April 11, 2017

"The White House on Tuesday accused the Russian government of engaging in a cover-up of the chemical weapons attack last week by Syrian forces that prompted American airstrikes..."

"... saying that United States intelligence and numerous contemporaneous reports confirmed that the Syrians used sarin gas on their own people," the NYT reports.

129 comments:

J. Farmer said...

And when has the US intelligence community ever gotten anything wrong on matters of WMD? Oh, wait.

J. Farmer said...

OT, but I have to admit I am dying to read Ann's opinion of Justice Ginsburg's blunder:

“Let’s hope members of Congress, the members that Allegheny College has already honored — Vice President Joe Biden and Sen. John McCain; the women of the Senate, Sens. Dianne Feinstein and Lindsey Graham — let’s hope that they, and others of goodwill, will lead in restoring harmonious work ways.”

A sign of encroaching senility? A simple human mistake? Getting tripped up due to the first name Lindsey? Any possible relation to the gay rumors that have dogged Graham for years?

-Ruth Bader Ginsburg calls Sen. Lindsey Graham one of ‘the women of the Senate’

traditionalguy said...

I bet Putin figured out that Trump spent the past year setting him up for a take down move so fast he never saw it coming.

It is sad seeing Putin suddenly come to realize that he has been pinned 20 seconds into the first round. Trump just had a lucky accident say the NYT gang.

But Putin knows, and he is too embarrassed to speak to his old Friend from Exxon.

Inga said...

Why did Trump ever hold Putin such high regard, bad judgement? I'm relieved that Jared and Ivanka and others bedsides the Bannon contingent are now influencing Trump. If the Russians are capeable of covering up a chemical attack on a town they certainly are capeable of employing all sorts of cyber attacks and methods on the US Presidential election. Putin kills his enemies right in front of the Kremlin, he has killed journalists. Why would Trump ever have defended this dictator? I hope he's ashamed of himself. Maybe now he is, after seeing dead children who died a horrible death.

gadfly said...

. . . and BTW, according to NASA, "multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities."

But wait, "There is no scientific proof that human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) are the dominant cause of the minor warming of the Earth’s atmosphere over the past 100 years. If there were such a proof it would be written down for all to see. No actual proof, as it is understood in science, exists..." and "it's the sun, stupid!"

LarsPorsena said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
J. Farmer said...

@Inga:

Why did Trump ever hold Putin such high regard, bad judgement? I'm relieved that Jared and Ivanka and others bedsides the Bannon contingent are now influencing Trump.

Except Kushner's enthusiasm for globalism is pretty much the exact opposite of what Trump supporters were voting for. The Bannon/Miller contingent of "America First" was what was promised in the campaign, and it's what the people who put Trump in the White House wanted. If we wanted dumb military maneuvers in Syria and ratcheting up the rhetoric and confrontation with Russia, we could have just voted for Clinton. Most Americans care about jobs, schools, and crime; it's not our business who runs Russia or Syria. Unfortunately, Syrians and Russians cannot say the same thing, because we insist on meddling in their affairs.

LarsPorsena said...

Blogger LarsPorsena said...
Inga said...
Why did Trump ever hold Putin such high regard, bad judgement?

Since Obama and Kerry assured us all chemical weapons were removed from Syria, why did you hold Obama is such high regard?

Will you be surprised when Iran is shown not to have forgone its nuclear program?

J. Farmer said...

Jared and Ivanka are way too concerned with remaining in the good graces of polite society and the party invitations that entails to ever support a truly "America First" policy. I was hoping that Trump's penchant for garishness and disregard for establishment opinion would insulate him from the inevitable pressures those forces would place on him once in the White House. In retrospect, I was too blinded by my enthusiasm for "America First" to see the trouble the soft spot for his daughter could cause. Oy.

TreeJoe said...

You have to wonder...

Is Russia's interest in access to the Med worth this to them and, if so, is our blocking them from that access worth this to us?

J. Farmer said...

@TreeJoe:

Is Russia's interest in access to the Med worth this to them and, if so, is our blocking them from that access worth this to us?

It's not really "access to the Med" per se. Their port facility at Tartus offers repair and technical facilities that otherwise would require ships to return to the Black Sea via the Turkish Straits. So, yes, the Russians have a vital interest in maintaining their client state in Syria. And it poses no significant threat to the US Navy in the Mediterranean. We actually have a shared interest in Syria, since it would be much better for regional stability and security if Syria was not being fought over by various gangs of radical Salafi jihadists.

Robert Cook said...

"I bet Putin figured out that Trump spent the past year setting him up for a take down move so fast he never saw it coming.

"It is sad seeing Putin suddenly come to realize that he has been pinned 20 seconds into the first round."


Oh, please. Aren't you a bit hold to believe in pro wrestling or to engage in hero worship?

Trump had no grand strategy or plan or even any thoughts about "taking down" Putin. This has to do with the pressure undoubtedly being put on Trump behind the scenes by the neoconservatives who are letting him know he must play ball with them or they'll ruin him.

Robert Cook said...

We're still waiting to see an iota of proof Assad is responsible for the use of chemical weapons.

We'll probably wait forever, as they don't have proof Assad is responsible. (It was likely anti-Assad rebels, who were responsible for the the use of chemical weapons a couple of years ago.)

This is the deep state's pretext to continue their imperial agenda in the middle east.

JAORE said...

If President Trump is Putin's bitch someone needs to tell him that he's doing it wrong.

mockturtle said...

J. Farmer asks: A sign of encroaching senility? A simple human mistake? Getting tripped up due to the first name Lindsey? Any possible relation to the gay rumors that have dogged Graham for years?

There is a lot of evidence that Ginsburg's senility is more than just encroaching. She needs to be replaced.


exiledonmainstreet said...

"There is a lot of evidence that Ginsburg's senility is more than just encroaching. She needs to be replaced."

While that is true, referring to Lindsay Graham as a woman of the Senate is to my mind an entirely understandable mistake.

Robert Cook said...

I want to see if Trump will win the Nobel Peace Prize. After all, with his commission of this war crime, he deserves it as much as Obama did.

Achilles said...

J. Farmer said...
And when has the US intelligence community ever gotten anything wrong on matters of WMD? Oh, wait.

Yeah when? Seriously I would like to see your answer here.

Here is a pro tip for you before you get too silly.

Achilles said...

Inga said...
Why did Trump ever hold Putin such high regard, bad judgement?

He never did. Only idiots and dupes ever believed he did.

Achilles said...

J. Farmer said...

We actually have a shared interest in Syria, since it would be much better for regional stability and security if Syria was not being fought over by various gangs of radical Salafi jihadists.

Look at pipeline routes from Iran, UAE etc. to Europe. Without control in Ukraine Russia is at the mercy of Ukraine. Ukraine was under a Russian puppet government for a long time and that recently changed. This led to the invasion of Crimea to maintain pipeline access.

What we need to decide is if we want Russia to fall or not.

Vimax Medan said...

PEMBESAR PENIS CIKARANG

Achilles said...

exiledonmainstreet said...

