Syria’s Bashir Assad Vows To Fight ISIS Even Harder in Wake of President Trump’s Chemical Weapon Warning…

As the international community takes stock of the ramifications of President Donald Trump’s narrowly focused and strategic military strike against a Syrian air base, Syria’s Bashir Assad vows to fight ISIS even harder; sans chemical weapons.

“This aggression has increased Syria’s resolve to hit those terrorist agents, to continue to crush them, and to raise the pace of action to that end wherever they are.” ~ Bashir Assad

Good.

It is prudent for all interested observers to think sequentially and logically about the deliberative action taken by U.S. President Trump; and not expand or infer a larger motive than is currently evidenced within the scope of the engagement.

There are a myriad of outlying issues and exponential micro-ramifications.  However, there is every indication the current administration fully accepts the larger understanding that only two central elements are present in the Syrian conflict:  Bashir Assad -vs- Extremist Jihadists’ (al-Qaeda, al-Nusra, ISIS, et al.)

It is also prudent to remind ourselves the key principle behind the direct regional talks previously outlined (non-discussed in MSM) has been a clear understanding -between President Trump and the regional coalition they have formed- that ALL EXTREMISM must be confronted in order to achieve the desired regional result.

That said, last night, in the immediate aftermath of the strikes, Secretary of State T-Rex and National Security Advisor McMasters, outlined the reasoning, objectives and substantive considerations behind the U.S. decision.

The media is not adequately reporting on this briefing (all emphasis mine):

[…]  that as Assad has continued to use chemical weapons in these attacks with no response — no response from the international community — that he, in effect, is normalizing the use of chemical weapons, which then may be adopted by others. ~T-Rex

♦  SECRETARY TILLERSON:  Good evening, all.  I think what we want to try to do is give you a little bit of background on how we got to the statements by the President and the actions that were taken tonight.

As you’re well aware, Bashar al-Assad has carried out chemical attacks this past week on civilians, including women and children, and carried out attacks earlier — last month, March 25th and 30th in Homs Province, as well.  We have a very high level of confidence that the attacks were carried out by aircraft under the direction of Bashar al-Assad’s regime.  And we also have very high confidence that the attacks involved the use of sarin nerve gas.  At least the past three attacks were fairly high — we have high confidence on that.

I think it’s also clear that previous agreements that had been entered into pursuant to U.N. Security Council Resolution 2118, as well as Annex A agreements that the Syrian government themselves accepted back in 2013, whereby they would surrender their chemical weapons under the supervision of the Russian government.

Now, the U.S. and the Russian government entered into agreements whereby Russia would locate these weapons, they would secure the weapons, they would destroy the weapons, and that they would act as the guarantor that these weapons would no longer be present in Syria.

Clearly, Russia has failed in its responsibility to deliver on that commitment from 2013.  So either Russia has been complicit, or Russia has been simply incompetent in its ability to deliver on its end of that agreement.

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

I think the other thing that’s important to recognize — that as Assad has continued to use chemical weapons in these attacks with no response — no response from the international community — that he, in effect, is normalizing the use of chemical weapons, which then may be adopted by others.  So it’s important that some action be taken on behalf of the international community to make clear that these chemical weapons continue to be a violation of international norms.

I think it’s also important to recognize, as I think everyone does, the chaotic circumstances that exist on the ground in Syria, with the presence of a battle underway to defeat ISIS, the presence of al Qaeda elements inside of Syria, and a civil war that is underway.

So, clearly, one of the existential threats we see on the ground in Syria is if there are weapons of this nature available in Syria, the ability to secure those weapons and not have them fall into the hands of those who would bring those weapons to our shores to harm American citizens.

So there are a number of elements that, in our view, called for this action and which we feel was appropriate.  We feel the strike itself was proportional because it was targeted at the facility that delivered this most recent chemical weapons attack.  And in carrying this out, we coordinated very carefully with our international partners in terms of communicating with them around the world.  And I will tell you that the response from our allies in Europe, as well as the region in the Middle East, has been overwhelmingly supportive of the action we’ve taken.

So I’ll leave it there.  And let me turn it to NSA Director McMaster.

♦  GENERAL McMASTER:  I really have very little to add except to say that it was important during the President’s deliberations and its deliberations with his leadership that we weighed, of course, the risk associated with any military action, and we weighed that against the risk of inaction, which Secretary Tillerson has already really summarized, which is the risk of this continued egregious, inhumane attacks on innocent civilians with chemical weapons.

And so, really, nothing else to add to the Secretary’s summary.  And we’re happy to take any questions that you have.

Q    Could you go through just the timeline of how the President’s thinking changed?  And when did you present him with options and so forth?

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

GENERAL McMASTER:  Okay.  So the President was immediately notified upon news of the chemical attack, and he was very interested in understanding better the circumstances of the attack and who was responsible.

Our intelligence community, in cooperation with our friends and partners and allies around the world, collaborated to determine with a very high degree of confidence precisely where the location originated, and then, of course, the sort of chemicals that were used in the attack.

That confidence level has just continued to grow in the hours and days since the attack, associated with additional evidence that’s available, especially — so sad — sadly, from the victims that are being treated and the confirmation of the type of agent that was used, which was a nerve agent.

So that was — the initial interactions with the President were about the attack and responding to his questions about the nature of the attack, the scope of the attack, and who was responsible in particular.

And then we convened a meeting of the National Security Council principals — a small group; it wasn’t the full — it was almost the full National Security Council — to deliberate on options.  There were three options; you can imagine which those were.  There were three options that we discussed with the President, and the President asked us to focus on two options in particular, to mature those options.  And then he had a series of questions for us that we endeavored to answer.

We were able to answer those questions and come back to him in a decision — briefing today, again, with virtually all of the principals on the National Security Council here in Florida and then by video-telephone conference back in Washington.  And after a meeting of considerable length and a far-reaching discussion, the President decided to act.

And that’s the general sequence of events.  So rather two large and formal meetings, but really a whole series of discussions since the time of the attack.

Secretary, do you have anything to add to that?

SECRETARY TILLERSON:  No, I think just as I said, as I think H.R. has said, this was a very deliberative process.  There was a thorough examination of a wide range of options.  And I think the President made the correct choice and made the correct decision, first to be decisive in acting — acting against this heinous act on the part of Bashar al-Assad — but acting in a way that was clearly directed at the source of this particular attack, to send that strong message.

Other things were considered.  Those were rejected for any number of reasons.  And in my view, the President made the exact, correct decision.

Q    Mr. Secretary —

Q    Mr. Secretary, can you talk a little bit about your discussions in the last hour?  Secretary, did you speak to the President —

SECRETARY TILLERSON:  I’ll let Sean referee here.

MR. SPICER:  (Laughter.)  I’m good at it.  Hallie.

Q    Did you or did the President speak with President Putin prior to the attack?  Can you talk about the discussions that you had with Moscow and what the expectation is from them?

