UPDATE: WaPo:
President Trump ordered a military attack against Syrian President Bashar al-Assad on Friday, joining allies Britain and France in launching missile strikes in retaliation for what Western nations said was the deliberate gassing of Syrian civilians.Yes, I was just listening to a news podcast that said if after all his threats Trump didn't strike Syria, he'd be the same as Obama drawing a red line and doing nothing when Assad crossed it. That seemed like a bad analogy to me, but Trump has now acted, so Trump is quite unlike Obama.
The assault followed repeated threats of military action from Trump, who has been moved by civilian suffering to set aside his concerns about foreign military conflicts, since the reported chemical attack that killed civilians in the rebel-held town outside Damascus last weekend.
पोस्ट्स
१४६ टिप्पण्या:
With all that’s going on in the world tonight, I shudder to think that Trump is the President. I hope he listens to the rational people around him.
Trump should’ve thought about Putin and his associations before he wanted a relationship with him.
Inga: "Trump should’ve thought about Putin and his associations before he wanted a relationship with him"
LOL
Yes. Inga wrote that. Just now. As if history started anew this morning.
Obama gave Syria to the Russians. Literally asked the Russians in. Literally.
Then promised even more "flexibility after his last election" in the most tender, knee-grabbing way you have ever seen.
Then handed the Iranians Billions and no controls on their development of nukes.
Then let ISIS have 1/3 of Iraq and 1/2 of Syria before the west mobilized.
But whatever.
TRUMP!!!!!!
Haha! This is the first good Trump speech in a year; he is actually grappling with the competing interests of American power, multilateral military action, wanting to get out of the Middle East as well as project American power for world stability.
And at the same time, Trump was still doing that snorting thing. What is wrong with him? He blamed bad microphones at the debate when people remarked about it. These are his microphones now. He’s still snorting.
“And at the same time, Trump was still doing that snorting thing. What is wrong with him? He blamed bad microphones at the debate when people remarked about it. These are his microphones now. He’s still snorting.”
I think he’s medicated. I’ve seen this many times when he has to do a very serious speech. Dry mouth and nasal passages as a result of the medication.
Bad idea. Strikes that don't remove Assad are meaningless. Strikes that lead to the removal of Assad will leave us holding the bag as happened in Libya. It's not often that agree with the general view here but Britain and France are useless allies.
Althouse; Trump is also quite unlike Scott Adams. Just two days ago, Adams was on his Periscope podcast proclaiming that any allegations of a Syrian has attack was a hoax.
LLR Chuck: "Haha! This is the first good Trump speech in a year; he is actually grappling with the competing interests of American power, multilateral military action, wanting to get out of the Middle East as well as project American power for world stability."
LOL
Thanks for your input. You too now get to wear the uniform and epaulet's of an Internet Field Marshall.
Field Marshall and LLR Chuck. Congratulations on your promotion.
Let's hope you understanding and insight related to international negotiations and military matters matches your innate understanding of the Presidential electoral politics of Michigan.
LOL
That would be “gas” attack. Not “has” attack.
Strikes that lead to the removal of Assad will leave us holding the bag as happened in Libya.
Yeah....but Obama, and Hillary were profound fuck-ups!! They couldn't find a way to make a profit out of Libya, and ignored it!!
Remember?
Veni Vidi.....he died!!
Amazing that Trump just last week wanted our troops out of Syria within 48 hours no less.
Between Inga's distance medical diagnoses and her ally Chuck's military expertise being brought to bear, we are truly blessed on Althouse blog.
Inga: "Amazing that Trump just last week wanted our troops out of Syria within 48 hours no less."
Why should the US stay in a nation obama gave to the russians?
Comey's book, scooter libby, bomb syria. Trump safe from Mueller
Allow me to summarize:
Inga - snorting thing
Chuck - snorting thing
ARM - useless action
No further analysis is warranted.
"They couldn't find a way to make a profit out of Libya, and ignored it!!"
Hillary and obama removed the Libyan leader because European oil contracts were at stake.
Yes, they used our military to protect the oil contracts for Europeans.
Trump does not attack:
--Howard: Putin owns Trump!