While that is true, referring to Lindsay Graham as a woman of the Senate is to my mind an entirely understandable mistake.

This is demeaning to women and reinforces negative stereotypes.

Robert Cook said...

Achilles @ 1:44 PM resorts to the sad ploy of presenting old news as a shocking revelation that "Bush (and the spies) were RIGHT!"

Wrong.

What was found in Iraq were the years-old, useless dregs of Iraq's chemical weapons that had been buried and forgotten. "Useless" doesn't mean they weren't hazardous to those who came into contact with them, but they were useless for military purposes.

These were not the "WMD" Bush and Cheney et al. lied to us about. They told us (or insinuated) that Iraq had extant weapons programs and was producing new stocks of weapons with which to "destroy America!" Most Americans rightly don't give a shit about chemical or gas weapons, as they are not very useful, really, in wartime, and they could never have been deployed here in any case. Americans who bought Bush's obvious lies were scared shitless of his dropping nuclear bombs on us, you know, the "smoking gun that turns out to be a mushroom cloud!" And, of course, there were no remaining nukes found because Saddam had never succeeded in developing nukes.

So, yes...the Bush Administration lied about WMD in Iraq.

J. Farmer said...

@Achilles:

"All key aspects—R&D, production, and weaponization—of Iraq’s offensive BW program are active and most elements are larger and more advanced than they were before the Gulf War"

-Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction Program, CIA, October 2002. Read here.

Dead wrong.

The CIA in 2004:

"In practical terms, with the destruction of the Al Hakam facility, Iraq abandoned its ambition to obtain advanced BW weapons quickly. ISG found no direct evidence that Iraq, after 1996, had plans for a new BW program or was conducting BW-specific work for military purposes. "

"While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991."

-Special Advisor to the Director of Central Intelligence on Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction, CIA, September 2004 Read here.

Michael K said...

Why did Trump ever hold Putin such high regard, bad judgement?

Only in your head, Inga. This was all along a Democrat ploy to hide the fact that Obama was Putin's bitch and Hillary was along for the ride.

Trump saw that Putin was playing a bad hand pretty well. When you are in big time business, you recognize that personal feelings are not reliable. As Tesio (Abe Vigoda) says, "Tell Michael I always liked him. It was just business."

Putin with the help of Obama and Hillary, played a weak hand pretty well. He now has to see that the squishes are gone and maybe he should cut his losses before they get too heavy.

Cookie is going off the deep end on the "war crime." Hillary and Obama committed war crimes, in Libya and with Iran but Trump is just trying to clean up their mess.

Achilles said...

Robert Cook said...

What was found in Iraq were the years-old, useless dregs of Iraq's chemical weapons that had been buried and forgotten. "Useless" doesn't mean they weren't hazardous to those who came into contact with them, but they were useless for military purposes.

Garbage. You are a liar and so are the people that repeat this. Those weapons were still weaponizable. There were warehouses full of materials that were one step removed from being deployable in a military setting.

And funny how nobody is asking how Assad is capable of making Sarin in quantity now. The ISR footage of that equipment leaving Iraq has made it on the internet now and then.

But you lefties gotta stick to your lies.

Yancey Ward said...

"There is a lot of evidence that Ginsburg's senility is more than just encroaching. She needs to be replaced."

If Ginsburg were to die, it would become Weekend at Ruth's time.

Robert Cook said...

"Hillary and Obama committed war crimes, in Libya and with Iran...."

Sure. Who says otherwise? Our collective elected leadership over many decades are war criminals. As Martin Luther King accurately said a half-century ago, America is the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today.

J. Farmer said...

@Achilles:

You are a liar and so are the people that repeat this.

That would include the CIA from 2004?

Achilles said...

I also love how the CIA is at first lying and incompetent then totally truthful and accurate.

This is depending of course on what the leftist needs to buttress their lies about No WMD's. It also ignores the underlying reality and truth of the matter at the time: Saddam was hiding his programs and nobody really knew what his capabilities were.

I was there. Things were going on in Iraq that were not right. Saddam was flailing and the sanctions were destroying his military. His capabilities were very weak. But saying there were no WMD's and no programs is a lie.

It also ignores the obvious evidence the production and much of hte live material was shipped to Syria pre-invasion.

Robert Cook said...

"And funny how nobody is asking how Assad is capable of making Sarin in quantity now."

Who says he is? There's no proof that Assad has deployed Sarin anytime recently.

"The ISR footage of that equipment leaving Iraq has made it on the internet now and then."

Whatever footage may exist of "equipment leaving Iraq" is proof of nothing but what is in your (and others') imagination. What was the equipment? What was in the equipment? Where did the equipment go? Is there even any actual footage that shows equipment leaving Iraq?

Robert Cook said...

It's funny how those so ready to take up Trump's war cry of "Fake News!" are so credulous at any news that supports their guy's claims and actions.

J. Farmer said...

@Achilles:

I also love how the CIA is at first lying and incompetent then totally truthful and accurate.

I am afraid the door swings both ways. You asked me, "Yeah when? Seriously I would like to see your answer here."

Well the assessment made in 2004, when over 1400 people were in the country and able to look for stockpiles of weapons, they found nothing. So the CIA could not be right in its assessments in 2002 and 2004.

J. Farmer said...

@Achilles:

The CIA investigated the possibility of movement to Syria in its March 2005 addenda and declared it inconclusive.

"Based on the evidence available at present, ISG judged that it was unlikely that an official transfer of WMD material from Iraq to Syria took place. However, ISG was unable to rule out unofficial movement of limited WMD-related materials."

You can read the March 2005 addenda here.

J. Farmer said...

@Achilles:

I honestly have no clue why you think that US News and World Report article you linked to at all helps your case.

"The U.S. government buried the cases from both the public and the troops. As a result, injured soldiers did not receive proper medical treatment."

If the discoveries you cite so vindicated the Bush administration's position on Iraq WMD, why would they have "buried the cases from both the public and the troops?"

J. Farmer said...

@Achilles:

This is from the NYT investigation that US News and World Report cites:

Then, during the long occupation, American troops began encountering old chemical munitions in hidden caches and roadside bombs. Typically 155-millimeter artillery shells or 122-millimeter rockets, they were remnants of an arms program Iraq had rushed into production in the 1980s during the Iran-Iraq war.

All had been manufactured before 1991, participants said. Filthy, rusty or corroded, a large fraction of them could not be readily identified as chemical weapons at all. Some were empty, though many of them still contained potent mustard agent or residual sarin. Most could not have been used as designed, and when they ruptured dispersed the chemical agents over a limited area, according to those who collected the majority of them.

JaimeRoberto said...

Inga said...
Why did Trump ever hold Putin such high regard, bad judgement?

I don't know. Maybe he said a few nice things because he was being diplomatic toward someone he knew he'd have to deal with. Now that he's President, he has more flexibility.

Drago said...

Achilles: "And funny how nobody is asking how Assad is capable of making Sarin in quantity now. The ISR footage of that equipment leaving Iraq has made it on the internet now and then."

Some of us were able to view this footage in near real-time rolling over the border from "Country A" to "Country B".

