Neocon War-monger and Israel-firster Thomas Friedman Writes Trump Should Leave “ISIS” Alone and Send More Weapons to Al-Qaeda
by Scott Creighton
Sean BUTTERS Spicer said it the other day: the first goal is destabilizing Syria. Making ready for “regime” change.
Over at the New York Times, neocon Thomas Friedman, who has never met a war he didn’t like, wrote an Op-Ed that takes that credo and turns it into a plan of action that he suggests Trump follow. After all, as he puts it in the end, Syria is a dirty, devious, merciless place where anything goes apparently… and that should be right up the Duke of Orange’s alley.
Being remarkably candid, Friedman says he thinks Trump should let “ISIS” be and instead focus more time and resources on arming al-Qaeda so they can better protect themselves from the villains in this story, Iran, Syria, Russia and Hezbollah who are clearly villains because… they’re fighting al-Qaeda and “ISIS”
“… But when pressed, there is one idea everyone on the team seems to agree on: “The defeat of ISIS,” as Secretary of State Rex Tillerson put it.
Well, let me add to their confusion by asking just one question: Why?…
We could dramatically increase our military aid to anti-Assad rebels, giving them sufficient anti-tank and antiaircraft missiles to threaten Russian, Iranian, Hezbollah and Syrian helicopters and fighter jets and make them bleed, maybe enough to want to open negotiations…
We could simply back off fighting territorial ISIS in Syria and make it entirely a problem for Iran, Russia, Hezbollah and Assad. After all, they’re the ones overextended in Syria, not us. Make them fight a two-front war — the moderate rebels on one side and ISIS on the other.” Thomas Friedman
In the annals of bad ideas put to paper, these kinda top the charts if you consider U.S. foreign policy history that it. Didn’t we arm al-Qaeda once before over in Afghanistan to undermine the Russians way back when? And how did that work out?
Filed under: Idlib chemical weapons attack, Khan Sheikhoun, Scott Creighton, Sean BUTTERS Spicer, Shayrat air base, Thomas Friedman, War against Syria, White Helmets psyop, White House bogus CW report | 10 Comments »
While Talking about his “beautiful piece of cake” Trump Lies About Success Rate of 59 Missiles “heading toward Iraq”
by Scott Creighton
This guy is an idiot and what’s more, it seems the Pentagon may have launched the attack without his approval.
In this interview, President Trump finally answers the tough question: what exactly was he doing when they launched missiles at Syria (a crime of aggression and unconstitutional)
He says he and the president of China were eating “the most beautiful piece of chocolate cake.” when someone leaned over to him and told him “the generals” said the “ships were locked and loaded. What do you do? And we made the determination to do it”
The idiot interviewing him is actually giggling about the situation. She’s gleeful. Like a kid talking to her parents about going to Disney World or something. It’s disgusting.
Notice right when he starts to talk about the “message”, he keeps looking off to the right as he recounts what happened. He doesn’t do that talking about the fucking cake. Just the “message”.
by Scott Creighton
Last night’s attack on the Syrian airbase has prompted some cliched responses from the usual suspects but it has also generated some rather interesting ones.
First of all, the “coalition” has responded positively. Germany, Britain, Israel (of course) and Saudi Arabia along with a few others have said this was the perfect response to the Idlib chemical weapons attack that no one knows whether or not it really came from Assad or was in fact a chemical weapons “attack” or simply an airstrike that hit an al Qaeda chemical weapons munition depot that stored the Sarin Hillary Clinton sent over from Libya years ago. In all likelihood, that is what happened.
On Fox News, the old neocon warmongers are literally giggling this morning as they report on big brave Trumpster because he “sent a message” and “reestablished American authority in the region”
(Of course these Fox guys are steadily running down the idea of “international law” and restrictions by the United Nations Security Council as limitations to be upheld by other countries, not by an Exceptional America.)
I’m sure Chris Mathews has a new stain in his pants. Though he suggest last night that Trump only launched the attack as cover for his being Putin’s Manchurian candidate, so there is that.
Rachel Maddow spent last night trying to sit squarely on the fence at one time wondering aloud if the strike was legal (it wasn’t) and at others helping the demiGod of Orange justify his crime of aggression.
All of these reactions were completely predictable. What wasn’t is the sudden inclusion across the board of commenters wondering aloud about what rises to power in a vacuum caused by Assad being forced from office. I have seen this question raised on MSNBC, CNN and Fox News this morning and in every occasion, they conclude it would be best if we:
- continue the fight against “ISIS”
- “stabilize” the country as best we can (breaking it up and handing pieces over to folks like the Kurds)
- and… using the coalition to bring about a POLITICAL regime change, not a military one
For those of you paying attention that is not only a STARK departure from what ALL of these outlets were saying just 24 hours ago… but it is EXACTLY what Rex Tillerson said in response to the Idlib “chemical weapons attack”
So it looks like the limited strike has satisfied the blood lust of the war-mongers and they are now willing to adhere to Trump and Tillerson’s policy prior to the airstrike which is a fascinating development. They didn’t go so far as to suggest the Syrian people had a right of self determination, but they did say a “political solution” is preferable.
So I wonder just how much of this strike was just for show or… for the benefit of American audiences more than anything else.
To that question, the Pentagon released a statement after the attack in which they admit they warned the Russians and the Syrians of the impending strike. That is why so few (if any) Syrian planes were hit during the attack.
There are conflicting reports regarding whether or not they warned Syria about the strike. But we all know they warned Russia and certainly everyone knew Russia would warn the Syrians so either way, they warned the Syrians.
On Behalf of al Nusra, Donald Trump Just Launched an Illegal and Unauthorized Military Strike Against Syria
by Scott Creighton
IMPEACH DONALD TRUMP… NOW
While meeting with the president of China, the United States launched an illegal and unauthorized attack on the Syrian military targeting the Ash Sha’irat airfield in Homs province, western Syria.
It is being reported that 50 cruise missiles targeted the airfield where Trump believed the Syrians launched their “chemical weapons attack” 3 days ago.
Trump had no authorization from congress to use military force against the Syrian government or it’s military. In fact they are still investigating the “chemical weapon attack” and as of his attacking Syria, it has not been proven a chemical weapon was even used, much less, who used it.
Earlier, Sec. of State Tillerson, after the attack in Idlib, made a statement that has been grossly taken out of context and was being reported as if he said we were putting together a coalition to attack Syria. That is an absolute lie. This is what he said:
“With the acts that he has taken, it would seem that there would be no rule for him to govern the Syrian people,” Tillerson told reporters. “The process by which Assad would leave is something that I think requires and international community effort, both to first defeat ISIS within Syria, to stabilize the Syrian country to avoid further civil war, and then to work collectively with our partners around the world through a political process that would lead to Assad leaving.”
A week ago the Secretary of State said that the people of Syria would decide the fate of Assad and that our efforts to force regime change were over.