And then, General McMaster, I have a question for you as well, please.

SECRETARY TILLERSON:  There were no discussions or prior contacts, nor have there been any since the attack, with Moscow.

Q    And can you tell us about your expectations for what you think you will hear from President Putin or Foreign Minister Lavrov?

SECRETARY TILLERSON:  I’ll let them speak for themselves.

Q    General, McMaster, I’d like to ask you — the President — you talked a little bit in response to Steve’s question about the President’s evolution of his thinking.  Just a couple of years ago his encouragement was to stay out of Syria.  You talked about the images that sort of moved him into this direction — as he put it tonight, “beautiful babies cruelly murdered.”  Has his thinking then changed on allowing Syrian refugees into the United States, to your knowledge?

GENERAL McMASTER:  No, that wasn’t discussed as any part of the deliberations.

Q    And on the target, anything else on specifically what you believe was destroyed in the strike?

GENERAL McMASTER:  I’ll defer to the Pentagon on that.  But there were a number of targets that were associated with the ability of that airfield to operate and to continue mass-murder attacks against the Syrian civilians.  And the one thing that I will tell you, though, there was an effort to minimize risk to third-country nationals at that airport — I think you read Russians from that — and we took great pains to try to avoid that.  Of course, in any kind of military operation, there are no guarantees.  And then there were also measures put in place to avoid hitting what we believe is a storage of sarin gas there so that that would not be ignited and cause a hazard to civilians or anyone else.

MR. SPICER:  Margaret.

Q    Can I ask H.R. — sorry — both the Secretary and H.R. McMaster — what is the overriding message here?  Is it that — this is not clearly a declaration of war, but is it that for President Trump and this administration the credible threat of military force is back on the table?  Was this articulated or explained in any way to President Xi prior to the President’s remarks?  And do you see this as in any way sending a message more broadly on your policy towards North Korea that the President is willing to take decisive action?  If both of you would weigh in.

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

SECRETARY TILLERSON:  Well, I think as you just stated, this clearly indicates the President is willing to take decisive action when called for.  And I think in this particular case, the use of prohibited chemical weapons, which violates a number of international norms and violates existing agreements, called for this type of a response, which is a kinetic military response.

I would not in any way attempt to extrapolate that to a change in our policy or our posture relative to our military activities in Syria today.  There’s been no change in that status.  But I think it does demonstrate that President Trump is willing to act when governments and actors cross the line, and cross the line on violating commitments they have made and cross the line in the most heinous of ways.  I think it is clear that President Trump has made that statement to the world tonight.

Q    Mr. Secretary, can I —

MR. SPICER:  Hold on, hold on —

GENERAL McMASTER:  I really have no further comment on that question.  I think the Secretary covered it comprehensively.

Sean.

Q    Did you tell China in advance?

MR. SPICER:  Hold on one second.

Q    Mr. Secretary, if I could ask you to clarify Russia again — you said no contacts were made with Russia before the strikes today.

SECRETARY TILLERSON:  No contacts were made with Moscow, with President Putin.  There are military de-confliction agreements in place with the Russian military, and our military did operate under and in accordance with those de-confliction agreements in coordinating this particular attack.

Q    On the ground in Syria?

SECRETARY TILLERSON:  In Syria.

Q    Can you explain, Mr. Secretary, that process?  How was Russia notified?

SECRETARY TILLERSON:  Let me let H.R. —

GENERAL McMASTER:  There are normal channels open for de-confliction.  And I’ll just defer that to the Pentagon just for accuracy.  But the Pentagon, I know, is going to be talking to the press here soon, and I think it would be better if they give you a more precise answer if you’re looking for details.

Q    And, Mr. Secretary, if I could, obviously the diplomatic considerations here are of a magnitude that didn’t exist a number of years ago.  When you went into this, unlike President Obama, who was dealing simply with Bashar al-Assad, you’re dealing with Russia, you’re dealing with the Kurds, you’re dealing with Turkey.  Can you give us a little bit of the diplomatic calculation in undertaking this attack?

SECRETARY TILLERSON:  Well, my expectation is that all of those parties, with the exception of Bashar al-Assad and perhaps Russia, I think are going to applaud this particular action or effort.

Overall, the situation in Syria is one where our approach today and our policy today is, first, to defeat ISIS.  By defeating ISIS we remove one of the disruptive elements in Syria that exists today.  That begins to clarify for us opposition forces and regime forces.  In working with the coalition — as you know, there is a large coalition of international players and allies who are involved in the future resolution in Syria.

So it’s to defeat ISIS; it’s to begin to stabilize areas of Syria, stabilize areas in the south of Syria, stabilize areas around Raqqa through ceasefire agreements between the Syrian regime forces and opposition forces.  Stabilize those areas; begin to restore some normalcy to them.  Restore them to local governance — and there are local leaders who are ready to return, some who have left as refugees — they’re ready to return to govern these areas.

Use local forces that will be part of the liberation effort to develop the local security forces — law enforcement, police force.  And then use other forces to create outer perimeters of security so that areas like Raqqa, areas in the south can begin to provide a secure environment so refugees can begin to go home and begin the rebuilding process.

In the midst of that, through the Geneva Process, we will start a political process to resolve Syria’s future in terms of its governance structure, and that ultimately, in our view, will lead to a resolution of Bashar al-Assad’s departure.

MR. SPICER:  Jonathan.

Q    Mr. Secretary and General McMaster, does this strike significantly change Assad’s military capability to carry out an attack like this?  Or was it really about sending a message that this kind of attack is not acceptable?

SECRETARY TILLERSON:  Well, I’ll answer the last part of that.  This was clearly a very decisive action taken on the part of President Trump, who I think you heard yesterday said this particular heinous attack changed his view of how horrible these types of use of these weapons are.  That clearly changed President Trump’s view that something has to be done in response.

I’ll let H.R. McMaster respond to the second question of the military — whether it’s changed our military posture.

GENERAL McMASTER:  Obviously, the regime will maintain the certain capacity to commit mass murder with chemical weapons we think beyond this particular airfield.  But it was aimed at this particular airfield for a reason, because we could trace this murderous attack back to that facility.  And this was not a small strike.  It was not a small strike.  And I think what it does communicate is a big shift, right, a big shift in Assad’s calculus — it should be, anyway — because this is the first time that the United States has taken direct military action against that regime or the regime of his father.

So I think what is critical is the President’s decision in response to this mass murder attack, but also in the context of all the previous attacks that have occurred — I think over 50 — I think it’s over 50 chemical attacks previously, post-2013, when the U.N. resolution went into effect.  And so I think that it’s both.  It was aimed at the capacity to commit mass murder with chemical weapons, but it was not of a scope or a scale that it would go after all such related facilities.

Q    Were military personnel with any other nations, any of our allies, take part in this?  Or was this 100 percent a U.S. operation?

SECRETARY TILLERSON:  This was entirely a U.S. operation.

MR. SPICER:  Jen.