But hey, many sides of this conversation need the "no WMD" or something to be true so whatever.

Drago said...

Inga: "Why did Trump ever hold Putin such high regard, bad judgement?"

So, thus far we have 2 self-identified mind-readers on this blog: Inga and "lifelong republican" Chuck.

I don't count Cookie who simply channels his inner Chomsky without fail

Inga said...

"Except Kushner's enthusiasm for globalism is pretty much the exact opposite of what Trump supporters were voting for."

Yes indeed, you are right. You were duped.

Drago said...

In other news, it looks like the Swedish Prime Minister just now caught up with Trump re: muslim issues in Sweden:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4396224/Sweden-never-mass-immigration-PM-says.html

snip: "The Prime Minister of Sweden has vowed his country will 'never go back' to recent levels of mass immigration after it emerged the terrorist who killed four people in a truck attack was a failed asylum seeker.
Stefan Löfven pledged to change his country's liberal attitude, insisting the massive influx allowed during the 2015 migrant crisis would never happen again."

Too late of course.

I wonder if Putin controls the Swedish Prime Minister now too? (We have to offer that explanation up for the dems as it is the only framework they are currently capable of utilizing for understanding world events)

J. Farmer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
officiousintermeddler said...

Why on earth would Trump, of all people, take the US intelligence community's word for anything? He knows from personal experience that it is filled with political actors pushing false narratives to promote their own partisan agendas.

J. Farmer said...

@Inga:

When given the option between someone who may be less interventionist (Trump) and someone who would definitely be more interventionist (Clinton), you go with the unknown quantity and hope for the best. That's not being duped; that's hoping for the best when faced with two imperfect choices. I could (barely) forgive the foreign blundering so long as the immigration promises hold. Wait and see.

Just out of curiosity, Inga, what would you like to see happen in Syria?

Quaestor said...

Why did Trump ever hold Putin such high regard, bad judgement? [sic]

Did Inga ask why Obama held Hugo Chávez in such high regard?

Absurd question, no?

Quaestor said...

J. Farmer wrote: When given the option between someone who may be less interventionist (Trump) and someone who would definitely be more interventionist (Clinton), you go with the unknown quantity and hope for the best.

On the subject of Hillary Clinton, whose machinations are largely responsible for the civil war in Syria, Libya, latterly freed from Qaddafi's tyranny through the agency of another Clinton foreign policy, has now opened its first public slave market in more than a century. So much for the Arab Spring.

Inga said...

"Just out of curiosity, Inga, what would you like to see happen in Syria?"

First and foremost, I'd like to see the US accept thousands upon thousands of Syrian refugee women and children. I'd like to see a safe zone created for Syrian men. Arm them. Ultimately help get rid of Assad. I'm not a military expert so I'm gping to comment on the particulars.

J. Farmer said...

@Inga:

First and foremost, I'd like to see the US accept thousands upon thousands of Syrian refugee women and children. I'd like to see a safe zone created for Syrian men. Arm them. Ultimately help get rid of Assad. I'm not a military expert so I'm gping to comment on the particulars.

So you want to take in refugees from Syria and then start a regime change war in Syria, which of course would result in even more refugees. I guess no one can accuse you of lacking passion. So how many refugees would you like to house, or were you just assuming someone else would take up that burden?

Inga said...

"So, thus far we have 2 self-identified mind-readers on this blog: Inga and "lifelong republican" Chuck."

Oh please. Trump did nothing but praise Putin for the last several years. Do I need to go find all the Trump comments praising Putin and post them here again? Just listen to the interview O'Reilly did with Trump. Some people like Drago have a convienient case of amnesia.

J. Farmer said...

@Quaestor:

On the subject of Hillary Clinton, whose machinations are largely responsible for the civil war in Syria, Libya, latterly freed from Qaddafi's tyranny through the agency of another Clinton foreign policy, has now opened its first public slave market in more than a century.

As godawful as Clinton's opinions were, I actually don't think it's fair to refer to it as her "foreign policy." Obama was the commander-in-chief, and the foolish decisions he made with regards to Libya and Syria are squarely on his shoulders. But they did give us a good insight into what to expect from a Clinton presidency, plus her own foolish statements on these issues, of course. Clinton had supported every military intervention the US has engaged in for the past three decades.

Quaestor said...

Why on earth would Trump, of all people, take the US intelligence community's word for anything? He knows from personal experience that it is filled with political actors pushing false narratives to promote their own partisan agendas.

The United States has many intelligence agencies. The President's information may have come from a less politically meddlesome bureau than the corrupted CIA, such as the Defense Intelligence Agency or the NRO. Since the information is about weaponry the use of same the DIA is probably the main source.

BTW, what's the difference between an "intermeddler" and a just plain meddler?

Luke Lea said...

The government's 4 page report doesn't exactly support the charge that Assad was responsible for the chemical attack. "Senior regime military leaders were probably involved in planning the attack." That leaves open the possibility that it was a rogue element in the Syrian military, perhaps on the side of the rebels, who did it.

J. Farmer said...

@Inga:

As our countries worked together to confront many challenges, I always valued King Abdullah’s perspective and appreciated our genuine and warm friendship. As a leader, he was always candid and had the courage of his convictions.

-Statement by the President on the Death of King Abdullah bin Abdulaziz, 01/22/2015

I don't suppose I need to rehash the late monarch's record on torture, freedom of expression, public beheadings, or persecution of minorities. I am honestly curious if you were as exercised about the former presidents "warm friendship" with the Saudi despot as you are with the current president's "praising Putin?"

Inga said...

We have lots of room in this country for refugees.

http://theconversation.com/syrian-refugees-in-turkey-jordan-and-lebanon-face-an-uncertain-2017-70747

"As 2016 drew to a bloody close in Syria and the government took back control over eastern Aleppo, over 4.8m Syrian refugees continued to seek safety and a means of living a dignified life across the Middle East. There are 2.8m Syrians currently registered in Turkey, over a million in Lebanon, and around 656,000 in Jordan. To put this figure into context, in the so-called European “refugee crisis” a total of 884,461 Syrian refugees applied for asylum in Europe between April 2011 and October 2016.

Media focus on international forced migration continues to leave internal displacement largely invisible to international audiences. It also hides the realities of involuntary immobility – people who are “internally stuck” – and those who are physically prevented from crossing Syria’s borders to its neighbouring countries.

What will 2017 bring for those people who have been displaced by the ongoing Syrian conflict?"

They'll be attacked with Sarin gas.

exiledonmainstreet said...

I truly hope the Left keeps pushing this "Trump was colluding with the Russians!" meme, as various nutbags like Lawrence O'Donnell and idiot Democrat Congressman Seth Moulton are doing. Before the bombing, I feared that ordinary apolitical people were starting to think, "Well, hell, maybe there is something to this Russian conspiracy business, they keep talking about it on TV."

Now it sounds positively loony. It makes no sense whatsoever and only proves that the Left is so love with their "Trump's in bed with Putin!" narrative that they wouldn't give it up if Trump announced a strike on the Kremlin.

