was skeptical that he was behind the chemical weapons attack. Now, this to me is disgusting."
Haley's political star has plummeted and Assad has fled Syria for Russia but Gabbard may be on her way to being Director of National Intelligence. But aside from the major issues- Syria and Russia swirling around her, Gabbard is a flaming hypocrite.
Tulsi Gabbard was born in American Samoa and raised in Hawaii. She is a Hindu who married a Hindu, Abraham Williams, in Oahu in 2015 in what she dexribed as a "Hawaiian-style Hindu wedding" with Vedic customs. However, the Democrat turned Independent turned Republican in May stated
Many of those who are in great positions of poer in the Democratic Party, whether they admit it or not, or realize it or not, they see themselves as God. They appoint themselves as the authority. They view themselves as the ones who get to decide how we live our lives, what we're allowed to say, who we're allowed to hear from (and) how we get our information.
When Gabbard says "God," it is not clear to what or whom she is referring because
The majority of Hindus believe in one supreme God ((The Brahman). Everything is a part of and a manifestation of Brahman, the ultimate reality; however, Brahman's qualities and powers may be represented by a great diversity of gods/deities, all of which emanate from The Brahman. The concept of Brahman and the relationship of the Supreme Being with nature, indvidual souls, and TheBrahman's various manifestations are the subject of many different Hindu schools of philosophy/belief.
The unvierse, Earth, and all creatures were created by Brahma, one of the many gds that emanated from The Brahman.
Tulsi Gabbard is is no position legitimately to lecture Democrats, the overwhelming majority of whom identify as Christians, Jews, or Muslims. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam are monotheistic. Yet, Gabbard, who belongs- and identifies with- a religion which seemingly recognizes a few gods, claims Democrats see themselves as "God."
Nor does Gabbard herself appear to believe in God. Below is a video in which she and her husband are singing along to John Lennon's Imagine. The lyrics begin
Imagine there's no heaven. It's eay if you try. No hell below us. Above us, only sky....
Imagine there's no countries. It isn'thard to do. Nothing to kill or die for. And no religion, too.
"Imagine there's no heaven (and) no hell below us, "and no religion, too." Fortunately, there is no religious test for public office in the USA. and there are more important reasons to reject Tulsi Gabbard as Director of National Intelligence. But it may be one more indication that the nominee, who has ducked questiosns about her relationship with Bashar Assad and is Russia-friendly, is not exactly whom she appears to be.
For all those clutching the pearls about Joy Reid's @JoyAnnReid commentary, here are her ACTUAL words... NO. LIES. TOLD! https://t.co/RdMHiMAY2t
— Thoughtful Processes 📸🐕🌷🍅 (@thoughtpro54) March 9, 2022
There is no need to clutch one's pearls. Joy Ann-Reid
brought up an important issue. Fortunately, she was mostly wrong when on Monday
evening she commented
As the world watches
the devastation unfolds in Ukraine, nearly 4,000 miles away, another crisis is
deepening that we don`t hear much about in the U.S., and that is the war in
Yemen.
In March of 2015, a Saudi-led coalition backed by the United
States intervened militarily in Yemen in a bid to fight Iran-backed Houthi
rebels. It has triggered one of the worst humanitarian crisis in the world, due
to widespread hunger, disease and attacks on civilians. Four million Yemenis
have been forced to flee their homes.
Now, what we`re seeing in Ukraine is absolutely the worst
humanitarian crisis that Europe has seen in decades, but we haven`t witnessed
the same type of solidarity for the Yemenis as we do for the Ukrainians. We
don`t see historic sanctions or global campaigns, corporations like Airbnb and
Netflix taking a stand.
Now, this is not to say that we shouldn`t care this much for
Ukraine. Far from it. The point is, we should also care this much for refugees
and those facing occupation and war in the Middle East and Asia and Africa too.
The coverage of Ukraine has revealed a pretty radical
disparity in how human Ukrainians look and feel to Western media, compared to
their browner and blacker counterparts, with some reporters using very telling
comparisons in their analyses of the war....
OK, let`s face it. The world is paying attention because
this is happening in Europe. If this was happening anywhere else, would we see
the same outpouring of support and compassion?
But we don`t need to ask ourselves if the international
response would be the same if Russia unleashed their horror on a country that
wasn`t white and largely Christian, because Russia has already done it in
Syria.
This is a teachable moment for us in the media. We aren`t
afraid to call out our own industry. There is a lot of soul-searching that we
need to do in Western media about why some wars and lives seem to matter more
than others and why some refugees get the welcome mat, while others get the
wall.
First, this: it's not a "teachable moment when Reid is
calling out her "own industry" while a) not naming any one individual
or news organization; b) covering Ukraine in her own show much more than she
ever did Yemen; and c) omitting any criticism of the Democratic president whom
she loyally supported for the top job over Donald Trump.
Vladimir Putin's Russia invaded a nation with a stable and
largely Democratic government, one which had asked for NATO membership and sent
soldiers to U.S.-led wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Ukraine has been an ally of
the USA and of the European Union.
In Yemen, the Houthi radical Shiite movement helped force the
resignation of the president, who stepped down in 2011 in favor of his deputy, who in turn was forced to flee
Yemen in 2015 in the face of an escalation of the insurgency. Concerned that
the Houthis were backed by Shia Iran, Saudi Arabia began an aerial campaign,
aided by logistical and intelligence forces from the USA, the UK, and France.
Civil war has continued, now exacerbated by an Islamic State group, which has
taken some territory in the south, which the Houthis want as an independent
state.
Yemen is suffering a civil war fueled by a religious rivalry
in which a religious minority is suffering the brunt of civilian
casualties. The contrast with Ukraine is
obvious and dramatic, which should be clear to everyone, even someone such as
Joy Ann-Reid, prone to view through a racial lens events with only the barest
of racial undertones.
Speaking of which: in December, 2017 an obedient Daniel Shaver crawled in
a hotel hallway on his stomach as demanded by verbally abusive police officer
Philip Brailsford.. Totally subservient and obviously helpless, Shaver was shot
dead by the officer, who ultimately was acquitted of second degree murder, was
reinstated, then retired, and now receives a pension.