Q    Can you talk a little bit about whether there might have been just an emotional reaction to this from President Trump?  Assad cannot gas Americans, so do you think some emotional response to the sight and images of what happened in Syria played into this?  And secondly, can you talk about the reaction from President Xi?

//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js

SECRETARY TILLERSON:  No, I don’t think it was — I do not view it as an emotional reaction at all.  I think as President Trump evaluated this first attack, these attacks that occurred on his watch, and reflected upon the prior responses, or lack of responses, he came to the conclusion that we could not, yet again, turn away and turn an eye — turn a blind eye to what’s happened.

The use of these weapons, as I indicated earlier, one of the concerns we have is the more we fail to respond to use of these weapons, the more we begin to normalize their use.  And when we begin to normalize their use, we are opening up wider-spread use by others who would use such weapons.

And I don’t think we should in any way diminish the risk of the situation in Syria where there is a lot of chaos on the ground.  There are elements on the ground in Syria, elements that are plotting to reach our shore, and these type of weapons falling into their hands and being brought to our shore is a direct threat on the American people.

Q    Sorry, I wanted to ask you to clarify something, Secretary Tillerson, first, and then I also have a military question.  You were saying that there was no coordination with Moscow for this, but then you said that you followed the rules of de-confliction.  So that kind of suggests that you did talk to Russia in some capacity.  Can you just clarify that?

SECRETARY TILLERSON:  Well, I think Director McMaster answered it.  And again, I would direct you to the Pentagon to give you the precise procedures that are followed.  But these are battlefield agreements, because we’re operating in Syria, the Russians are operating in Syria.  As we have begun the march to defeat ISIS, many of our forces are becoming more approximate to one another, and so we have a de-confliction agreement in place with the Russian military.

And so there are command contacts that exist 24/7 for any type of operation that could bring us into conflict.  That’s the level of contact that we’re talking about.

Q    So is it more accurate to say that you didn’t seek approval from Moscow or anything like that for them to kind of give you the green light, but you followed protocol in terms of the military —

SECRETARY TILLERSON:  We sought no approval from Moscow or at any other level within the Russian infrastructure.  This was strictly following the rules that we have put in place, an agreement with the Russian military to de-conflict.  Because our target in this attack was not Russia, it was not the Russians, it was not their forces, nor any Russian individuals.  Our target was this airfield and the Syrian regime.

GENERAL McMASTER:  I would just add one thing.  The purpose was not to receive permission, the purpose was to reduce the chances of Russian casualties and to follow the procedures, as you mentioned.  But we wanted to take every possible measure we could to reduce the chance of Russian casualties.

MR. SPICER:  Thank you guys very much.  Appreciate it.  We’re going to have a great night.

END – 10:39 P.M. EDT

 

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Big Government, Big Stupid Government, ISIS, Islam, Israel, Jihad, President Trump, Russia, Syria, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

412 Responses to Syria’s Bashir Assad Vows To Fight ISIS Even Harder in Wake of President Trump’s Chemical Weapon Warning…

  1. MakeAmericaGreat says:

    Also, that whole “Obama comeback”?

    It’s over.

    – Susan Rice
    – Syria
    – New revelation that Obama called USA a “racist country.”

    We’re moving on. So Valerie Jarrett’s big drama plans are over.

    Everyone follows the Alpha.

    Obama’s time is over.

    Liked by 29 people

  2. sundance says:

    Liked by 20 people

  3. floridahoosier93 says:

    The adults are in charge again thank God.

    Liked by 10 people

    • God does not see age. People see age. God sees the treasures that are in the heart be they good or evil. The furries have good treasures in their heart. I can guide them. Droopy is honest. A woman kissing him makes droopy happy. All know what would make droopy even happier. That unfortunately is not allowed to be seen only alluded to. That is not war, lying, deceit, torturing or coveting what is not yours and yet the act is demonized.

      Like

  4. NewNonna!! says:

    First, yes, thank you Sundance. Like so many others I come to CTH for good intel. And you never fail to deliver. Even when your posts bring some Treepers down, as we’ve seen recently, I’d rather have access to good reporting and deal with it with prayer (rather than hand-wringing or -God forbid- pearl clutching) and with the knowledge that many fellow Deplorables out there are praying, too. Trust, sadly, often flies out the window in difficult times. But that’s when we need it most, IMO.

    Now, what I wanted to say was how absolutely uplifting TRex and McMaster’s responses were to the MSM reporters. Clear, firm, reasonable, and to the point without apologizing or being wishy-washy. I LOVED their interaction with the the reporters. THEY controlled the presses. That made me happy, and I wanted to share that with my fellow Treepers.

    Thank you, Sundance, for not just the good posts but for the platform for us to share. 👍🏼

    Liked by 21 people

    • DD More says:

      Don’t stop the press from Fake News.
      This – Q Mr. Secretary, if I could ask you to clarify Russia again — you said no contacts were made with Russia before the strikes today.
      SECRETARY TILLERSON: No contacts were made with Moscow, with President Putin. There are military de-confliction agreements in place with the Russian military, and our military did operate under and in accordance with those de-confliction agreements in coordinating this particular attack.

      Wasn’t like that in the early news reports. ONLY – “SECRETARY TILLERSON: There were no discussions or prior contacts, nor have there been any since the attack, with Moscow.”

      Then the photo of the NSC meeting – President Donald Trump receiving a briefing on the Syria military strike from the National Security team via video teleconference on April 06, 2017, at the Mar-a-Lago estate in West Palm Beach, Florida.

      But they told us Yesterday – Bannon was off the Council. Must be photoshopped sitting there.

      Liked by 1 person

    • LoveofUSA says:

      Exactly my thinking and a heart of appreciation. Well said NewNonna!! You speak for many Treepers here.
      I pumped the air when TRex and McMaster said:
      “I’ll defer to the Pentagon.”
      “I really have no further comment on that question.”
      “I think Director McMaster answered it.”
      and my favorite:
      “I’ll let them speak for themselves.”
      BOOM! (face slap on MSM faces)

      Liked by 2 people

    • All Too Much says:

      I’ve been sending the interview text all around to friends and some network.
      The description of the long term strategy, combined with the new regional alliance, is powerful.
      Great, great, stuff in there.

      Like

  5. Ziiggii says:

    read this with a grain of salt – it’s a pro-Assad media group:

    Breaking: Syrian airbase targeted by U.S. missiles still operational

    The Syrian airbase which was targeted by the U.S. military earlier today is still operational, with warplanes and bombers belonging to the Syrian Arab Air Force (SYAAF) taking off and landing at the facility.

    Footage showing Russian-manufactured Sukhoi Su-22 bombers using the Shayrat airbase, located in Homs province, has been released.

    https://www.almasdarnews.com/article/breaking-syrian-airbase-targeted-u-s-missiles-still-operational/

    looking for this supposed “footage”

    Liked by 2 people

    • Keln says:

      I do believe one airstrip was left intact. I don’t think the point was to completely destroy the airbase.