I don't want us to get entangled in yet another Middle Eastern shithole, but the bombing did show, beyond any doubt (unless you're a complete leftwing imbecile) that the thought of Putin and Trump being in collusion is utterly absurd.

mockturtle said...

Exiled argues: While that is true, referring to Lindsay Graham as a woman of the Senate is to my mind an entirely understandable mistake.

Good point. Interesting that the NNDB Bio website has Graham's sexual preference listed as a 'Matter of Dispute." Maybe even his gender is.

traditionalguy said...

Query: what does a great winning coach say about his team's next scheduled opponent? He says they are the toughest and most talented players he has ever seen in his career.

Then when the game begins,he runs up the score until the last few minutes.

The Russians thought Trump would play nice since he respected Russian leadership. But them the orange haired honey badger did not care about nice. He sent Mathis and McMaster with with orders to attack Iran's ally.

J. Farmer said...

@Inga:

We have lots of room in this country for refugees.

Okay, how much room do we have in your town? For 1,000? 10,000? 100,000? I am not sure if you have school-aged children, but presuming you do, what percent of their schools student body would you prefer to be non-English speaking children of refugees? How much money, clothing, or your own personal time have you donated to refugee relief efforts? It's pretty easy to take the morally self-righteous high ground from behind a keyboard.

exiledonmainstreet said...

Sweden will “never go back to the days of mass immigration” after it emerged the Stockholm attacker was a failed asylum seeker, the Swedish prime minister has said.

Stefan Löfven spoke out against the recent mass influx of immigrants coming in to Sweden during the 2015 migrant crisis.

His comments come after suspected terrorist Rakhmat Akilov, 39, from Uzbekistan, allegedly drove a stolen beer truck into pedestrians at a busy department store in Stockholm on Friday.

SWEDEN MOURNS 4 KILLED, 15 WOUNDED IN STOCKHOLM TRUCK ATTACK

Four people were killed, including Brit dad-of-two Chris Bevinton, and dozens more injured in the harrowing attack, which showed similarities to the London terror attack last month.

The Swedish Prime Minister said: “Sweden will never go back to the [mass migration] we had in autumn 2015, never. Everyone who has been denied a permit should return home.

"This makes me feel enormously frustrated. If you have been denied a visa you are supposed to leave the country."

Hey, maybe they can come here! They've been such an valuable addition to Europe!

Inga said...

Trump had his eyes opened by the Sarin gas attack and was influenced by the Kuschners and the Generals to act. Trump was still solidly behind Putin until then.

J. Farmer said...

@traditionalguy:

The Russians thought Trump would play nice since he respected Russian leadership. But them the orange haired honey badger did not care about nice. He sent Mathis and McMaster with with orders to attack Iran's ally.

If that's the case, it's an extremely foolish calculus. Good relations with Russia are worth much more to the US than a punitive strike on an airbase, which gets the US nothing of strategic significance in return.

The countries the US should be leaning on right now are Turkey (a NATO member), Saudi Arabia, and Qatar. All three are putting money and arms in the hands of radical Salafi jihadists in order to wage war against the Syrian government. What do you think will happen to these battle hardened, funded, trained, and armed fighters once the government falls?

Inga said...

What does the terrorist attack in Sweden have to do with the subject matter of this blogpost?

Hey maybe we can distract others to stop discussing Putin, Trump and the shifting alliances.

J. Farmer said...

@Inga:

Trump had his eyes opened by the Sarin gas attack and was influenced by the Kuschners and the Generals to act. Trump was still solidly behind Putin until then.

Still waiting to hear a response to my question about Obama and King Abdullah. Did his admission of "genuine and warm friendship" with the late despot cause you any amount of concern? Where you would rather live...Russia or Saudi Arabia? I know it would take me about a tenth of a second to answer that question.

exiledonmainstreet said...

"It's pretty easy to take the morally self-righteous high ground from behind a keyboard."

Oh, but it's highly probable it will be other people (including other women and children) who die in any terrorist attacks any of those "poor women and children" may commit years down the road. Like the people who were torn to shreds by pressure cooker bombs in Boston or the mall shoppers who were stabbed to death by Somalis in Minnesota. The possible death of other Americans on American soil is just the price we have to pay for showing how compassionate we are.

Inga said...

"Still waiting to hear a response to my question about Obama and King Abdullah."

Speaking of alliances, I recall the recent visit of King Abdullah and Sisi and the warm welcome and praise that Trump gave them.

Quaestor said...

Obama was the commander-in-chief, and the foolish decisions he made with regards to Libya and Syria are squarely on his shoulders.

Agreed. Obama is both technically and legally the responsible party. However, I believe — with some evidence — that Obama gave Clinton a free hand in regard to the Middle East for several reasons: Firstly, because of a deal he reached with Bill & Hill in 2008, support me against McCain and I'll make sure Hillary is the shoe-in candidate of 2016. To that end he let her indulge in some resumé enhancement by way of adventurism among the benighted Arabs. When her "Arab Spring" projects started to smell like a three-day-old fish Clinton "retired to private life" in hope of being un-tarred by the consequences. Secondly, Obama had been from the beginning of his political career singularly uninterested in and uninformed about the world at large, even down to a shocking ignorance of simple geography — 57 states in the Union, citizens of Austria speak Austrian, etc. Having a pathological micro-manager at State suited Obama's proclivities to a tee. Thirdly, the complications of the Arab Spring might have interfered with Obama's busy vacation schedule.

J. Farmer said...

@Inga:

Speaking of alliances, I recall the recent visit of King Abdullah and Sisi and the warm welcome and praise that Trump gave them.

Right. That's what governments do. I wasn't exercised about Obama's gushing over the Saudi despot, and I don't mind Trump's good words about Putin. That's called consistency. When you apply standards to one side but not the other, it's opportunism. So which are you?

exiledonmainstreet said...

"What does the terrorist attack in Sweden have to do with the subject matter of this blogpost?"

You are advocating bringing thousands of Syrian refugees into this country. The Swedes seem to be rethinking their position on the matter. Their misguided, suicidal humanitarianism has resulted in the loss of Swedish lives and the rape of many Swedish women.

For them, it's too late. For us, it is not (at least I hope it is not).

Bruce Hayden said...

"We actually have a shared interest in Syria, since it would be much better for regional stability and security if Syria was not being fought over by various gangs of radical Salafi jihadists."

Except that it isn't just various gangs of radical Salafi jihadists. Some of it is more sectarian than that. President Bashar al-Assad and his Alawite faction practice, essentially, a quasi-Shiite version of Islam (with maybe a little bit of Christianity thrown in). Which somewhat explains his backing by Iraq, and esp Iran.(and, thus, somewhat Russia). This sectarian split, between Sunni and Shia, goes back roughly a millennium, with the Alawites having to hide in their mountains much of that time out of fear of persecution by the Sunni majority.

I have long wondered if this sectarian split is why the Crooked Hillary State Dept (and Obama Administration) tried to push Assad out of power, along with his Alawites, esp since her closest aide, Huma Abedin, has such close ties to the Muslim Brotherhood (through her parents and brothers). I would argue that much of the termoil that Europe is facing right now is a direct consequence of this action by Clinton and Obama, destabilizing Syria, but not toppling the Assad regime.

