Home | About | Donate

Trump Hits His Tarrget: Domestic Critics Who Think He’s Too Close to Putin and Not Interventionist


#1

Trump Hits His Tarrget: Domestic Critics Who Think He’s Too Close to Putin and Not Interventionist

Greg Grandin

1. The bombing was for domestic consumption.


#2

The missile strikes were for domestic consumption? How about the strikes were for world consumption? If nothing else they were for media consumption most of all. All aboard whose coming aboard! Are you with the king or against him? I wish I had the mind of a conspiracy theorist who could explain the inexplicable with sureness and ease no matter where the unlikelihood led! Who did this and was it really done, they will ask! You have to ask no matter how strange it sounds because as yet we don't know and may never know with confidence.

For example, why did Trump act unilaterally like a king rather than a American citizen holding office? There was no emergency for America by any stretch of the imagination. So what is his justification for an act of war on his own say so? Could somebody ask his highness but please take his finger off that special button. It does seem more worrisome now that he could whenever he would!

But most of all ... the timing of this was so precise even up to the point that Congress was out of town for a couple of weeks. To the very day or rather the eve of the first day of recess. Let's curb that royal impatience a bit the next time you attack a country on your own say so!

Sure all the coincidences could be true nonetheless rather than being constructs arranged to draw a picture (justification? rationalization?) step by step. But then is yet another mainstay of our constitutional democracy effectively done away with? Who has the power to wage war? The Congress or the King... I mean the President.

Damn all that royal edict/presidential order prep has sunk in I think? Let's see...hmmn? After four full years of Trump's royal presidency... will the royal presidency then be permanent? Look at how Trump has been anointed by the media and the Dems with crown and scepter so quickly. They couldn't wait either in their turn.

One Man One War... and away we go! Who is next?

Did this happen? The dead are real but who and what killed them... we didn't wait to find out. Now you have to wonder whether we are still capable of finding out the truth after this investment in perception.


#3

Just prior to the chemical weapon attack, the Trump administration signaled an unmistakable level of complacence with respect to Assad. Clearly, they were willing to 'live with' Assad insofar as he was the least worst choice among many bad choices for leadership in Syria.

In my view, and the view of some others, this signaled to Assad that the coast was clear in terms of sending a message to his enemies: the USA is going to stand by while I demonstrate the folly of trying to fight me.

Thus, Trump is at least partly responsible for unleashing the full ruthlessness of Assad. Assad miscalculated on Trump, Trump miscalculated on his suddenly abandoned 'hands off' strategy.

Trump's next tweet writes itself: Who knew this MidEast thing was so complicated?


#4

You might be right but why would Assad even do this? Maybe he was set up (but the creep certainly deserves to be ousted anyway) but the timing of this seems so precise and tidy. This incident needed to be proven first. Will we ever be sure now what actually happened (and by whom)?

Trump had no need to be in such a rush and in fact it would have been more effective for him to have received confirmation as to what exactly happened. He rushed to war and proceeded with his con. Typical Trump.


#5

With no disrespect to the author, perhaps this strike is a good occasion to officially begin not giving credit to Don (i.e., normalizing his "presidency") by using his name.
Do we really believe that Don does anything than say yes or no to anything presented to him?


#6

I'm judging by the perfunctory denials from the assad regime and Russia, Wereflea.

But you're right about Trump going balls out regardless of proof. With Trump, all bets are off.

On the bright side, Hilary, McCain, and Kissinger are happy.


#7

War is not the answer

But the question doesn't get asked


#8

"the United States as a “giant which is walking faster and faster along a thinner and thinner line.” Today, that line is about gone, and we teeter like never before over the abyss." Are we on the verge of a war with Russia and Iran? Is this a war that we can't win. A war with not even the faintest idea of what to do after we either win or lose the war.
I think that perhaps dividing Syria into two parts might work in the short term. But one could argue that is what we did in Iraq and it certainly wasn' a long term solution.


#9

A very astute analysis of this latest episode of Washington War Madness! Love the Octavio Paz quote at the end. Amazing that he and King could see into the future so clearly 50 years ago!


#10

Bullshit! To say that one surgical strike made in the climate of quiet desperation, a major rule in military engagement had been broken in a theater of war in which we have an interest and liability, justifies almost two months of dismantling almost every social program the nation has supported for the last forty years is patently absurd. As no fan of military options I would have likely realized that these hardened sociopaths have no interest in the reasons for this strife but only in removing a perceived awkward obstruction. The perpetrators of the criminal act of gassing his own people puts Assad beyond the pale of humanity and Putin as a consort demands attention. The attack, as a singular incident, is easily justifiable. To do something else without support from a congress of his own party would be inexcusable.