Shaver was white. You won't remember this case and may not
have heard about it even at the time because it was a one-day story nationally. There was video of most of the encounter, and
it still passed into history with barely a mention, though the Justice
Department has been investigating the case since 2018.
I don't know why there was so little attention. But,
notwithstanding Reid's slant on the media, this is not an instance of brutality
virtually ignored because the only victim was non-white. It is a case which should give Reid pause in
accusing the media of a lack of concern about suffering and death because of the race or color of the victims. And maybe it would- except that, like most of the
country, she probably never heard about it.
While cynics doubt that Donald Trump can be considered a great president,
we should heed the words of someone who keeps close watch on the political
scene. The Daily Beast reports that recently
“Have you lost your minds that you want to remove our Donald
Ivanovych?” asked Vladimir Soloviev, the host of the television show Evening
with Vladimir Soloviev....
Several months earlier
“They say Trump is making Russia great. That’s basically
accurate,” pointed out Karen Shakhnazarov, CEO of Mosfilm Studio and a
prominent fixture on Russian state television. “The chaos brought by Trump into
the American system of government is weakening the United States. America is
getting weaker and now Russia is taking its place in the Middle East. Suddenly,
Russia is starting to seriously penetrate Africa... So when they say that Trump
is weakening the United States—yes, he is. And that’s why we love him... The
more problems they have, the better it is for us.”
Olga Skabeeva, the host of 60 Minutes, the most popular news
talk show in Russia, predicted: “A Republican majority in the Senate won’t
allow the president whom we elected, wonderful Donald Trump, to be sent off.
It’s impossible. He has 90 percent support in the Republican Party.”
They know their Moscow Mitch. Trump truly is "wonderful" to some, and the reviews
and the plaudits have kept coming. Following the President's removal last month of soldiers from northern Syria, abandoning the nation's second most
loyal ally (and most loyal among those not Jewish) in the Mideast
“Putin won the lottery! Russia’s unexpected triumph in the
Middle East,” raved Mikhail Rostovsky in his article for the Russian newspaper
Moskovsky Komsomolets. “Those who were convinced of Trump’s uselessness for
Russia ought to think again...What Washington got out of this strange move is
completely unclear. To the contrary, what Moscow gained from this is
self-evident...Trump’s mistake in Syria is the unexpected ‘lottery win’ that
further strengthened Moscow’s position in the Middle East and undermined
America’s prestige as a rational political player and a reliable partner.”
Maksim Yusin, the editor of international politics at the
leading Russian business daily Kommersant, was amazed by the ongoing stream of
inexplicable actions by the American president that benefit the Kremlin. “All
of this benefits the Russian Federation,” Yusin marveled. “You know, I’ve been
watching Trump’s behavior lately and get seditious thoughts: maybe he really is
a Russian agent? He is laboring so hard to strengthen the international image
of Russia in general—and Putin in particular...In this situation, Americans—to
their chagrin and our enjoyment—are the only losers in this situation.”
“This is such a pleasure,” grinned Olga Skabeeva, the host
of Russia’s state television program 60 Minutes. “Russian soldiers have taken
an American base under our complete control, without a fight!” Skabeeva’s
co-host Evgeny Popov added: “Suddenly, we have defeated everyone.”
Incredulously, Skabeeva pointed out: “This is an American base—and they just
ran away! Trump ran away!”
“It’s been a long time since America has been humiliated
this way,” gloated political analyst Mikhail Sinelnikov-Orishak, “They ran away
in shame! I can’t recall such a scenario since Vietnam.” He added: “For us,
this is of great interest, because this is a key region where energy prices are
being determined. That is a shining cherry on top.” Political scientist Andrey
Nikulin concurred: “This is sad for America. A smaller-scale version of what
happened in Vietnam.”
At :22 of the video below, from 17-16 months ago, Trump states
during the Special Counsel’s probe that included no direct interview of the
President, “it’s a witch hunt, that’s all it is. There was no collusion with
Russia, if you can believe this one.” “If you can believe this one” because he knows we can’t, or at least shouldn’t. In all fairness to a President who has trying to make a nation great, it’s
not as if he and the Russian media haven’t been suggesting where his heart
lies. Hint: it’s somewhere east of Berlin and north of Bucharest.
As hundreds of thousands of people demonstrate in Hong Kong, Santiago,
London, and Lebanon, a snowflake is heard from in Washington, D.C.
So let’s see if I’ve got this straight: When crowds chant “Lock her up” toward Hillary, it is illiberal and anti-American.
(I agree). But when crowds chant the same toward Trump,
it is suddenly a fulsome exercise of sacred First Amendment rights. What hypocritical clowns.
This did not go well
individuals on Twitter. One noted that Hillary Clinton committed no crimes,
unlike President Trump, and even was exonerated by the Trump-dominant Justice
Department recently. This came six months after Special Counsel Mueller
concluded that had he been able to exonerate President Trump of obstruction of justice, he would have.
Other tweets noted
that the the chant at Nationals Park arose spontaneously in a public place and were directed at a President under investigation for
impeachment. By contrast, the choreographed "lock her up" chant was
led by Michael Flynn, now a convicted felon, at the Republican National Convention.
Someone observed that Donald Trump has encouraged the Attorney General, whom he
considers his private attorney, to investigate Hillary Clinton, a prerogative
not possessed by the fans at the World Series.
An accomplished journalist asks three pertinent questions:
...questions to point it out:
1. Could a baseball crowd launch a criminal investigation of a Dep Director of FBI who president hates?
2. Could a baseball crowd launch another investigation of HRC emails?
3. Could they obstruct a Congressional investigation?
When a tweeter argues "it might be nice if the word saw
that most Americans do not support" Donald Trump, she suggests a crucial
factor in America's influence in the world. South Koreans heard the President
when he said that he was concerned only with Pyongyang having missiles which
could strike the USA and not with those which could be launched against South
Korea. When Trump questions Article 5 of
the UN Charter, complains that NATO allies spend less than does the USA on
defense, threatens privately to withdraw from NATO, or directly cozies up to Vladimir Putin, members of the trans-Atlantic alliance recognize that stability
of the continent is threatened.