      Liked by 5 people

      • Ziiggii says:

        “I don’t think the point was to completely destroy the airbase.”

        no it wasn’t but based off what the Pentagon said in it’s statement last night “targeted aircraft, hardened aircraft shelters, petroleum and logistical storage, ammunition supply bunkers, air defense systems, and radars.” Only a few of the planes were destroyed – ones that were already out of commission for repairs.

        It’s also curious to note what the General said above…. that they didn’t want to destroy the place that stored the CW because you know all the women and little kids.

        Curious choice of words, no?

        Like

        • Keln says:

          I did think that was odd. From the pictures of the airbase, I don’t really see any schools or villages around or anything. Maybe they figured the dispersal zone would carry over to a nearby inhabited area. Not sure.

          Liked by 1 person

          • 3x1 says:

            Nearby town is <1mi. due East of "bunkers" Presumably those are the Sarin containing ones to be avoided. Don't know what prevailing winds are, but def close.

            Sarin rules for spills and fires:

            https://cameochemicals.noaa.gov/chemical/5170

            Under symptoms of exposure note all the members of the SLUDGE acronym.

            Photos I've seen of purported victims do not whow these signs. If their are better victim pics out there, would like to know (not being morbid, just seeing if any are showing classical exposure signs.

            Again, excellent job by the Navy being Right On Target!

            Liked by 2 people

        • ” . . .they didn’t want to destroy the place that stored the CW because you know all the women and little kids.”

          Was he saying that they left the chemical weapons in place?

          Liked by 2 people

          • Ziiggii says:

            Thats how I took it Eskie. They didn’t want to create collateral damage to the citizens if the CW was not completely destroyed in the attack.

            Makes one wonder why would they let them keep the very CW that is claimed to have been used to one day use it again….

            A bit rhetorical of course since Trump has already proven he will step in even without Russian blessings.

            Like

        • mireilleg says:

          Darn it where are the google eyes when you need them?

          Like

      • Niagara Frontier says:

        That’s especially true since we may want to land something there some day.

        Liked by 1 person

        • Ziiggii says:

          NO we wouldn’t…. I don’t think Trump will never send more than the handful of troops we already have in country. PLUS – that base is basically in the backyard of the Russian base.

          Like

          • Niagara Frontier says:

            What in my short post made you jump to the conclusion about significant troop deployments? I’m only thinking that making craters in landing strips doesn’t gain you much when their are other rich targets (planes, hangers, fuel, etc.) Also, there have been times in the past (Hint: rescue missions) where a strategically placed air strip came in handy. That’s all.

            Liked by 1 person

            • Ziiggii says:

              oh IDK

              “…since we may want to land something there…”

              Like

              • Niagara Frontier says:

                Got it. That’s the risk of trying to keep posts short, things go unsaid. Regardless, the “something” contained no numbers. Heck, it may be just enough to land a rescue mission if that ever became necessary.

                Liked by 2 people

            • Old CrewDog says:

              Both planes and fuel were targeted. Nine aircraft were reported destroyed. Another reported target was the airport’s radars and command and control facilities. Finally there was also the need to avoid igniting any large sarin gas storage facilities, further exacerbating the problem. Perhaps more important, re-establishing that traditional ,military concept that there are some weapons (nukes for example) you just don’t use… that’s a convention that has been largely observed since World War I. Assad seemed to have mislaid that message. Trump just provided him with a new copy, and a suggestion that he mind his p’s and q’s.

              Liked by 1 person

      • Sunshine says:

        Last night, Hillary said all airstrips have to be destroyed. What an ignoramus, she is. There is absolutely no point in destroying all landings strips. Air bases and landing strips are needed when the time comes to rebuild the country.

        Liked by 5 people

        • iswhatitis says:

          –> “Last night, Hillary said all airstrips have to be destroyed.”

          That’s part of her side’s “let the USA act as the ISIS Air Force” strategy – we knock out Syria’s air capabilities completely – then ISIS has an easier time rolling in. Hillary and friends = happy dance.

          Liked by 1 person

          • LoveofUSA says:

            Hillary and her ilk do NOT know how to build/rebuild. They only know how to destroy.
            We really dodged that bullet on November 8th 2016. Praise the Lord.

            Like

        • chbailey says:

          At every turn, President Trump hammers these destroyers revealing their hypocritical agenda-driven trampolines…abortion for babies in America yet rush to the “protection” of babies killed in Syria via war…Destroyers merely protect their gated self-interests using whatever current event might come their way.

          Like

        • mireilleg says:

          Not our job to rebuild. Tired of building other countries.

          Liked by 2 people

        • Empty pantsuit desperately trying to remain relevant.

          Like

      • deqwik2 says:

        Someone on FOX, (I think Jennifer Griffin), confirmed that they did leave an airstrip because it was a “hardened” runway & could be fixed pretty quick so they didn’t see it as important target.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Howie says:

      Oh Darn!

      Liked by 2 people

    • jameswlee2014 says:

      It is likely that the planes were taking off the day before, fleeing the oncoming wrath.

      Like

  6. Ziiggii says:

    Liked by 4 people

  7. ZZZ says:

    one question…what do we do about blowback…or perhaps we don’t care. the collateral damage is worth the spoils that come from bombing a sovereign nation…again.

    or…this is a moot question because there really is no “us” vs. “them” and this is all theater for a grander, more diabolical global scheme.

    I am leaning towards the latter.

    Like

  8. markstoval says:

    “As you’re well aware, Bashar al-Assad has carried out chemical attacks this past week on civilians, including women and children, and carried out attacks earlier — last month, March 25th and 30th in Homs Province, as well. We have a very high level of confidence that the attacks were carried out by aircraft under the direction of Bashar al-Assad’s regime. … “

    And the government assured us that Saddam had to be destroyed (and the middle east set into flames) because he had “weapons of mass destruction”. We had a “high level of confidence” on that also. We utterly destroyed an ancient civilization on false “intel”>

    I do not believe that Assad risked his very life to kill women and children with nerve gas, especially given that our government told us “with a high level of confidence” that all of his chemical weapons had been destroyed in the past. This smells of a false flag opp to destroy the last secular government on our hit list.

    If the government is so confident, why did they not show that proof at the UN or in the Press before an attack??? They do have proof right?

    Liked by 3 people

    • Keln says:

      Where was the risk? He’s been using them since Obama’s “red line”, and nothing was done about it. I doubt he’ll use them now though.

      Liked by 3 people

      • markstoval says:

        And you “know” this because the CIA, the war party, and other neo-cons told you so? Many unbiased observers around the world do not see it your way. I wonder why?

        Liked by 5 people

        • Summer says:

          I am not aware of any unbiased observers. I am not sure UNBIASED OBSERVERS can possible exists. They might claim they are but that means nothing to me. Why should I believe some random dudes with questionable loyalties and political affiliations over my President?