Trump does attack:
--Howard: "Comey's book, scooter libby, bomb syria. Trump safe from Mueller"
It was France and Britain who were gung-ho to remove Gaddafi. The US military was generally against the idea, not surprisingly. Obama let himself be talked into it and now views it as his biggest mistake. I think supporting Hillary was, but I don't really give a fuck about Libya.
Trump does not attack:
---National Press: Why won't Trump challenge Putin in Syria?!!
Trump does attack:
---National Press: Is the administration afraid that continued conflict with Russia will seriously damage any chance at better relations with Russia? (paraphrase of actual question yesterday)
Gee, I'm sensing a pattern.
ARM: "It was France and Britain who were gung-ho to remove Gaddafi."
Well, the left tells us those nations are so much better and smarter than the US. How could we refuse to follow their lead? Only Deplorables would refuse guidance from their intellectual and moral betters.
Too bad Trump gave so much warning to Syria, via tweets.
Something he criticized Obama for.
Nice try, Drago. Frankly, Don would pasadena on the bombing because he didn't need to do it. I've been saying nuthingburger on the red sparrow yellow showers from since day one. Like you said, Obambi gave Putin the keys to Turkey's rear "service" entrance. Puty-poot been good at bitch-slappin. I'm sure Ivan skipped town before the shockandaweshow.
I think you're pissed you missing these Moonshine-runs in the sky.
Trump is quite unlike Obama
@Althouse, there's a way in which they're alike. You need to ignore what they say and watch what they do.
ARM said ... "Bad idea. Strikes that don't remove Assad are meaningless. Strikes that lead to the removal of Assad will leave us holding the bag as happened in Libya. It's not often that agree with the general view here but Britain and France are useless allies."
OK. I do not disagree.
What would Jesus (I mean the Beloved Liar ARM) do?
Inga: They have to telegraph to reduce what is called collateral damage.
Howard: " Frankly, Don would pasadena on the bombing because he didn't need to do it."
"pasadena on the bombing"
I'm not sure what that means but it sounds cool.
You don't mean run a couple of dozen vehicles covered with flowers thru town do you?
With all that’s going on in the world tonight, I shudder to think that Trump is the President.
I'm kind of happy to hear you shudder to think Trump is president. He must be doing something right.
Howard: "...nuthingburger on the red sparrow yellow showers ..."
"Obambi gave Putin the keys to Turkey's rear "service" entrance"
"Puty-poot been good at bitch-slappin"
"I'm sure Ivan skipped town before the shockandaweshow."
LOL
You are on a "inside scoop/lingo" roll tonight.
Howard: "I think you're pissed you missing these Moonshine-runs in the sky."
It's the muscle memory.
At some point the training kicks in and it becomes all instinct.
Turn Damascus into 1967 San Francisco?
ARM
"We came, we saw, he died" followed by an insane cackle.
I wonder if President Trump will reprise that line?
John Henry
“He must be doing something right.”
Maybe he’ll have a chance to do the right thing if he is surrounded by rational people and listens to them
Somebody please wake up the pothead Scott Adams and tell him that the God Emperor is starting a new war over the “hoax” story that there was ever a Syrian gas attack.
Blogger Drago said...
Howard: "I think you're pissed you missing these Moonshine-runs in the sky."
It's the muscle memory.
At some point the training kicks in and it becomes all instinct.
TMI
Howard: "Turn Damascus into 1967 San Francisco?"
We will need about 100,000 Harry Callahans.
And lots and lots of wide lapel bright colored suits.
And magnums. Lots of magnums.
Know what I mean, punk?
“Somebody please wake up the pothead Scott Adams and tell him that the God Emperor is starting a new war over the “hoax” story that there was ever a Syrian gas attack.”
LOL, thanks for the humor, we need it tonight.
I sense a need for more Damascene conversions and less drama scene conversation.
Field Marshall and LLR Chuck: "Somebody please wake up the pothead Scott Adams and tell him that the God Emperor is starting a new war over the “hoax” story that there was ever a Syrian gas attack"
He was making fun of Bill Kristol, your God King who voted for Hillary.
Making fun of Bill Kristol, and Max Boot, and a few others is always justified and welcomed.
Field Marshall Chuck's time would be better spent studying likely voting patterns in MI for 2020.
For obvious reasons.
Talk about embarrassing.