I always found it interesting that Sunni Sadam Hussein, ruling a Shiite majority Iraq, and the Alawite Assads ruling a Sunni majority Syria next door, were both Ba'athists, and were such firm allies. It will be interesting to find out whether the Sarin gas used by Assad on his own people had Iraqi roots. Maybe some of the stuff that appeared (according to satellite photos) to have been moved out of Iraq using Russian trucks in the last days before our invasion of Iraq. Should be interesting, esp since Trump and his people probably have an incentive to point out the connection, if indeed there is one. We shall see.

J. Farmer said...

@Inga:

p.s. King Abdullah died in 2015. Trump met with Mohammed bin Salman, who is the deputy crown prince of Saudi Arabia.

J. Farmer said...

@Bruce Hayden:

Except that it isn't just various gangs of radical Salafi jihadists. Some of it is more sectarian than that. President Bashar al-Assad and his Alawite faction practice, essentially, a quasi-Shiite version of Islam (with maybe a little bit of Christianity thrown in).

Nearly three-quarters of Syria is made up of Sunnis. If Assad falls, a Sunni power will most likely fill that vacuum, and there are numerous Sunni factions (many of whom have ideologies indistinguishable from Al Qaeda) vying for power and control in Syria. As I commented in an earlier post today:

And can anyone really ask the simplest, most basic fucking question possible--what comes next? When the Assad regime comes to "an end," what replaces it? Will it be Jaysh al-Islam in Damascus, Douma, and Eastern Ghouta? Will it be the Islamic Front, which itself comprises numerous smaller factions? Will it be the tens of thousands of fighters who make up Ahrar al-Sham? Will it be Tahrir al-Sham (basically Al Qaeda in Syria) who dominate in the Idlib Governorate in western Syria? Perhaps the Khalid ibn al-Walid Army operating in the Daraa and Quneitra Governorates of southwestern Syria? Oh and what about the Syriac Military Council in the Al-Hasakah Governorate of the northeast? And of course we haven't even begun talking about ISIL or the separate Rojava conflict taking place within that autonomous region of Syria.

Inga said...

http://www.npr.org/2017/04/05/522756767/president-trump-meets-with-king-abdullah-of-jordan

I was talking about King Abdullah of Jordan, who Trump met with April 5th.

Achilles said...

J. Farmer said...

I honestly have no clue why you think that US News and World Report article you linked to at all helps your case.

"The U.S. government buried the cases from both the public and the troops. As a result, injured soldiers did not receive proper medical treatment."


You say this as if I am trying to vindicate the Bush regime. I am not. Bush was obviously on board with the media trashing us. He sent us over there to do a job and we did it. Then he hung us out to dry. He let the MSM lie about what we were doing and what was happening.

In the end whether through cowardice or mendacity the Bush administration screwed over all of the members of the armed forces he sent over there in a variety of ways. The Bush's have always been globalists and elitists.

I am not thrilled about the Neocons apparently gaining a foothold here. But I do get pissed off when I see the "no WMD" lie not only because it was a lie but because the people who knew the truth refused to say the truth about what happened.

J. Farmer said...

@Inga:

I was talking about King Abdullah of Jordan, who Trump met with April 5th.

My mistake, I apologize. But I'm still waiting for you to respond to my point:

"Right. That's what governments do. I wasn't exercised about Obama's gushing over the Saudi despot, and I don't mind Trump's good words about Putin. That's called consistency. When you apply standards to one side but not the other, it's opportunism. So which are you?"

Achilles said...

J. Farmer said...
@Inga:

We have lots of room in this country for refugees.

Okay, how much room do we have in your town? For 1,000? 10,000? 100,000? I am not sure if you have school-aged children, but presuming you do, what percent of their schools student body would you prefer to be non-English speaking children of refugees? How much money, clothing, or your own personal time have you donated to refugee relief efforts? It's pretty easy to take the morally self-righteous high ground from behind a keyboard.

No no no. The rich are going to pay for all of that. And sharia law is cool with Inga. She doesn't mind if her kids fall prey to FGM or get stuck in burkas. And the left was never serious about gay rights anyhow.

J. Farmer said...

@Achilles:

But I do get pissed off when I see the "no WMD" lie not only because it was a lie but because the people who knew the truth refused to say the truth about what happened.

Even the article you linked to does not support that line of argumentation. The article it was based on says this:

"All had been manufactured before 1991, participants said. Filthy, rusty or corroded, a large fraction of them could not be readily identified as chemical weapons at all. Some were empty, though many of them still contained potent mustard agent or residual sarin. Most could not have been used as designed, and when they ruptured dispersed the chemical agents over a limited area, according to those who collected the majority of them."

This also aligns with the findings of the Iraq Survey Group, which included over 1400 people and was tasked with finding the stockpiles of WMD the CIA's 2002 assessment claimed were there:

"While a small number of old, abandoned chemical munitions have been discovered, ISG judges that Iraq unilaterally destroyed its undeclared chemical weapons stockpile in 1991."

Bruce Hayden said...

"If that's the case, it's an extremely foolish calculus. Good relations with Russia are worth much more to the US than a punitive strike on an airbase, which gets the US nothing of strategic significance in return."

I don't think that the strike on the airbase was strategically aimed at just Assad and Syria. Rather, I think that it was also aimed at both Russia and China. Not directly, of course. But symbolically.

"The countries the US should be leaning on right now are Turkey (a NATO member), Saudi Arabia, and Qatar. All three are putting money and arms in the hands of radical Salafi jihadists in order to wage war against the Syrian government. What do you think will happen to these battle hardened, funded, trained, and armed fighters once the government falls?"

Not sure right now how badly the Assad govt will fall, or if it will at all. And, last I knew, at least the ISIS faction is getting chewed up pretty well by the Iraqis, Kurds, and Iranian backed Syrians, at least on the Iraqi side of the border. The more that can be sent to Allah, the better. But, yes, those countries are a problem with their support of the jihadists. The good news is that we may finally have some leverage with the Saudis with the US rapidly becoming the world swing oil producer. Saudi Arabia took the biggest hit with the recent OPEC production cuts, which have, thanks to US production, failed to provide the price supports that OPEC so desperately wants.

J. Farmer said...

@Bruce Hayden:

I don't think that the strike on the airbase was strategically aimed at just Assad and Syria. Rather, I think that it was also aimed at both Russia and China. Not directly, of course. But symbolically.

I am aware of this argument, and I reject it. The Chinese and Russians obviously know that we would not strike them directly with military, just as we haven't for the last many decades, thanks in large part to the nuclear deterrent. We've been waging war in the middle east nonstop for 16 years now. The Russian and Chinese, if anything, see our constant resort to military force as a fault, and it is not likely to seriously alter their own calculus when moving on the world stage. Take the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Did that send a message to us that the Soviets were determined and willing to use force to secure their interests, or did we view it as a reckless move that was sure to bog the Soviets down and cost them a great deal?

And, last I knew, at least the ISIS faction is getting chewed up pretty well by the Iraqis, Kurds, and Iranian backed Syrians, at least on the Iraqi side of the border.