And when President Trump withdraws soldiers from northern
Syria (video from 10/21/19)and welcomes Bashar Assad to "clean out" our Kurdish allies, Kurds realize
they must go elsewhere, even to Russia, for an ally.So when fans at the World Series boo Donald Trump or even call for his
imprisonment, they are doing us all a favor. Donald Trump is not a king. He is
President for now, an aberration. He will not be President forever, and he's
not who we are. It's important that the world understands that- and that the United States of America keeps its word- even if Joe
Scarborough doesn't.
Someone on that stage can destroy Tulsi's entire candidacy right now by bringing up her association with Assad. Why they don't...I don't know. #DemocraticDebate
It could be because Representative Tulsi Gabbard is not
considered a serious threat to attain the nomination, an explanation suggested by the fire aimed at Senator Warren, who has steadily been gaining momentum and
is considered by betting markets to be the most likely nominee. Or there could
be an additional, or different, reason.
Nevertheless, while unfortunately no candidate in Tuesday's Democratic debate dared bring up Gabbard's
association with Assad, Anderson Cooper's failure to ask an obvious question of
the Hawaiian was, in a different way, at least as egregious. Cooper asked
Congresswoman Gabbard, last week you said that American
troops should get out of Syria now. You don't agree with how the president
handled the withdrawal. What would you have done differently? How would you
have pulled out troops without the bloodshed we're seeing now?
Gabbard responded
Well, first of all, we've got to understand the reality of
the situation there, which is that the slaughter of the Kurds being done by
Turkey is yet another negative consequence of the regime change war that we've
been waging in Syria.
Donald Trump has the blood of the Kurds on his hand, but so
do many of the politicians in our country from both parties who have supported
this ongoing regime change war in Syria that started in 2011, along with many
in the mainstream media, who have been championing and cheerleading this regime
change war.
Not only that, but the New York Times and CNN have also
smeared veterans like myself for calling for an end to this regime change war.
Just two days ago, the New York Times put out an article saying that I'm a
Russian asset and an Assad apologist and all these different smears. This
morning, a CNN commentator said on national television that I'm an asset of
Russia. Completely despicable.
As president, I will end these regime change wars by doing
two things -- ending the draconian sanctions that are really a modern-day siege
the likes of which we are seeing Saudi Arabia wage against Yemen, that have
caused tens of thousands of Syrian civilians to die and to starve, and I would
make sure that we stop supporting terrorists like Al Qaida in Syria who have
been the ground force in this ongoing regime change war.
After Elizabeth Warren took a shot at the question, Pete
Buttigieg (figuratively and literally) confronted Gabbard, and it was on, with
Well, respectfully, Congresswoman, I think that is dead
wrong. The slaughter going on in Syria is not a consequence of American
presence. It's a consequence of a withdrawal and a betrayal by this president
of American allies and American values.
Look, I didn't think we should have gone to Iraq in the
first place. I think we need to get out of Afghanistan. But it's also the case
that a small number of specialized, special operations forces and intelligence
capabilities were the only thing that stood between that part of Syria and what
we're seeing now, which is the beginning of a genocide and the resurgence of
ISIS.
Meanwhile, soldiers in the field are reporting that for the
first time they feel ashamed -- ashamed -- of what their country has done. We
saw the spectacle, the horrifying sight of a woman with the lifeless body of
her child in her arms asking, what the hell happened to American leadership?
And when I was deployed, I knew one of the things keeping me
safe was the fact that the flag on my shoulder represented a country known to
keep its word. And our allies knew it and our enemies knew it....You take that
away, you are taking away what makes America America. It makes our troops and
the world a much more dangerous place.
Responding, Gabbard contended
Yeah, absolutely. So, really, what you're saying, Mayor
Pete, is that you would continue to support having U.S. troops in Syria for an
indefinite period of time to continue this regime change war that has caused so
many refugees to flee Syria, that you would continue to have our country
involved in a war that has undermined our national security, you would continue
this policy of the U.S. actually providing arms in support to terrorist groups
in Syria, like Al Qaida, HTS, al-Nusra and others, because they are the ones
who have been the ground force in this regime change war? That's really what
you're saying?
It continued with
COOPER: Mayor Pete -- Mayor Buttigieg?
BUTTIGIEG: No, you can embrace -- or you can put an end to
endless war without embracing Donald Trump's policy, as you're doing.
GABBARD: Will you end the regime change war, is the
question.
BUTTIGIEG: What we are doing...
GABBARD: What is an endless war if it's not a regime change
war?
COOPER: Allow him to respond. Please allow him to respond.
BUTTIGIEG: What we are doing -- or what we were doing in
Syria was keeping our word. Part of what makes it possible for the United
States to get people to put their lives on the line to back us up is the idea
that we will back them up, too.
When I was deployed, not just the Afghan National Army
forces, but the janitors put their lives on the line just by working with U.S.
forces. I would have a hard time today looking an Afghan civilian or soldier in
the eye after what just happened over there. And it is undermining the honor of
our soldiers. You take away the honor of our soldiers, you might as well go
after their body armor next.
This president has betrayed American values. Our credibility
has been tattered.
Nonetheless, Buttigieg acquitted himself well in the manner
of optics. Understanding that an empty attempt to appeal to patriotism can be the last
refuge of scoundrels, he claimed Gabbard chose to "take away the honor
of our soldiers, you might as well go after their body armor next." No one
ever lost a vote by wrapping himself in the flag of "the troops."
Substantively, on seven (7) occasions, Tulsi Gabbard mentioned
"regime change war" and once "regime change wars." Once she
charged "Donald Trump has the blood of the Kurds on his hand, but so do
many of the politicians in our country from both parties," The mayor might
have criticized her for the moral equivalence of equating American politicians
with Bashir al-Assad, but with bothsiderism a crucial part of the centrist
creed, that was not tempting for Buttigieg.
Yet, Cooper was not quite up to the challenge, failing to
ask Gabbard what she meant by "regime change" or "regime change
wars." Fact-checker Daniel Daleassessed the accuracy of the congresswoman's claim here, summarized as
The story of American involvement in the Syrian civil war is
complicated and difficult to assess. The US military intervention in Syria has
been debated since it began -- but Gabbard's claim that American forces were
engaged in a "regime-change war" cuts against what US officials have
said about American policy in Syria. Some US-backed militias have fought the
Syrian government, but US troops were there to help defeat ISIS.