          Liked by 3 people

      • Shadrach says:

        Interesting point, Keln. Not just Assad, though, the other side (ISIS) has been using them too, right? I remember claims that ISIS also used mustard gas in Syria and Wikipedia has a list: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use_of_chemical_weapons_in_the_Syrian_civil_war

        I’d been trying to figure out why Assad would use them , and there’s no good answer to that. It makes no sense if you assume this is something new, but if as you say it isn’t new, then it’s just the sudden attention that is new.

        So that makes the better question why this particular incident suddenly made it an issue, whereas the previous uses didn’t raise eyebrows. I imagine the answer to that is very interesting…..unless it’s just the typical “ignore all bad stuff under Obama, ignore no bad stuff under Trump” MSM nonsense. I will be thinking this over. Thank you for your comment.

        Like

        • Shadrach says:

          typo: why Assad would use them . That word missing from my comment makes it sound like I have had my head under a rock for the past 5 years 🙂

          Liked by 1 person

    • deqwik2 says:

      I’m sure some of the intel came from Israel. You can’t go out telling & showing everything you have & where it came from. Israel always shares with us but we can’t go into UN with pictures from another government. There are limits on how much to share.

      “Our government told us” .. reminder that you are referring to Obama & his people.
      They depended on Russia to verify the chemical weapons were gone. Russia lied & Obama accepted it.

      Liked by 1 person

    • George Wallace says:

      Another idiotic, asinine comment.

      He’s been using chem weapons WMD since at least 2012 with impunity. He dropped the sarin on Idlib which is a rebel area. That’s the whole point, under Obama he knew he could get away with it.

      But back to your post. You seem to know more than the entire US military establishment, NSC, Trump, Mattis & Tillerson. You must have evidence for your belief.

      After all you’re implying they’re liars. So I assume you know something that proves it. So as you’re here, cough it up.

      See on TCT you need to back up what you say with evidence or credible argument. Otherwise you are classified as a troll and sent to sites that peddle gossip and rumor.

      Liked by 2 people

      • EternalVigilanc3 says:

        *golf clap* that was an amazing response. Thank you wallace, you just shut down all the monday quarterbacking calls. “you must know more than….” that was the BOOM!

        Like

  9. This will cause the cowardly Muslim jihads to spend more time hiding behind women and children instead of coming out and fighting like a man.

    Like

  10. John22 says:

    http://sana.sy/en/?p=103733

    “At 3:42 am today, the United States of America committed a blatant act of aggression targeting one of our air bases in the Central Region with a number of missiles, leaving 6 people martyred and a number of others injured and causing huge material damage,” the Army’s Command said in a statement.

    The statement condemned the U.S. attack, saying it stresses the continued wrong strategy of the US and undermines the operation of fighting terrorism carried out by the Syrian Arab Army.

    The attack, the statement added, makes the United States of America a “partner” of ISIS, Jabhat al-Nusra and other terrorist organizations that have sought since day one of the unfair war on Syria to attack points of the Syrian army and the Syrian military bases.

    The Army’s Command said the US’s attempt to justify this aggression by saying that it is in response to the Syrian army’s use of chemical weapons in Khan Sheikhoun town in Idleb without yet determining the reality of and the perpetrators behind what happened there “sends wrong messages to the terrorist organizations that would embolden them further to use chemical weapons in the future every time they suffer heavy losses in the battlefield.”
    ——————————————————–

    Syria’s take on what happened. About what you would expect I guess

    Liked by 2 people

  11. 3x1 says:

    “And then there were also measures put in place to avoid hitting what we believe is a storage of sarin gas there so that that would not be ignited and cause a hazard to civilians or anyone else.” (McMasters)

    Aerial of airbase hit:

    Runway length ~2 miles (9850′)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shayrat_Air_Base

    There are bunkers away from the runways and hangers. but within the airbase perimeter.

    Putting 59 Tomahawks in a roughly 2 sq mile area is no problem. Doing so and guaranteeing no hits on a number of presumed Sarin bunkers is statistically pushing it.

    .mil GPS is very accurate. Sub-meter accuracy is possible with fixed instruments. Coming in @ 500MPH at a low angle makes that target area a big long oval, rather than a circular target. We know low angles are used as they were hitting stuff inside hardened bunkers through the end openings. So if a fusing mechanism malfs, a missile could conceivably carom off the ground and out the other end of the hangar. Yes, multiple what-ifs and improbable, but 59 tries raises the bar for requiring perfection. Don’t know how good DSMAC is at night (essentially a picture of the target: “hit this”). But the expeets weighed the risks and that’s what they’re paid to do and it all came out good.

    I’d think the natural follow-on would be for UN inspectors to march in and demand to see the contents of the alleged sarin bunker(s).

    If Assad is clean, he’d request it.

    Disclaimer: this still does not rule out unknown parties planting Sarin ordnance, although a lot of shells would be tougher to explain than one or two.

    It still doesn’t explain why Assad would use CW where conventional would work just as well. It also doesn’t explain supposed Sarin victims being treated by peeps with effectively no protective gear.

    We wouldn’t be asking these questions if we had a trustworthy IC.

    Great Job by the USN!

    Liked by 9 people

    • Howie says:

      To the crew of the Porter and Ross….Clean sweep guys!!!

      Liked by 2 people

    • Ziiggii says:

      we’re seeing eye to eye….

      also to note – to make sure the guidance systems didn’t screw the pooch, I have to imagine there was/is a SEAL team on hand to provide “laser guidance” for precision. Specially if they were so concerned with actually taking out the CW storage.

      come think of it – WHY wouldn’t we want to take out the CW stored there?

      oh never-mind silly question

      Like

      • 3x1 says:

        Hitting a hardened bunker with Sarin shells inside could ignite or scatter them. Village 1/2 mile away. Bad optics.

        You’re correct that a team with IR target designators would help accuracy. Not sure if any high ground around though. Challenging.

        Liked by 2 people

        • But clearly, it wasn’t Sarin. The evidence for that (alleged victims were flushed red/ not blue and the White Helmets “responders” were handling victims bare-handed- which would have killed the responders pretty quick) has been discussed repeatedly.

          What was the point if the weapons were left in place? Didn’t Trump, himself, talk about the stuff left behind (in that context, military equipment. I believe he said Humvees.) being taken by the terrorists. (I’m assuming the “moderate rebels” are still terrorists. Or has that narrative changed, too?)

          Liked by 1 person

          • stella says:

            You are misinformed. Look at photos of the Tokyo subway Sarin attack. Those who are cleaning up the spill (punctured containers of liquid Sarin) are wearing protective clothing and gas masks, but many who are seeing to the wounded are not. The reason is that Sarin gas dissipates very quickly. So it is not a sure thing that responders would have been killed pretty quickly, especially if some time had passed – say 15 to 30 minutes.