ISIL is only a small part of the problem. There are numerous factions operating in Syria, some of them with American money, weapons, and training, who possess an ideology that is not all that distinguishable from either ISIS or Al Qaeda. In any event, if Assad were to fall, we would have absolutely no way of managing events on the ground without a huge contingent of American troops in the country, and there is absolutely no appetite in America for such an undertaking.

Michael K said...

I always found it interesting that Sunni Sadam Hussein, ruling a Shiite majority Iraq, and the Alawite Assads ruling a Sunni majority Syria next door, were both Ba'athists, and were such firm allies.

The Baath Party was always secular and was begun by Michael Aflaq (No, not the insurance company with the goose) and Syrian Socialists and Arab Nationalists. The United Arab Republic, was an attempt at pan-Arabism back in the 50s. The 1961 coup ended that and there were a series of coups that finally ended when Assad Sr took power in 1970. I guess Arabs are always tribal but the Baath Party was an attempt at secular rule.

Michael K said...

If there was a "message" in the Syrian airstrike it was probably aimed at the Norks and China.

I still don;t know who's on first.

Drago said...

Inga: "Oh please. Trump did nothing but praise Putin for the last several years. Do I need to go find all the Trump comments praising Putin and post them here again? Just listen to the interview O'Reilly did with Trump. Some people like Drago have a convienient case of amnesia"

So, a politician making publicly positive statements about other politician/leaders automatically means (and excluding any other possibilities) that the politician making the statements MUST, by definition, hold the other political leaders in high regard.

:OL

Uh huh. Sure.

J. Farmer said...

@Michael K:

I guess Arabs are always tribal but the Baath Party was an attempt at secular rule.

There was a big burst of Pan-Arabism in the 1950s and 1960s, most notably under Nasser in Egypt. But given the amount of cousin marriage in the middle east, and the extensiveness of the kinship system, such a system was never likely to work. Look at all the trouble the European elites have had trying to create a pan-Europeanism out of the varying polities of that continent.

exhelodrvr1 said...

Maybe Putin and Trump are homosexual lovers!! Like those two Pompeii victims!!

That would explain everything!!

Drago said...

Inga: "Hey maybe we can distract others to stop discussing Putin, Trump and the shifting alliances"

LOL

What was original "alliance" from which you claim there is now shifting?

Show your work.

Quaestor said...

I always found it interesting that Sunni Sadam Hussein, ruling a Shiite majority Iraq, and the Alawite Assads ruling a Sunni majority Syria next door, were both Ba'athists, and were such firm allies. It will be interesting to find out whether the Sarin gas used by Assad on his own people had Iraqi roots. Maybe some of the stuff that appeared (according to satellite photos) to have been moved out of Iraq using Russian trucks in the last days before our invasion of Iraq. Should be interesting, esp since Trump and his people probably have an incentive to point out the connection, if indeed there is one. We shall see.

The Ba'athists are, or more correctly were a non-sectarian political movement. Philosophically they were similar to the Spanish Phalangists accept without the religious aspects. The Ba'athists tried to maintain control by emphasizing nationalist policies and suppressing radical religious elements. Being members of a historically oppressed sect the Assad family naturally embraced Ba'athism.

Saddam violated a primary tenant of Ba'athism, thou shalt not war on thy brother Arab, which is why Syria joined the anti-Iraq coalition in 1990. After his defeat in 1991, Saddam stopped being a Ba'athist and became an unalloyed Islamic fascist.

Drago said...

It is getting difficult keeping up with all the twists and turns the lefties are putting themselves thru to flex to new and improved insane conspiracies while keeping the older insane conspiracies alive.

Entertaining though, I must admit.

J. Farmer said...

@Michael K:

If there was a "message" in the Syrian airstrike it was probably aimed at the Norks and China.

What message are the North Koreans supposed to get?

St. George said...

Surprised you have not posted about what appears may be imminent war between the US and North Korea with China's tacit acquiescence.

J. Farmer said...

@St. George:

Surprised you have not posted about what appears may be imminent war between the US and North Korea with China's tacit acquiescence.

The South Koreans are certainly nervous. And who can blame them. Seoul's 10,000,000 residents are the most likely to suffer a great deal if a war broke out on the peninsula.

South Korea Seeks to Assure Citizens U.S. Won’t Strike North Pre-emptively

Quaestor said...

Inga wrote: Oh please. Trump did nothing but praise Putin for the last several years. Do I need to go find all the Trump comments praising Putin and post them here again?

Abby Someone will not "post them here again" (did she ever?) because those interviews refute her assertions. Quaestor will now post the relevant section of O'Reilly's interview with Trump on Superbowl Sunday.

O’Reilly: You talked to Putin last week. You had a busy week last week.

Trump: Busy week and a half.

O’Reilly: Do you respect Putin?

Trump: I do respect him but —

O’Reilly: Do you? Why?

Trump: Well, I respect a lot of people but that doesn’t mean I’m going to get along with him. He’s a leader of his country. I say it’s better to get along with Russia than not. And if Russia helps us in the fight against ISIS, which is a major fight, and Islamic terrorism all over the world — that’s a good thing. Will I get along with him? I have no idea.

O’Reilly: But he’s a killer though. Putin’s a killer.

Trump: There are a lot of killers. We’ve got a lot of killers. What do you think — our country’s so innocent. You think our country’s so innocent?

O’Reilly: I don’t know of any government leaders that are killers.

Trump: Well — take a look at what we’ve done too. We made a lot of mistakes. I’ve been against the war in Iraq from the beginning.

O’Reilly: But mistakes are different than —

Trump: A lot of mistakes, but a lot of people were killed. A lot of killers around, believe me.


Seth Rich could name one of those killers if he were not dead already.

mockturtle said...

The South Koreans will be hosting the Winter Olympics next year. Can't have it spoiled by a nuclear attack, now, can we?

Jack Wayne said...

FWIW: there are so many strands coming together in Syria which strike me as establishment mistakes that I cannot support whatever it is that Trump intends to try there and elsewhere. Of course, so much of what we have heard in the last couple of days comes from the NYT and WAPO that it must be heavily discounted. But here goes.
I don't believe the stories that the Kushners are heavily influencing Trump's foreign policy. If it's anyone it is the neocons. Tillerson in particular, if we believe the reporting, is proposing the sort of silly "freedom and liberty for all" nonsense we have seen in America from time to time. Obama screwed the pooch so many times and kicked it to the curb that I doubt anyone is impressed by any saber rattling from America. And I've never been a person impressed by sending messages via the military. As for Trump's supposed coyness over revealing his plans: it's completely true that Obama and Bush were military buffoons and poor war presidents. It is also true that the most successful foreign policy in America in the last century was the Cold War - a publically announced policy. There is a difference between tactics and strategy and I believe that the American public is due a full and complete explanation from Trump as to the general scope of his strategy. He should keep his tactics to himself.
Finally, as to Russia: I believe it is a very good idea to have a working relationship with Russia. It looks like Trump has been buffaloed by the Dems to abandon that for the nonce. If he was serious about it he could have demanded that Putin put up or shut up about how the gas attack occurred. Trust comes from verification and I believe that if Trump had given Putin 24 hours to produce his evidence that we would all be better off. 2 points: everything I have read seems awful wishy-washy. The evidence of a gas attack is clear but I have seen words like "consistent with" and "chlorine with traces of sarin". As for the airplanes, I have seen phrases like " in the area", and "only possible explanation". I don't trust our government enough to piss on it if it was on fire and when I see weasel words I just don't buy what they're selling. For me, Trump needs to do a better job of showing evidence and explaining policy.