A candidate for President whom some people have attacked as
being cozy with Assad maintains that the USA has conducted a war which
"has caused so many refugees to flee Syria" while a fact-checker
writes "there is no evidence to suggest that American forces were engaged
in an effort to overthrow Assad." There should have been a further examination
of Gabbard's view, which contrasts radically with that of the American military
and political establishment and would prompt a dramatic restructuring of Mideast
policy.
Admittedly, that would have taken a few minutes away from
the discussion, closing the debate, of how everyone should be given a hug, maybe hold hands, and be nice to each
other:
Oh, sweet Jesus. Having destroyed this debate, Anderson Cooper is now setting the debris on fire. ELLEN DEGENERES????????????????????
Kill me now.
released a bill Wednesday that threatens a series of
economic sanctions against Turkey for its incursion, and Van Hollen claimed
Sunday that “momentum is building for the Congress to act” amid the dayslong
Turkish assault.
“Congress is going to first call upon the president to do
the right thing, but since we can't count on that, we will have this bipartisan
legislation that will impose very stiff sanctions on Turkey until they stop
their aggression and withdraw their forces,” he said.
Van Hollen also blasted Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin’s
announcement Friday that Trump would sign an executive order granting the Treasury
Department, in consultation with the White House and Secretary of State Mike
Pompeo, “very significant new sanctions authorities” against Turkey.
While Mnuchin warned the administration “can shut down the
Turkish economy if we need to,” he stressed that “there are no sanctions at
this time” against Ankara.
“For God's sakes, what are they waiting for, right? People
are being killed right now,” Van Hollen said Sunday.
It took a while for some of us to figure it out, but now we
have a pretty good idea what they were waiting for because
Commander of Kurdish forces in #Syria to US official:
"I need to know if u are capable of protecting my people, stopping these bombs falling on us or not... If not, I need to make a deal w/Russia & regime now & invite their planes to protect this region”https://t.co/WmhracL2qs
We are capable but Donald Trump is not willing, and that
commander probably realizes by now that the President of the USA is eager to
expand Russian influence in the Middle East. Speaking on Wednesday, the President
seemed unconcerned by warnings that thousands of other ISIS
fighters — and thousands of their family members who are held in separate
facilities in the region, including many who still sympathize with the
extremist group — could escape amid mounting chaos.
"Well they're going to be escaping to Europe, that's
where they want to go, they want to go back to their homes," Mr. Trump
said at the White House.
That should do wonders for the European security. It's as though Vladimir Putin, always on the
lookout to bust up the European Union, had suggested to his Washington friend
that there is no better way to punish European nations, a prime aim of
President Trump, than to invite ISIL terrorists to travel west into the
European mainland.
Trump's motivation is increasingly becoming clear. But even during
campaign 2016, Slate's Franklin Foer recognized
Having a friend in the Kremlin would help Trump fulfill his
longtime dream of planting his name in the Moscow skyline—a dream that he
pursued even as he organized his presidential campaign. “Russia is one of the
hottest places in the world for investment,” he once said. “We will be in
Moscow at some point.”
The next thing you know, he'll get himself photographed in
front of a Russian battleship. Oh, wait- he took care of that on Sunday morning:
It was less than four months ago when we were told
Never said when an attack on Syria would take place. Could be very soon or not so soon at all! In any event, the United States, under my Administration, has done a great job of ridding the region of ISIS. Where is our “Thank you America?”
A news reporter fairly uncontroversially responded "ISIS was
defeated in war-ravaged Syria and Iraq with the help of military support from a
US-led coalition of forces including Britain, Australia, Canada, France,
Germany, and Denmark." Even now: "President Bashar Assad has gone
on to crush the last remaining rebel enclaves near the cities of Damascus and
Homs and swept rebels from the southwest."
Not so fast, Skippy.
On Wednesday, Reuters reported
Daesh (ISIS) militants killed about 100 people in a series
of attacks on government-held parts of southwestern Syria Wednesday, including
multiple suicide blasts in Swaida city, official sources said.
The coordinated attacks were the deadliest to hit government
territory in many months. Some 96 people were killed and 176 wounded in total,
the head of the Swaida health authority told the pro-Damascus Sham FM radio.
The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, a Britain-based
activist group, said at least 100 people were killed. Daesh said in a statement
that it had carried out the attacks.
Northeast of Swaida city, the jihadists launched
simultaneous attacks on several villages where they clashed with government
forces, state media and the Observatory said.
In the city itself, at least two attackers blew themselves
up, one near a marketplace and the second in another district, state television
said. State news agency SANA said two other Daesh militants were killed before
they could detonate their bombs.
The Observatory said jihadists seized hostages from the
villages they had attacked. It said the dead included at least 35 civilians.
Swaida Governor Amer al-Eshi said authorities also arrested
another attacker. "The city of Swaida is secure and calm now," he
told state-run Ikhbariyah TV.
The man who once bragged "I alone can fix it" asked "Where is our 'thank you, America?"" He might even deserve that, despite ISIL still being in business, once he says "thank you, Britain," "thank you, Australia,"
"thank you, Canada," "thank you, France: and "thank you,
Germany."
Admittedly, it was pretty silly when last month Joe Biden, condemning Donald Trump for his remarks about women, declared "if we were in high school, I'd take him behind the gym and beat the hell out of him... Any guy that talked that way was usually the fattest, ugliest S.O.B. in the room."
He was, though, more mature when two months earlier he had tweeted "It’s not how a president should speak. It’s not how a president should behave. Most of all, it’s not what a president should believe. We’re better than this."
In February, Rob Porter- who couldn't obtain a security clearance from the FBI- was allowed to remain in his highly sensitive position before being fired. Biden observed "controlled chaos" in the administration and remarked "I'm having enormous difficulty understanding how this White House functions."
He's at least naming names. But Joe Biden no longer is the second banana to the leader of the free world, and the responsibility for calling out the current President of the United States of America should not fall upon him.
Doctors and rescue workers in Syria said at least 42 people were killed in an apparent chemical attack on a rebel-held town of Douma, in eastern Ghouta, located near the capital of Damascus. Rescue workers said they found families suffocated in their homes and shelters and videos spread online showing purported victims of the attack. “The attack was near bomb shelters and so it spread quickly in them,” a paramedic who helped treat a group of victims said. “The gas was concentrated and in a place where people thought they were safe.