            I don’t know about skin color of the victims, but the victims in the Tokyo photos don’t look blue.

            https://www.bing.com/images/search?q=tokyo+sarin+attack&FORM=HDRSC2

            Like

  12. Jeff C-C says:

    SD,

    I don’t get it. The basis for the decision came from the same intel sources that are at war against Trump. Why on earth would he trust their intel on something so important? Especially when it is so transparently fake and non-credible?

    Unless, when the U.S. premise blows up, somehow he will use it against the deep state? It sure seems like Trump is playing with fire. Or, he/they got played. Or, . . . who knows?

    Liked by 3 people

    • sundance says:

      Trump has his own intel now. That’s the difference. See how that works?

      Liked by 11 people

    • Keln says:

      This is military intelligence, not the CIA. Much of this likely came from soldiers/airmen/sailors studying satellite and drone photos to figure out where the attacks came from and who did them. I’ve seen that sort of thing in action. They’re pretty good at it. Not much moves in Syria right now without our forces seeing it.

      Now, does that make it 100% accurate? No. But it’s likely very accurate. And it’s also pretty trustworthy if the intel came from the military. Distrust the CIA if you want, but the military will be giving President Trump and the Joint Chiefs straight intel on what is going on on the ground in Syria.

      Liked by 15 people

    • mikeyboo says:

      I would imagine Pres Trump heard from other intelligence sources -not just our IC.

      Like

  13. oldanddecrepit says:

    Before we all jump on the USA!USA!USA! bandwagon, let’s examine some things. Who benefits from the publicity surrounding gas attacks? ISIS. et al. What does Assad benefit from such an attack, given that ISIS has been losing territory and prestige? Little or nothing, given the negative publicity sure to follow. Who benefits from a US military response to these attacks? The Neocons and the Deep State operatives. ISIS has staged chemical attacks before, according to the UN, and several of the alleged Syrian-led attacks bear all of the marks of a false-flag operation. In short, Assad would have little to gain from such an attack, while the so-called rebels would have a great deal to gain.

    Liked by 5 people

    • Something is screwy with all this. Why if Assad was being blamed would ISIS execute people a day later and take the heat off them?

      And Assad will only be more ticked off if he didn’t do it and go after them stronger than before.
      Something is up with the whole week of activity.

      Like

    • Deep Blue C says:

      So you know all about Assad and what he has planned for the future, huh? You’ve read all the intel that President Trump has read and you can see and hear what both ISIS and Assad are doing? RIGHT!

      You people saying there’s “no logical reason for Assad to attack” are simply making assumptions. There’s no logical reason THAT YOU CAN SEE, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a perfectly logical reason in his mind.

      In short, you’re basing your whole thought processes on one idea that is quite possibly WRONG! You didn’t read the same intel that Trump did, you didn’t talk to the leaders in the area to get their input, and you don’t know what Assad or anyone else in Syria is planning!!!

      Liked by 6 people

    • GForce says:

      Not trying to be flippant here, but does it really matter what player in Syria (Russia, Assad, ISIS) actually used the gas. Whoever “they” are have awakened a sleeping dragon.

      Liked by 2 people

  14. jwingermany says:

    The Tree House is full of trolls tonight. With so much flak…we must be right over the target. Bombs away! 😀

    Liked by 5 people

    • Keln says:

      Same is going on at T_D and /pol/.

      ShariaBlue is busy today.

      Liked by 7 people

    • Howie says:

      Our good president is fundamentally changing our military from a leftist social justice experiment back in to a fighting force, with elan and espirit de corps.

      Liked by 6 people

      • jwingermany says:

        Exactly! With a little show of force that was needed after years of meaningless red lines. People should understand that you are actually MORE vulnerable to conflict when the enemy believes you are weak.

        For those claiming that President Trump did not campaign on this…oh yes he did! He constantly said that he would strengthen the military to REDUCE the chance of war. I guarantee that Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, and yes…even Assad…got the message loud and clear.

        Art of the Deal meets the Art of War.

        Liked by 4 people

        • Sharz96 says:

          Totally agree. Is anyone silly enough to think we can achieve peace, after 8 years of pathetic eeakness and failure, by just SAYNG “peace through strength” without actually DEMONSTRATING the resolve to use strength by actually doing so? Frankly, I’d have been concerned if he didn’t bomb the crap out if someone somewhere within first 100 days.

          Liked by 1 person

      • piper567 says:

        and…Pronto! Bless his heart!

        Like

    • R-C says:

      Yep, all the ‘experts’ are with us once again.

      As a ‘public service’ to my friends in the Tree House, I’ve taken all the “Trump Blew It!” statements into account, and have boiled them down to this one essential nugget:

      The main problem seems to be that the current President of the United States is not named ‘Ted Cruz’.

      Liked by 3 people

    • Just like last night…damn…maybe I should change my emoji?

      Like

  15. tonyE says:

    Does Trump take a rest sometime?

    I know he’s a workaholic, but we want him to last at least eight more good years!

    Liked by 1 person

    • aredtailblog says:

      If you’ve seen his health records, that Trump’s fit as a fiddle for even a thirty year old, let alone someone coming up on their seventies.

      He’s got this, don’t worry.

      Like

    • janc1955 says:

      I think he’s someone who is more stressed by trying not to work than by working, if that makes sense. People call it “workaholic” but for some folks, getting away from it all is actually more stressful than plowing forward and getting things done. From what I’ve read and heard, PDJT has done this all his life.

      Liked by 2 people

  16. Trumppin says:

    Newt Gingrich: Trump changed Syria narrative in 48 hours

    Liked by 5 people

  17. They only asked about Putin and Moscow may 5 times. I’m pretty sure they’ll report that wrong.
    Both men need to practice the phrase, Asked and Answered.

    Maybe what I believe is more fine tune, but is no different than it was yesterday.
    This was a measured attack designed to limit casualties and to send a very clear message.
    Do that again, and we’ll be back.

    The focus still seems to be on ISIS first. And that hasn’t changed. Long term will be Assad.
    The Russians and Iran responded as predictable. But Russia is in the hot seat right now. If they are going to continue to support for Assad, they will be fighting a losing battle. The biggest part of that battle is that almost every country in the world has choosen a side. And it is not with Assad.

    What the Syrian Government does next will be the key to everything from that point forward.
    President Trump has made his point. And now has the support of many countries in the region.
    Assad will stay in power but it’s only a matter of time. If the Russians were smart, they should be looking to change sides and hope for the best.

    But I believe when you here from this Administration, The Military Option is Not Off the Table, I think everyone on the planet knows thats now true.

    Liked by 2 people

  18. Trumppin says:

    Troll award!

    Liked by 1 person

  19. dalethorn says:

    So what kind of magic turns an entrenched intel mafia into a bastion of honesty to the president and the people? Those people are killers who can make most military guys blush. Do you know specifically how Trump would clean them out in 70 days?