Mike said...

Oh Cookie, just because you refuse to look at the evidence doesn't mean there is none. Assad used Sarin on those kids. No other fighting force in Syria has Sarin, although ISIS has some mustard gas.

n.n said...

Some other problems with CAIR (Catastrophic Anthropogenic Immigration Reform), other than as a cover-up for social justice adventurism, is what happens to children lost in transit (i.e. trail of tears) and others left behind. CAIR opens abortion fields, forces dislocation, and causes disenfranchisement of natives at both ends of the trail.

Inga said...

http://www.cnn.com/2017/02/04/politics/donald-trump-vladimir-putin/

Washington (CNN)

Trump made the remark during an interview with Fox News' Bill O'Reilly, saying he respected his Russian counterpart.
"But he's a killer," O'Reilly said to Trump.

"There are a lot of killers. You think our country's so innocent?" Trump replied.

A clip of the exchange was released Saturday and the full interview aired Sunday before the Super Bowl.

It was an unusual assertion coming from the President of the United States. Trump himself, however, has made similar points before.
"He's running his country and at least he's a leader, unlike what we have in this country," Trump told MSNBC's "Morning Joe" in December 2015.

He continued, "I think our country does plenty of killing also, Joe, so you know. There's a lot of stupidity going on in the world right now, a lot of killing, a lot of stupidity," Trump said.

US Rep. Adam Schiff, a California Democrat who serves on the House Intelligence Committee, called Trump's claim false.

"This is the second time Trump has defended Putin against the charge that he's a killer by saying in effect that the US is no better or different," Schiff told CNN. "This is as inexplicably bizarre as it is untrue. Does he not see the damage he does with comments like that, and the gift he gives to Russian propaganda?""

Inga said...

80 times Trump talked about Putin

Quaestor said...

Assad used Sarin on those kids. No other fighting force in Syria has Sarin, although ISIS has some mustard gas.

Sarin is fairly easy to make. Aum Shinrikyo made their own. However, sarin is difficult to weaponize. Sarin is not a gas, it's an oily inflammable liquid. Bombs and artillery shells must be specifically designed for the purpose. Nor dos the excuse offered by Russia about rebel stores of sarin being accidentally hit by Assad's bombers hold water. Firstly, there's no evidence the inhabitants of Khan Shaykhun ever had sarin or any chemical warfare agents in their possession. Secondly dropping a bomb on a container of sarin won't do anything but destroy it. Sarin burns. The reaction products are not especially toxic. Sarin was used. Turkish doctors have found sarin traces in the blood of Khan Shaykhun survivors. Sarin was also used at Ghouta in 2013. Obama response was silence and a fake claim of having rid Assad of "100% of [his] chemical weapons."

Quaestor said...

80 times Trump talked about Putin

Eight examples of true facts about Vladimir Putin. So what?

exiledonmainstreet said...

"Trump: Well, I respect a lot of people but that doesn’t mean I’m going to get along with him. He’s a leader of his country. I say it’s better to get along with Russia than not. And if Russia helps us in the fight against ISIS, which is a major fight, and Islamic terrorism all over the world — that’s a good thing. Will I get along with him? I have no idea."

Wow, what a ringing endorsement!

Rusty said...

"Well the assessment made in 2004, when over 1400 people were in the country and able to look for stockpiles of weapons, they found nothing. So the CIA could not be right in its assessments in 2002 and 2004."

Again HR114 stated that " the means to create weapons of mass destruction........'
There were 500 tons of yellowcake found that weren't accounted for before. Which begs the question. What else was missed?
And if I remember correctly the the forces that found one batch of artillary shells said they were perfectly capable of being used. Despite their condition.

Quaestor said...

He continued, "I think our country does plenty of killing also, Joe, so you know. There's a lot of stupidity going on in the world right now, a lot of killing, a lot of stupidity," Trump said.

As I recall Abby Someone was very anti-war on the matter of Iraq, as was Adam Schiff (2008 - "This war is a terrible tragedy, and it is time to bring it to an end.") On this point, Trump agrees with Abby Some and Schiff, but because he's not Hillary, Trump's opinion is "propaganda".

You should not engage in bullshitting us, Abby Someone (aka Inga). You're not very good at it.

Inga said...

http://www.cnn.com/2016/07/28/politics/donald-trump-vladimir-putin-quotes/

October 2007: Trump said Putin's doing a great job

December 2011: Trump praised Putin's "intelligence" and "no-nonsense way" in his book "Time to Get Tough."

June 2013: Trump wonders if Putin will be his "new best friend"

October 2013: Trump says Putin is outsmarting the US

July 31, 2015: Trump says they'd get along

Oct. 11, 2015: Trump says they had good ratings together

Nov. 10, 2015: Trump reiterates that he and Putin "were stablemates

Dec. 17, 2015: Trump returns Putin's praise

Dec. 18, 2015: Trump defends against allegations Putin has ordered the killings of journalists

Feb. 17: Trump says he'd be "crazy" to disavow Putin's praise

April 28: Trump says maybe they'll get along

July 28: Trump says he'd be firm with Putin

J. Farmer said...

@Rusty:

Which begs the question. What else was missed?

That's not what begs the question means. And the assessment the CIA made of Iraq's WMD program in October 2002 was flat out contradicted by the report it published in September 2004. Both reports cannot be correct. You can also read this report from the RAND Corporation. The relevant pages are 161-174.

J. Farmer said...

@Inga:

I am still waiting, now for the third time, for you to respond to this comment:

Still waiting to hear a response to my question about Obama and King Abdullah. Did his admission of "genuine and warm friendship" with the late despot cause you any amount of concern? Where you would rather live...Russia or Saudi Arabia? I know it would take me about a tenth of a second to answer that question.

exiledonmainstreet said...

A bunch of CNN quotes taken completely out of context.

Well, that sure is convincing.

Inga said...

Go to the link.

Inga said...

Donald Trump on Putin on his own words, timeline.

Here's a hyperlink for the lazy people.

Quaestor said...

October 2007: Trump said Putin's doing a great job

According to public opinion surveys conducted by NGO Levada Center, Putin's approval rating was 81% in June 2007, and the highest of any leader in the world, other than that of former British Prime Minister Tony Blair, who received a 93% public approval rating in September 1997. That's evidence in favor of "doing a great job."

December 2011: Trump praised Putin's "intelligence" and "no-nonsense way" in his book "Time to Get Tough."

A fair and accurate assessment. Unlike the morons who cluge away at CNN's website. Knows a more than a few Russians and what they think.