President Trump took to Twitter, blaming Syria itself, Iran, and- finally- Vladimir Putin, although it is not clear what "President Putin, Russia and Iran are responsible for backing Animal Assad. Big price..." means, nor even what Trump meant by it. (Assad will pay a big price? Supporting a genocidal tyrant is a big price to pay for geopolitical influence? Something else?)
He did, however, blame someone else- the former president, Barack H. Obama:
If President Obama had crossed his stated Red Line In The Sand, the Syrian disaster would have ended long ago! Animal Assad would have been history!
We should not assume, without asking, precisely what Trump is saying or what he believes his predecessor should have done. When Obama, as the last president fluent in English, declared a "red line," he implied he would take decisive action if Damascus went beyond a certain point. If Obama had in fact taken action, he would not have crossed the red line; it was already crossed by Assad. However, Trump's tweet suggests he believed the then-President himself should have acted- "crossed his stated Red Line In The Sand"- without provocation.
Responding to Sunday's attack, Kathy Gilsinanin in The Atlanticargues that the 2014 chemical weapons deal struck by Obama Secretary of State John Kerry failed to prevent attacks such as the one Sunday because it did not include chlorine gas, which has civilian uses, and did not include "everything."
Gilsinan acknowledges that the agreement did force Damascus to declare 1300 tons of nuclear weapons, which were then destroyed. Moreover, "if all this added up to something short of disarmament, Trump's strike on regime targets following last April's sarin attack haven't achieved it either."
President Trump wants us to disregard the reality that Barack Obama left the office of the presidency over thirteen months ago.
Republican members of Congress have reacted to the outrages of the Trump Administration by remaining silent, raising their heads out of the sand only to support, nearly or completely unanimously, President Trump's legislative initiatives which have strengthened his hand.
And now there is this: former president Barack Obama remains silent. A lovely tradition has persisted wherein no former president criticizes an incumbent President, although the extent of that tradition is exaggerated. It is, of course, a small, exclusive, and privileged club. But Donald J. Trump is no ordinary President, and no ordinary human being. As a candidate, he practically birthed birtherism, and rode his conspiracy theory to the presidency; and as President, he has gone so far as to denounce former President Obama on foreign soil.
At six-foot-one, it is time for Barack Obama to stand up tall and defend his record. He should do so for his country and for his party. But most of all, he could show a little self-respect.
Derek Chollet, who served from 2012 to 2015 as assistant secretry of defense for international security affairs, has a nuanced view of the Tomahawk missile attack on a Syrian air base ordered last week by President Trump. While recognizing this may not represent "a dramatic change in adminstration policy," he told Slate
If the intent is not to end the civil war or remove Assad but rather to dissuade Assad from using chemical weapons again, it absolutely could succeed. This was part of my frustration with Obama's "red line" remark. What people failed to recognize is that that ultimately led to the peaceful removal, with the help of Russia, of 1300 tons of chemical weapons, which I don't think could have been accomplished with the use of force. This situation is different, but if this isolated attack deters Assad in the future, it's a success, even if it does nothing to end the broader conflict.
Former Secretary of State John Kerry- not even bothering to defend his former boss- appears to have a less nuanced, more common, view. Citing a source "close to the former diplomat," Politico writes Kerry "was 'absolutely supportive of Trump’s strike and “gratified to see that it happened quickly.'”
Democratic Senator Chris Coons of Delaware termed the attack "appropriate," though adding
This is not the time to significantly cut our investment in diplomacy and development and humanitarian aid. Because navigating through the very complex crises in Syria and Iraq is going to be difficult and expensive. If we're not prepared for a diplomatic solution and a development solution, once we retake [the] cities of Mosul and Raqqa, then we’re simply going to repeat some of the mistakes of the past.
The moderate view that a quick, limited attack to deter Bashar al-Assad from presiding over another chemical weapons attack carries more benefits than risks overlooks two critical elements of the President's action. Whatever the Administration's future course in the region, the action will inevitably be only a small part of an overall strategy. And that strategy will be carried out by one Donald J. Trump, whose sympathy for Syrian children does not extend to the ones who seek refuge in the land of the free and home of the brave.
That is no small matter because Donald Trump is a character unlike any other, with a character unlike any other. The day after the airbase was hit, David Frum explained
Every decision presents risks and costs, and any responsible decision maker insists on a detailed itemization of those risks and those costs. That cannot have happened here. Trump has walked into a military confrontation that implicates regional and global security with only the haziest notion of what might go wrong. One friend of mine has warned: “If it were good foreign policy, Trump wouldn’t be doing it.” Foreign policy is hard, and even the best process does not guarantee good outcomes. Sometimes you get lucky, and can escape the consequences of a bad process. But the odds are the odds. Ninety-nine times out of one hundred, bad processes lead to ugly results.
Chollet, Kerry, and Coons and uber hawks such as Senators Graham and McCain and former Representative (D-CA) Jane Harman have endorsed, to one degree or another, Donald Trump's first military action in the Middle East. Recognizing the prevalence of that perspective among critics of Trump, Matthew Yglesias-less gentlemanly than Frum- tweets, "Trump is an unstable, ignorant, madman with no regard for democracy but I'm glad he's shooting missiles' is a bizarrely popular take."
Rex Tillerson needs to get with the program. Or not. The Secretary of State is so far out of the loop, he couldn't locate it with a telescope- if, say, the GOP regime allowed anything indicative of science.
We read Sunday The United States' first priority before trying to stabilize Syria is defeating the Islamic State, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said Saturday. In a video clip released by CBS' "Face the Nation," Tillerson told host John Dickerson that defeating the terrorist group minimizes a threat not only to the United States but also to regional stability. "It's important that we keep our priorities straight. And we believe that the first priority is the defeat of ISIS," Tillerson said in the clip. "That by defeating ISIS and removing their caliphate from their control, we've now eliminated at least or minimized a particular threat not just to the United States, but to the whole stability in the region." Tillerson said that once the threat of the Islamic state "has been reduced or eliminated," the U.S. can focus on stabilizing Syria.
When Donald Trump ran for president, he showed no interested in seeking the ouster of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad and fantasized routinely about the idea of working with his most powerful ally and protector, Russia, to defeat ISIS in Syria and Iraq. "Wouldn't it be nice if we got together with Russia and knocked the hell out of ISIS?” he frequently asked his audience on the campaign trail. But on Thursday Trump launched 59 tomahawk missiles at one of Assad’s airbases...