    Liked by 1 person

    • cozette says:

      The intel used was military rather than CIA. If it turns out that the intel was wrong then that will fuel Trumps narrative that some of the IC is or has been part of the swamp. He did NOT have the political capital to call “patriotic Americans” in our IC liars and choose to believe Putin and Assad instead while videos of dying children were aired 24 hours a day especially when McCain is investigating him for treasonous collusion with Russia. This move keeps Assad safe from the neocons, pushes back on the Russia narrative and allows him now to negotiate with Putin since the public doesn’t see them as buddies.

      Liked by 3 people

  20. NHVoter says:

    Like

  21. Epictetus says:

    Sorry, still not buying this gas attack story, not saying it didn’t happen, maybe, maybe not. Going on what, footage and photos from who, White helmets? Please! Tweets from a “Doctor” who is a known jihadist.

    I’ve had a night to sleep on this, and today it makes even less sense than a few days ago. Why would Assad launch a WMD attack now? He was beginning to get the upper hand over there, had the Russians and Iranians working to help him, oh and US too. I can think of NO strategic or military advantage to doing this, he would have to know the worldwide condemnation that would follow. A week ago Trump basically said he wasn’t interested in pressing for regime change in Syria. This stinks.

    So the intel for this was what, keyhole images of Syrian planes and radar tracks of aircraft flight paths. Who knows what they dropped, what if the Syrian AF dropped on a weapons cache that contained hidden WMD? Possible? Anything is possible.

    There is something wrong about this whole thing. I’m not sure what it is. I for one would not trust the IC for a minute! Remember these are the same guys who missed the fall of the Soviet Union. And the holdovers from the previous admin, and there are plenty, would love nothing more than to trip this President up.

    I’ll say it again, I hope Trump declares victory, checks that box and moves on.

    Liked by 3 people

  22. outerlimitsfan says:

    I can understand why some on our side would disagree with the strikes. I completely respect that decision even if I disagree.

    What I don’t understand is people making comments like “Assad wouldn’t gas his own people”.

    Let’s not forget the Assad regime has a cozy relationship with Iran. They have funded radical groups themselves when it benefits them. In many ways, both Iran and Hezbollah have helped keep the regime in place, even before ISIS came into the picture.(and Russia)

    Frankly, Syria is in a civil war where all parties are bad. Perhaps, Assad is the lesser of the evils especially compared to ISIS,,but that doesn’t make him or his loyalists “good”

    So I can understand wanting to to completely avoid the situation since all sides suck. However, Trump campaigned on dealing with ISIS and doing safe zones, so ignoring Syria completely is going to make that difficult. Especially with chemical agents being used puts our interests and could eventually put our allies like Jordan and Israel in jeopardy.

    Liked by 4 people

  23. Maxine says:

    All the people in the room, including Bannon, appear to be looking at the monitor except for Kushner and Tillerson. Tillerson appears to be looking at Kushner. Kushner could be looking at Bannon or Tillerson. On my small screen I can see the direction of Kushner’s head but not the direction of his eyes. Not trying to nitpick just an observation.

    First time to comment although I have been reading CTH since the Trayvon Martin days.

    Thanks Sundance and staff for helping to keep me sane (more or less) during the election.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Ad rem says:

      Welcome to the Tree House Maxine! 😀 You picked a busy time to jump into the fray, however, many sturdy branches remain. Oh…I tossed the second comment you posted, because it sounded like you weren’t happy with it’s placement or content. Room for many more, however.

      Liked by 1 person

  24. This is why I like this blog, the multidimensional thinking on the part of our host, who views things not simply in a binary manner but looks at the layers, upon layers. Or wheels, within wheels if you prefer.

    Liked by 2 people

    • All Too Much says:

      I’m fairly new to this board, and now have some understanding of the organization.
      Perfect. And a lot of work. I guess that’s Ad Rem, who, I read, is rather busy tonight.
      Guess so. I’ve never seen trolls this visible and abundant. Its as if they are posting in red, bold, font.

      Thanks Ad Rem. I’ll let your boss know you’re worth whatever you’re being paid, or more.

      Like

  25. Assad isn’t, as far as I can see – Could be wrong, coming out and saber rattling at the United States. Which is the common response in these sorts of things.

    Nope, instead he vows to – Fight ISIS!

    Liked by 2 people

  26. NYGuy54 says:

    After all the pearl clutching and jewelry rattling, this looks like a brilliant move by the Trump team. It has neutered the Left, the neocons, the Russians, Assad and Kim Jong Un all at the same time. Our allies are nodding their head in approval. The ME nations love it. It makes the Muh Russia narrative sound really stupid. The only one who is upset seems to be Rand Paul.

    It was a strategic pinprick. Bravo.

    Liked by 8 people

  27. Howie says:

    Here they go!

    Like

  28. pancho says:

    …” I think it’s over 50 chemical attacks previously, post-2013, when the U.N. resolution went into effect.” Secretary Tillerson.
    This is totally news to me, but assuming this is true, it certainly gives a perspective to this strike that I previously did not have. I am very relieved that there does not seem to be a neocon slant to this attack.
    Thank you Mr. President.

    Liked by 1 person

  29. Ziiggii says:

    Nine civilians, including four children, were killed in the US missile attack on a military airbase and the nearby villages in the southeastern countryside of Homs province.

    Civil sources told SANA that two missiles used in the US attack that hit al-Shairat airbase in the Central Region killed five civilians, including three children, in addition to causing huge material damage to the houses.

    Another US missile fell in al-Hamrat village, killing four civilians, including a child. Moreover, seven civilians were injured as a missile struck houses in al-Manzoul village, 4 km away from al-Shairat airbase.

    The United States of America committed a blatant act of aggression targeting one of the Syrian air bases in the Central Region with a number of missiles, leaving 6 people martyred and a number of others injured and causing huge material damage.

    http://sana.sy/en/?p=103759

    SANA = Syrian Arab News Agency

    Like

  30. Ziiggii says:

    Like

  31. Ziiggii says:

    the propo is fun to look at:

    notice the time of the tweet….. YET what’s this; a daylight picture of some piece of metal?

    Liked by 2 people

  32. Gil says:

    Mike cernovich posted this. I dont do twitter but this is odd. I know many here think hes a good guy. I dont know well enough to understand but its either very utterly sensationalist or some kind of cryptic warning.

    https://mobile.twitter.com/Cernovich/status/850476936883183616

    Like

  33. litlbit2 says:

    Having trouble trying to understand, if the Isis side did the gas attack that came from the air. When did Isis obtain air power? If Isis had air power why would there be a desire to install a no-fly zone in Syria such as in Libya? If Isis has the capability to attack by air why not Assad headquarters, over and over?

    If Assad was or is winning the fight why use the gas attack? If the gas came from the air, Isis not capable of air power, Assad must have been the flyer. Or the Assad regime has been infiltrated by advisors to make Assad look bad. Or the gas that was supposedly removed was distributed by Russian air power?