#11

Sometimes in the same day. It all depends on how he believes the people he is talking think on a subject. I use the word belief because it is belief that drives him, reality is obviously too easy to manipulate.


#12

At the end of the day, exactly what is being celebrated here? We warned the Russians and Syrians ahead of time so they moved their planes except for a few under repairs. Everybody left and after 59 cruise missiles ($1,000,000 a pop) the runway was not hit (or even targeted?) and no functioning planes were hit. What was accomplished other than to anoint Trump with an unconstitutional permission to wage war without Congressional input.

The media keeps talking about how Trump was so tough (but impetuous) and all that but what exactly did he accomplish after warning the target ahead of time? Where is the proof, by the way, that this strike was legitimate? Where is there any evidence?

America celebrates that wage have anointed a king and hamstrung Congress and the constitution!

We lose !


#13

Since no investigation has been done, there is no way to know who perpetrated the sarin attack.

The jihadis that the US has been supporting in Syria for several years now were determined to have been the likely source of the sarin attack in 2013. However the MSM has been successful in making a lie a reality by stating over and over that Assad gassed his own.

Until late last year East Aleppo was controlled by "the rebels" now known to be primarily affiliated with al Qaeda. For the almost four years these US sponsored rebels or "moderates" were in control they kept the residents from leaving, starved them, summarily shot them, and lobbed bombs over to west Aleppo. East Aleppo lay in ruins and had no electricity and certainly had no internet but somehow the "moderate" rebels were able to tweet on what was currently going on like saying there was mass rape by the Syrian forces and mass executions of civilians. Russia and the Syrian government did bomb Aleppo to dislodge the rebels (Al qaeda) and there were civilian deaths from that. When East Aleppo was liberated from the so called rebels the rebels themselves fled to Idlib province where the current sarin gas attack took place. Please note There were no western reporters in East Allepo for the whole time the rebels controlled it.

The most important thing to know about Syria is that the US has been supporting the al Qaeda affiliated rebels all along. Our US president (Obama) spoke endlessly about our American values so it may be a shock to many that our government and it's allies Turkey and Saudi Arabia would arm the same organization that caused 911. This has got to cause a serious schism in people's brains. What? Our government supports al qaeda? In Syria, yes. But Why?

The Wahabists (Saudi Arabia) hate Shia, Assad is from a Shia sect.
The pipeline SA wants to put through. (US foreign policy is first and foremost about oil)
Israel wants Assad gone too because Hezbollah and Iran are allies of Assad.
The US does not control Assad and that's just not allowed.

Some authors to read about this are Robert Perry, Max Blumenthal, and Patrick Cockburn

Finally, the smoking gun is the 2012 Defense Intelligence Agency memo that actually states the US and its allies are fine with a caliphate being established in Syria:

“THE WEST, GULF COUNTRIES, AND TURKEY [WHO] SUPPORT THE [SYRIAN] OPPOSITION… THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING A DECLARED OR UNDECLARED SALAFIST PRINCIPALITY IN EASTERN SYRIA (HASAKA AND DER ZOR), AND THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT THE SUPPORTING POWERS TO THE OPPOSITION WANT, IN ORDER TO ISOLATE THE SYRIAN REGIME…”.


#14

There is nothing perfunctory about the denials. It is quite clear that not only did Syria not use chemical weapons, but that it has none, whereas the wahhabi militias, including ISIS and AlQaeda, armed and funded by the US and Gulf regimes, use them regularly.
Within about a month, if the planet last that long, it will be quite clear that, like the Ghoutta 'attack' in 2013 it will be impossible to claim any longer that Trump's 'response' to the 'attack' -obviously prepared long in advance of the date of the supposed incidents- is any longer tenable.


#15

That would work for you would it?
How about dividing the USA into two parts and putting the had that you live in under the rule of Islamic State?
Or maybe we could leave Syrians alone to choose their own governments and modes of governance, rather than organising sadistic terrorists into militias supplying them with the latest arms, paying their salaries and watching while they kill civilians and the army charged with protecting them?


#16

Domestic critics? I thought this was a thank-you to the Democrats who put Trump into the White House and have been screaming for more carnage in Syria for years.


#17

When the GOP reaches for babies you know you got a WAR on your hands. Not that they give a crap about babies but they make great props.