If creating a stable Syria were as easy as getting rid of Assad, as Trump seems to think now, the U.S.A. would have done so long ago.
Instead, continued strikes against the regime of the butcher of Damascus would result in either continued civil war or eventual control by "Saudi-, Qatar-, and Turkish-backed anti-government Jihadis," which would further destabilize the region and pose a security threat to the U.S.A. It is the primary reason that the Obama Administration assumed a very limited role in the ongoing civil war in Syria, an approach once supported by Donald Trump. Trump reversed course during the campaign, when he posed as ISIL's biggest condemnor.
Tillerson's remarks this weekend echo that priority. However, they stand in stark contrast to the Tomahawk missile onslaught ordered Thursday by the President. And on Sunday's Meet The Press, US Ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley stated "In no way do we see peace in that area with Russia covering up for Assad. In no way do we see peace in that area with Assad as the head of the Syrian government. And we have to make sure that we're pushing that process."
Whatever the wisdom (or lack thereof) of Secretary Tillerson's thinking, it clearly runs contrary to that of the Trump Administration now. That is: as of this moment, because Donald Trump's child-like mentality is characterized by the impulsiveness he displayed this past week when pictures of slaughtered children awakened in him a concern about Bashir Assad that six years of war, several hundred thousand dead, and millions of refugees did not.
"Now that Obama's poll numbers are in tailspin," tweeted Donald J. Trump in October of 2012, "watch for him to launch a strike in Libya or Iran. He is desperate." He repeated this advice more than a dozen times in 2013 and 2014.
That strike against Libya or Iran never came. In retrospect, we should have expected that as president.Trump would launch a military strike, legitimately prompted or otherwise, of some sort somewhere in that theatre.
If you're Donald J. Trump, it's what you do- whatever heinous thing it is that you accuse your opponent of doing, This President- with his extensive and profitable business enterprises around the globe- has been in constant violation of the Emoluments Clause of the U.S. Constitution. This is anastoundingly ironic violation committed by the man whose twin campaign slogans were "Make America Great Again" and "Crooked Hillary."
The New York Times on January 27 reported that the President
spent his first week in office repeating the lie that between three million and five million people had voted illegally in the November election, first to members of Congress, then on Twitter, then in an ABC News interview, then again on Twitter on Friday, citing an unsubstantiated claim popular in conspiracy circles. On Wednesday, Mr. Trump had announced in a pair of tweets that he would be asking for a “major investigation” into voter fraud, “including those registered to vote in two states.”
There is no word on whether the Trump family or regime remains infested with individuals committing this dastardly form of voter fraud. Chief Strategist Seve Bannon, Press Secretary Sean Spicer, Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin, son-in-law and diplomat-at-large Jared Kushner, and daughter Tiffany Trump may still be thwarting American democracy by being registered in two states.
Given that this is not illegal, the President of the United States is ignorant and corrupt, and the newest Associate Justice of the Supreme Court is a plagiarist, this inconvenient fact is approximately #998 of 1000 sins of this young Administration. But it should be a reminder both that GOP voter suppression is nothing more than a tool to elect Republicans, and that President Trump, most adoring that which he publicly most abhors, is a thoroughly unpredictable, hence dangerous, man.
In one of his famous tweets, private citizen Donald Trump in September, 2013 contended "The only reason President Obama wants to attack Syria is to save face over his very dumb RED LINE statement. Do NOT attack Syria, fix U.S.A."
At a debate two years later, GOP presidential contender Trump stated
“I wouldn’t have drawn the line, but once he drew it, he had no choice but to go across. Somehow, [Obama] just doesn’t have courage. There is something missing from our president. Had he crossed the line and really gone in with force, done something to Assad, if he had gone in with tremendous force, you wouldn’t have millions of people displaced all over the world.
Nearly a year later, in an attempt to tar Hillary Clinton with Barack Obama's controversial policy in Syria, the GOP nominee at the second presidential debate stated "Obama draws the line in the sand. It was laughed at all over the world what happened."
The White House has confirmed that Donald Trump's team is in the "beginning stages" of discussing a plan to move the US embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. Mr Trump said repeatedly during the election campaign that he intended to relocate the US embassy to Jerusalem, despite warnings the move would violate international law and destroy the peace process.
However, one terrorist group is not amused- or intimidated- as Politico reports
A spokesperson for the Gaza-based militant group Hamas said moving the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem would add “more oil to the fire” of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Osama Hamdan, also a senior leader in the group, said Palestinians will not abandon Jerusalem during an interview with Al Jazeera English’s current affairs show Upfront that's set to air Friday. “Now if there was changes or the United States administration try to make a change in the status of Jerusalem, of course that will mean an action from the Palestinian side and no one can control that,” he said. “[Trump] has to make a choice whether he wants to create peace in the region or he wants to add more oil on the fire."
Who's laughing now? Certainly not the individual who has drawn his own line in the sand- and had it erased by Hamas.
Trump ridiculed Obama for drawing the red line in the sand, then backing down (although he got something better with both Syria and Iran). Now Hamas is daring him to follow through on his campaign promise, and we will find whether Donald Trump is true to his word or determined to lead a pitiful, helpless giant.
"They" would be Chris Christie,who claimed on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos "Mrs. Clinton is Mrs. happy Talk, and she just wants to happy-talk her way to the presidency. She is a personification of this Administration: Are you going to believe me or your lying eyes."
Accused of being warm and fuzzy, Mrs. Clinton may have been confused with Mr. Clinton by the guy who has said
We have people across this country who are scared to death. Because I could tell you this, as a former federal prosecutor, if a center for the developmentally disabled in San Bernardino, California, is now a target for terrorists, that means everywhere in America is a target for these terrorists.
Scared to death! At least Christie's claim of Clinton's "happy talk" is not as bizarre as Carly Fiorina- Carly Fiorina!- saying Clinton will “lie as long as you (sic) can get away with it."
Seeking relevance, John Ellis Bush tweeted "No @HillaryClinton. We are not ‘where we need to be’ in fight against ISIS.”