    Then there is this:
    http://investmentwatchblog.com/dina-habib-powell-new-deputy-security-advisor-close-to-valerie-jarrett-picture-included-and-jared-kushner-husband-is-president-of-teneo/

    Many trees in this Forrest President Trump has been placed.

    May God protect President Trump, the USA and give him wisdom on his path.

    Liked by 3 people

  34. Exactly, it know appears that we must “forget” about all of the other articles here over the past few years that clearly spelled out what has been going on in Syria (and Libya)… how about the article of a couple a days ago, warning Trump that he is being deceived?

    Everyone is blindly supposed to jump up and down and cheer because both Trump and Tillerson completely reversed course from a week ago? Seriously?

    Sorry, this whole mess in Syria and the western forces behind it has been a very good topic to follow here at CTH, Sundance has done excellent research and synthesis over a fair amount of time. I for one am not going to magically “forget” all of that, and blindly cheer because Trump has made a grave mistake.

    Liked by 4 people

    • Count me out as a cheer leader. I will not cheer lead for the DEEP STATE nor the globalists and luciferians. Trump’s anti-interventionalist stance and securing our borders was what I signed up for. Not more Middle East meddling. Sure, I may get rich from my investments as a result of Washington’s business as usual aka WAR; but I would rather be poor and have peace than be rich from our murder and lying in foreign lands. What good is it to gain the whole world and lose your soul? What misery to wallow in piles of riches knowing they came from pillaging and bombing.

      Whether President Trump is wrong about this is immaterial to me. I will not support CIA wars. Ever. CIA wars are not America First. We have a war going on right here on our own soil and once again, we’re dashing off to foreign lands and leaving our own house unsecured. Deep State still running Washington.

      Meanwhile, their human trafficking continues at every one of their CIA ports, aka bases around the world. Afghanistan the HEROIN money machine. What are we doing there too? We have more murdered in CHICAGO and other cities on a daily basis for me to be so naive to believe US must rush to Syria to oust Assad over the CIA-sponsored gas attack.

      America still choosing to be “the stupid people.” She’ll just have JOBS.

      Liked by 1 person

      • I agree very much, MoniQueMoniCat.

        There is no “Trump intelligence” in place. It will take a very long time to clean the stench out of the Deep State, in particular in the so called “intelligence community.” There is NO reliable data or information coming out of the IC on anything, the same operatives are deeply entrenched. Hence, until that point in time far down the road, the last thing that the US needs to do is continue with these follies (to put in kindly). It doesn’t matter if Trump is POTUS or not. (And to the cheerleaders: no I don’t “trust” him to do what is not humanly possible at this point in time.)

        I didn’t vote for another “version” of the same interventionist policies, just led by different faces. Trump’s NSC is a walking disaster, it might as well be GWB’s third term.

        I find all of the “spinning” to try to put a good (Trump) face on the same crap sandwich to be disingenuous, to say the least.

        Like

  35. Trump needs to work with Assad. Assad would do well to teach those that follow his to get rid of the Quran in any form. Avoid the appearance of evil. ISIS uses that book. I know that Assad attempts to make the Quran better modifying it. That is an exercise in futility.

    Liked by 1 person

  36. Trump needs to work with Assad. Assad would do well to teach those that follow him to get rid of the Quran in any form. Avoid the appearance of evil. ISIS uses that book. I know that Assad attempts to make the Quran better modifying it. That is an exercise in futility.

    Like

  37. MJR says:

    I ask you, what are the Treasury Sec, National Economic Council and “Minister without Portfolio”, Kushner doing at this event, so pushy…

    Liked by 1 person

  38. SafeSpace says:

    Dina Habib Powell .. Egyptian national, married into Trump family … Goldman Sachs … Opposed to Steve Bannon’s influential position … follow the money AS USUAL, folks. With apologies to Roger Daltrey: “Here comes the new boss; same as the old boss”.

    Liked by 1 person

  39. Bull Durham says:

    The meme of the Pentagon-State Dept-UNAmb and Fox cable all day: Russia is part of the gas attack and coverup.

    So, Russian Did It strikes again. And of course, the second sentence out of their mouths and mouthpieces is Putin did it.

    It’s like the frigate sailing into the Med to take on the US 6th Fleet story.

    There is no end to fairytale demonization.

    Another story not told is CIA is back openly bankrolling AQ groups that are given new names, tucking them into Northern Syria for war against Assad. US master plan in action.

    We aren’t in Syria to fight ISIS (except the symbolic Raqqa battle). We are there now to defeat Russia and Assad, Iran and Hezbollah using the leftover “moderate” banner and duct taped to the foreheads of Wahhabi headchoppers.

    Liked by 1 person

    • The stock market verifies what you say as well. It’s saying “we need a war,” and we know just where to go to get one, or two, or three. First stop: Putin and Assad. THAT is the reason for all this “Russia Did It” talk going on for the past year. The dog in the manger STILL keeping the cattle at bay with its yapping and barking. Russia Russia Russia is the bark and the dumb cattle obeys.

      Like

  40. Bull Durham says:

    Liked by 2 people

  41. For those who have not yet begun following the blog “the DiploMad 2.0” I have pasted an excerpt from his latest blog (about the attack on Syrian air base) and have also included a link for the
    full article. He is a former diplomat and writes with an insight I have come to appreciate.
    Excerpt from latest blog follows:

    “I also must express admiration for Trump’s decision-making style. He listened to his people, digested the info provided, quickly decided to hit Syria, and then turned to deal with the visiting Chinese President (more on that). That is a marked difference from the dithering and endless specifying of the recently closed and tiresome eight-year play Obama Agonistes. Trump makes decisions, and moves on. That is a plus for the Presidency of the United States, the country, and the beleaguered community once known as the West. You can like him or not, you can agree with him or not, but the man is a leader.”

    Link to the full post on his blog:
    http://www.thediplomad.com/2017/04/on-syria-morning-after.html#links

    Liked by 3 people

  42. James W Crawford says:

    After witnessing Obama being elected by the campaign slogan “Bush Lied! People Died!” I simply do not care. I have become a neoisolationist.

    Not our circus. Not our monkey. Let Allah sort them out.

    Liked by 1 person

  43. MVW says:

    Two more perspectives on the Syria strike:

    Like

    • MVW says:

      Look, after all has been said by many, and all that I have doubts about and don’t know, plus the crabwise nature of D.C. politics and foreign diplomacy, there is only one conclusion that sits right with me.

      Trump’s got this. I’ll take a breath and see what falls out of the tree.

      Meanwhile we have a new Supreme Court Judge and Trump is moving ahead. So is the economy.

      While I am at it, Tri Alpha should have their C-2W Fusion machine up and running in a couple of months and with good news we should have some future shaking results likely by years end. Such results will rock the energy world. Exciting times.

      Liked by 1 person

  44. Trump ends up supporting all of his enemies when he did what he did. Trump; Be smarter than that, will ya?

    Liked by 1 person

  45. moe ham head says:

    i still say assad was not behind the attacks

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s