June 2013: Trump wonders if Putin will be his "new best friend"

Much better a best friend than a worst enemy. We have many enemies and few friends, thanks to Obama.

October 2013: Trump says Putin is outsmarting the US

Obama was President in 2013. The conclusion is obvious. Trump could have said the same true thing about Erdogan, Kim Jung-Un, or a log of wood.

July 31, 2015: Trump says they'd get along

Wishing aloud. Trump made the mistake of believing Kerry's 100% comment.

Oct. 11, 2015: Trump says they had good ratings together

A true fact, as usual.

Nov. 10, 2015: Trump reiterates that he and Putin "were stablemates

Absurd when out of context. Neither Trump nor Putin is a horse. However, it is hopeless to expect context from CNN. Or Inga.

Dec. 17, 2015: Trump returns Putin's praise.

Trump understands diplomacy. Inga does not.

Dec. 18, 2015: Trump defends against allegations Putin has ordered the killings of journalists

And rightly so.

Feb. 17: Trump says he'd be "crazy" to disavow Putin's praise

And rightly so.

The rest is unworthy of comment.

Quaestor said...

MY PENIS GOT BIGGER AFTER SEEING HILLARY WEAR THOSE GODAWFUL PINK SHOES.

AReasonableMan said...

Quaestor said...
We have many enemies and few friends, thanks to Obama.


Curious to hear Angela Merkel's take on this untethered opinion.

Browndog said...

Everyone answers to Inga.

Same as it ever was.....

Earnest Prole said...

Why it's almost as though the Trump–Russia conspiracy was created of whole cloth.

Michael K said...

We have many enemies and few friends, thanks to Obama.

Curious to hear Angela Merkel's take on this untethered opinion.


Angela is certainly an expert on immigrants.

Inga said...

Sorry Browndog, I don't ask them to.

J. Farmer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
J. Farmer said...

Everyone answers to Inga.

Responding to, not answering to. Very important distinction.

readering said...

From NY Post:

“I like Steve, but you have to remember he was not involved in my campaign until very late,” Trump said. “I had already beaten all the senators and all the governors, and I didn’t know Steve. I’m my own strategist and it wasn’t like I was going to change strategies because I was facing crooked Hillary.”

He ended by saying, “Steve is a good guy, but I told them to straighten it out or I will.”

In other words, genius Trump has it all figured out in his head.

Drago said...

readering: "In other words, genius Trump has it all figured out in his head."

Each sentence of your selected quote can be checked out and verified.

Why don't you get on that and let us know how it goes.

Achilles said...

Blogger J. Farmer said...

"That's not what begs the question means. And the assessment the CIA made of Iraq's WMD program in October 2002 was flat out contradicted by the report it published in September 2004. Both reports cannot be correct. You can also read this report from the RAND Corporation. The relevant pages are 161-174."

The fact that the ASSESSMENTS contradict each other should give you a hint. I am not talking about guesses and assessments. I am talking about shit we actually found and destroyed. Deployable chemical weapons and tons of yellowcake. Things that by the way were not in those assessments.

You are pedaling the lies the globalists want pedaled. Why?

Robert Cook said...

"But I do get pissed off when I see the 'no WMD' lie not only because it was a lie but because the people who knew the truth refused to say the truth about what happened."

I guess you'll have to be pissed off for the rest of your life, because the truth won't change: Saddam had no WMD program and no WMD, (except for the few aging dregs buried and forgotten).

Robert Cook said...

"I don't think that the strike on the airbase was strategically aimed at just Assad and Syria. Rather, I think that it was also aimed at both Russia and China. Not directly, of course. But symbolically."

So you're okay with the USA committing a war crime just to "symbolically" aim at Russia and China?

Robert Cook said...

"Oh Cookie, just because you refuse to look at the evidence doesn't mean there is none. Assad used Sarin on those kids. No other fighting force in Syria has Sarin, although ISIS has some mustard gas."

None of that is even evidence, much less proof. It is all just conjecture and allegation.

No one asserting Assad's complicity has answered the question: what would he have to gain? In fact, he would have everything to lose in using the Sarin gas. He is winning the war against the rebels and he knows using Sarin would bring about outrage from the West. On the other hand, the losing rebels have everything to gain, as setting off Sarin gas and blaming Assad gives the West an excuse to flex its outrage and act precipitously in a manner that serves the rebels' cause...such as to launch (illegal) missles into Syria. (Aye, as here's the rub: even if Assad, against all reason, set off the Sarin gas, this does not give the US legal grounds to launch missles into Syria. Our action was a war crime.)

Drago said...

Cookie the Conspiracy Nut: "Saddam had no WMD program and no WMD, (except for the few aging dregs buried and forgotten)."

LOL

Thanks for your input Comrade. We'll put it right next to all the others.

Drago said...

BTW Cookie, have you gotten your pals together to send foodstuffs to your latest Lefty Economic Success Story, Venezuela?

Rusty said...

I read the 2007 CIA report which seems to make my case. There was a concern over the means and ability to create ends. The500 tons of yellow cake supports what I said since it was found after the fighting ended and could not. E a accounted for by the iaea

J. Farmer said...

@Achilles:

Achilles at 1:44pm:

Farmer said...
And when has the US intelligence community ever gotten anything wrong on matters of WMD? Oh, wait.

Yeah when? Seriously I would like to see your answer here.


Achilles at 12:50am:

The fact that the ASSESSMENTS contradict each other should give you a hint. I am not talking about guesses and assessments. I am talking about shit we actually found and destroyed. Deployable chemical weapons and tons of yellowcake. Things that by the way were not in those assessments.

So, have you answered your own question? First, the Iraq Survey Group identified a small amount of chemical weapons left over from those produced in the 1980s and noted as such in their report. The yellowcake at the Tuwaitha facility was not discovered after the invasion; it was already known to be there and dated back from Sadam's clandestine nuclear program in the 1980s.

The reason the assessments differ is that the one made in 2002 was based, in a large part, on very unreliable sources like Ahmed Chalabi and by the source codenamed "Curveball." The results of the Iraq Survey Group included the findings of more than 1400 people working with the Pentagon and the CIA traveling around Iraq and inspecting sites for WMD. That's why the findings are so sharply different.

J. Farmer said...

@Rusty:

The500 tons of yellow cake supports what I said since it was found after the fighting ended and could not.

That is not true, and I challenge you to produce a single piece of credible evidence that 500 tons of unaccounted yellow cake were discovered "after" the fighting. The yellowcake that was removed from under the Tuwaitha site had long been accounted for and dated back to before 1991.

J. Farmer said...

@Achilles:

Read the RAND report I linked to earlier. It does a nice, concise job of explaining how the 2002 NIE was revised as it went up the chain of command, burying qualifiers and reservations while highlighting and hyping potential findings.

Rusty said...

500 tons , Farmer, that weren't acounted for by the AIEA. Burried cetrafuges, Ancient artillary shells from the 1980s that somebody conveniently forgot they had them. "Oh. Those old things."
Yeah. OK. No WMDs. But the HR114 said "the potential to manufacture WMDs."
You don't play poker, do you?