Not surprisingly, the GOP candidates had nothing negative to say about the dangerous policy Hillary Clinton laid out in debate (AP photo via Salon, below) Saturday for the current Mideast crisis. "I have a plan," the Democratic front-runner started out rationally:
I have a plan that I've put forward to go after ISIS. Not to contain them, but to defeat them. And it has three parts. First, to go after them and deprive them of the territory they occcupy now in both Syria and Iraq. Secondly, to go after and dismantle their global network of terrorism. And Thirdly, to do more to keep us safe.
However, she continued "I am advocating the no-fly zone both because I think it would help us on the ground to protect Syrians; I'm also advocating it because I think it gives us some leverage in our conversations with Russia."
Having been awake and conscious the last thirteen years, Bernie Sanders responded
Yes, we could get rid of Saddam Hussein, but that destabilized the entire region. Yes, we could get rid of Gadhafi, a terrible dictator, but that created a vacuum for ISIS. Yes, we could get rid of Assad tomorrow, but that would create another political vacuum that would benefit ISIS. So I think, yeah, regime change is easy, getting rid of dictators is easy. But before you do that, you've got to think about what happens the day after. And in my view, what we need to do is put together broad coalitions to understand that we're not going to have a political vacuum filled by terrorists, that, in fact, we are going to move steadily -- and maybe slowly -- toward democratic societies, in terms of Assad, a terrible dictator. But I think in Syria the primary focus now must be on destroying ISIS and working over the years to get rid of Assad. That's the secondary issue.
There is time, arguably not the ability, to overthrow the regime in Damascus. For now, we can learn from World War II in Europe, when the USA and the Soviet Union were allies despite Joseph Stalin. If the Soviets did not join the fight against the Third Reich, it is unlikely that Nazi Germany would have been defeated and the horrors pressed against Europe (and perhaps beyond) by Adolph Hitler would have far surpassed the evil visited upon eastern Europe by the communist regime. First things, first.
The USA need not ally itself with Russia, which whatever its motives (self-interest, no doubt) is undermining ISIL, the rebel group most likely to enter Damascus triumphant is Assad is soon deposed. Exceptional or not, the USA cannot simultaneously defeat ISIL and overthrow Bashir Assad. Aside from threatening World War III, a no-fly zone would undermine the Russian campaign against the most brutal terrorist group in the world today." If you hamper the war effort of one side," George Orwell once wrote, "you automatically help that of the other." That Bernie Sanders and Rand Paul are nearly alone among major presidential candidates who understand that is worrisome.
"It's time we punch Russia in the nose," one of the most judicious GOP presidential candidates asserted last night in Las Vegas. Observed Charlie Pierce: "that was noted Republican moderate John Kasich."
No one, however, does macho even nearly as well as Chris Christie. The governor was asked "if the U.S. imposed a no-fly zone over Syria and a Russian plane encroached, invaded that no-fly zone, would you be prepared to shoot down that Russian plane and risk war with Russia?" He replied
CHRISTIE: Not only would I be prepared to do it, I would do it. A no-fly zone means a no-fly zone, Wolf. That’s what it means. (APPLAUSE)
See, maybe — maybe because I’m from New Jersey, I just have this kind of plain language hangup. But I would make very clear — I would not talk to Vladimir Putin. In fact, I would talk to Vladimir Putin a lot. But I’d say to him, “Listen, Mr. President, there’s a no-fly zone in Syria; you fly in, it applies to you.” And yes, we would shoot down the planes of Russian pilots if in fact they were stupid enough to think that this president was the same feckless weakling that the president we have in the Oval Office is right now.
"Feckless weakling?" And they call Donald Trump a fascist. (Probably neither is a fascist, but no one trumps Chris Christie at the authoritarian thing.) This is not only great theater, but great humblebrag, with Christie confessing to having a "plain language hangup."
"Well, I think if you’re in favor of World War III, you have your candidate," countered Rand Paul in what Pierce refers to as "a decent body shot." However, Paul then forgot he was running in a Republican primary and added "My goodness, what we want in a leader is someone with judgment, not someone who is so reckless as to stand on the stage and say, 'Yes, I’m jumping up and down; I’m going to shoot down Russian planes.'"
Yes, that is who GOP voters want, and their allies in the defense industry wouldn't mind churning out a few more missiles, either. However, Paul added
And so if we announce we’re going to have a no-fly zone, and others have said this. Hillary Clinton is also for it. It is a recipe for disaster. It’s a recipe for World War III. We need to confront Russia from a position of strength, but we don’t need to confront Russia from a point of recklessness that would lead to war.
Then the Kentucky Senator used the word "judgment" thrice while trying to gain support among Republican primary voters, whose favorite candidate is Donald J. Trump. That works about as well as would emphasizing women's autonomy in a speech before National Right to Life.
Christie then employed the literary device of anaphora, using the word "reckless" seven times before huffing and puffing
And if you think that a no-fly zone is a reckless policy, you’re welcome to your opinion. But how is it working so far? As we have 250,000 Syrians murdered, slaughtered; millions running around the world, running for their lives. It’s not working. We need to try something else. And that is not reckless.
That's "reckless" twice more, a clever move for voters who now appear to want Donald Trump as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces and leader of the Free World. And no one noticed that if the dictionary is opened to the word "reckless," up pops a reference to threatening to start World War III because "something" must be done. ("Terror takes center stage at Republican debate," read the weirdly ironic caption from the Wall Street Journal on Twitter, photo below.)
If that's a reckless policy, that to the Israelis. After Turkey shot down a Russian plane over its airspace, a "senior military official" told reporters "the Russian miliary is a new, key player which we are not ignoring. There is a clear boundary here, and they are busy with theirmatters, and we are busy with ours." The Jerusalem Post has reported
When asked if Israel would hypothetically intercept a Russian jet that crossed into its air space, the official said: "Our policy is that we do not attack or down anything that is Russian." "Russia is not an enemy," he said. "We are trying to avoid tension with the Russians. Both sides wish not to get to a point where two pilots, an Israeli and a Russian, will meet in the air and will be unsure of what to do. We are not going near the aerial zone in which they are operating, and they don't come close to where we are operating." "This region is made up of common boundaries, and there are a lot of players on the ground and in the air," the official said. "If a Russian plane crosses the aerial boundary, we will not launch a missile and we won't down it."
There is no word on whether Chris Christie believes Tel Aviv is "reckless" or at least a "feckless weakling." There is, alas, also no way of predicting with certainty Moscow's response if it were to violate a no-fly zone announced by the USA. Engaged in Syria primarily to prop up Bashar al-Assad, Russia's air war is directed against rebel groups, the most powerful of which is ISIL. Action taken against Russia, therefore, would have the unintended- but predictable- effect of strengthening ISIL which Christie (as well as others in the Republican field) argue President Obama has been feckless in fighting.
Rand Paul cannot present the red meat to the Republican voters that the likes of Chris Christie, Ted Cruz, or Carly Fiorina can. Nonetheless, "as a debate that touched on almost every overseas military adventure that the United States has taken in the past 25 years," Charlie Pierce concludes," it is an argument worth having, in both parties. "
To the contrary: they do "get it" and they- or at least Maher- is not a bigot (video of theabsolutely horrid conversation below). Johnson maintains
Dawkins doesn’t go after “all religions” equally. Quite the opposite, he has said that Islam is uniquely sinister, referring to it as “unmitigated evil“, on numerous occasions. Accusations of bigotry against Dawkins, therefore, are not selective in favor of Islam, they are areaction to his selective, repeated highlighting of it – fair or not. Secondly, this position is dripping with libertarian false equivalency. The “I criticize all religions equally” is the close cousin to “I criticize all races equally” — a principle that sounds cute in theory but willfully ignores the burden of history and imperialism.
I rarely have heard the phrase "I criticize all races equally," but perhaps I need to get out more often. Clearly, Johnson appears to be unaware that Dawkins and Maher abhor all manifestations of religous or spiritual belief, whether Western religion, eastern religion, or any New Age perversion of either. Typically, Bible-believing Christians, many of them unaware of Maher's equal opportunity criticism, consider these guys reprehensible.
Obviously obsessed with the evil of western civilization, Johnson argues that the President Obama who
has bombed seven Muslim countries in as many years is seen as irrelevant. Western panic and outrage over “women in beekeepers suits” (what Maher calls burkas) is entirely divorced from the convenient “civilizing mission” of America’s wars in Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, and Afghanistan
Johnson does not acknowledge that women have been wearing burkas/beekeeper suits since long before "America's wars in Iraq,Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Pakistan, and Afghanistan." He ignores the genital mutilation, honor killings, and the dearth of democratic traditions in Islamic nations.
These characteristics pre-date those wars to which Johnson refers, and which the USA didn't begin. Moreover, no one in American government has described any activities as part of a "civilizing mission," though one must credit Johnson for a subtle implication of racism without specification of individuals or events.
He claims Without directly addressing American empire and its relationship to radical Islam their analysis will invariably be superficial. Bill Maher and Richard Dawkins have walked into a game between a Division III college football team and the New England Patriots and feel good about themselves for calling holding on both sides. In a very limited, morally O.C.D. way, they’re correct, both sides are technically in violation given the rules of the game. But without addressing these rules or the broader power asymmetry at work, they’re party to a farce, a rigged discourse that mistakes “consistency” for fairness and posturing for principle.
Sorry, Adam: while Maher never has denied that the war in Iraq has contributed to radicalization in the Arab world, terrorist groups such as ISIL cannot be explained merely as an offspring of western imperialism. Nor will obliviousness to that organization's barbarity, directed most enthusiastically toward innocent, men, women, and children, decline if a blind eye is turned toward its fanaticism or the foreign policy of the west is scapegoated. Neither is ISIL (or al-Qaeda, Al-Nusra, or other terrorist groups) akin to a Division III team playing the New England Traitors (uh, er, Patriots).
This is not the Penn Quakers. Nor were US forces responsible when, as was reported in August
ISIL has claimed a powerful car bombing that tore through a Cairo police building on Thursday, injuring at least 29 people. Six policemen were among those wounded in the explosion but officials said that none of the injuries were life-threatening. Described by a resident as “like an earthquake”, the overnight explosion shook the working-class Shubra district of northern Cairo, severely damaging the front of the police office and shattering the windows of nearby buildings. The attack came just days after president Abdel Fattah El Sisi imposed a tough new antiterrorism law. The country is facing a militant insurgency spearheaded by Sinai Province, a local affiliate of ISIL. Egypt’s interior ministry said that a car had exploded outside the police building, which houses a centre for investigating threats to national security, in the early hours of Thursday morning. Prior to the explosion, a man was seen parking the car in front of the building and escaping on a motorbike that had followed the vehicle, the ministry said. “One policemen suffered moderate injuries and the rest [of those hurt] had minor injuries,” said health ministry spokesman Hossam Abdel Ghaffar.
Nor is ISIL the hapless Chicago Bears or the Detroit Lions (from whom officials snatched defeat from the jaws of victory Monday night), for as we learned in August The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) has captured Syria's ancient city of Palmyra, giving them control of almost half of the country, according to a monitoring group. Located in central Homs province and in the heart of Syria, Palmyra lies 210km northeast of Damascus in desert that stretches to the Iraqi frontier to the east. The UK-based Syrian Observatory for Human Rights said on Thursday that ISIL now controls approximately 95,000 sq km of land in nine out of 14 provinces since they declared their alleged caliphate - which puts them in control of almost half of the country.
When Syria's Bashir al-Assad died, power was transferred to his son, Bashir al-Assad, and not by a fair and free election. The military state endured and the government in Baghdad has become increasingly theocratic. Bashir's Baathist regime has been marked by its own viciousness, including torture of political enemies, starving the citizens whom it doesn't spy on, destroying a city of nearly a million people, and the use of chemical weapons. And that state is ISIL's sworn enemy, demonstrating the nature of conflict in the Middle East, and of the partisans involved.
Admittedly, European and non-Muslim nations are not blameless. That applies particularly to Russia, whose contribution to the Syrian civil war now appears to be bombing U.S.-aided rebel groups, which have at least a pretense to desiring a democratic state.
Russia is, however, an outlier among nations not overwhelmingly Islamic. It may not be true, as Aayan Hirsi Ali contends, that "Islam is not a religion of peace." However, if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, we at least must admit it might be a duck, and labeling prominent critics of Islam "bigots" will not prove the religion plays no role in the world's most flammable tinderbox.