Quick question: Does Trump bombing Syria, which was given to the Russians by obama, constitute "indian giving"?
Asking for Elizabeth "tomahawk" Warren.
Bad audio at the Pentagon.
"Bad audio at the Pentagon."
Everyone forgot to take out their earplugs due to the jet blasts.
Common problem at the Pentagon.
Wag the dog.
Bill did the same, this is likely to not work as planned just the same.
Comey going to Prague and the small potatoes of the IG report must br buried .... Presidential news conferences are only s temporary salve for the bleeding.
Cohen, not Comey, right?
Mark: "Wag the dog.
Bill did the same, this is likely to not work as planned just the same"
Bill: bombs a single aspirin factory in the middle of nowhere in response to nothing.
Trump: after massive cajoling and harassment from media/dems/republicans to respond to a chemical weapons use by the Syrian govt on its own people killing many, launches a retaliatory strike.
Yep.
Exactly the same.
Exactly.
No question about that.
That's Field Marshall Chuck level "strategerizing" right there.
I asked Inga to try not to be a fool.
I guess it was too much to ask.
Maher "Operation Desert Stormy"
Howard: "Maher "Operation Desert Stormy"
I hope all the servicemen and women (who swing that way) received Pre-Strike packages which included close up posters.
It's the least we can do for our lads and lasses in harms way.
I am personally amazed that Inga believes we need boots on the ground in Syria in order to launch long range missile strikes on known Syrian Chemical weapons related facilities.
But hey, between her, Mark the Helpless and Field Marshall Chuck, we are in good "analytical" hands this evening.
I can't wait to read Inga's treatise on modern tank warfare.
Should be scintillating.
“I asked Inga to try not to be a fool.
I guess it was too much to ask.”
I asked you not to be a senile geezer, too much to ask.
I can't think of any military action since the Six Day War that's been a success in that part of the world. There's like some kind of Newtonian Law at play there. Bad situations get worse at a rate commensurate with activity taken to improve the situation......People here like to blame Bush or Hillary and now, I suppose, Trump since he's taken action. Still, I can't help but wonder at the people of the Middle East. It reflects poorly on them not only that they have such leaders as Saddam, Qaddafi, and Assad but that those leaders are the best possible leaders. The Middle East is one fucked up place. If we do nothing, we're complicit in Assad's crimes. If we do something, then we've made the situation worse.
“I can't wait to read Inga's treatise on modern tank warfare.”
You first, know it all. We’re all ears.
This comment thread is unusual for Althouse.com in how high its bullshit-to-substance ratio is. On all sides. My guess is that one of the reasons Trump wants the US "out of Syria" -- which we're in to fight ISIS, never having committed to removing Assad -- is that as long as we're "in" Syria we'll have to respond to attrocities like this. Personally, I'd love to see Assad toppled, as I loved seeing Sadaam toppled, but I don't think the US has the commitment to do what would be needed to accomplish that.
I wrote my 9:22 comment before reading @William's 9:16 comment, which improved the substance part of the ratio considerably.
Inga: "You first, know it all. We’re all ears"
When you get something between your ears, give a holler. Otherwise its a waste of time.
Not our goddamn business, not our goddamn problem. Children are not more dead when killed by gas than they are when killed by rifles, pistols, machetes, starvation or abortion clinics. Trump would do better to try to stop the senseless violence in Chicago or St. Louis.
“When you get something between your ears, give a holler. Otherwise its a waste of time.”
When you stop running your mouth saying idiotic things in your typical manic fashion, you can add something of substance.
I hope to hear Trump speaking in a few weeks, or months and saying something like, "Thanks to our actions in Syria, the refugees who have flooded much of Europe, can now return home."
That'll be the double whammy. If he ends the conflict in Syria and then demands the refugees go home?
That'll really piss off the Democrats.
Why aren’t Saudi planes in the sky with the US, British and French? Mattis wants a bigger coalition before considering doing more, which seems wise.
William: "I can't think of any military action since the Six Day War that's been a success in that part of the world."
Expelling Iraq from Kuwait is an obvious success.
The destruction of the entire Iraqi armed forces in 6 weeks (even without a 3rd army group being able to mount offensive operations from Turkish positions which was part of the original plan and negated the Northern thrust of the campaign). That was a clear military success. Once the mission changed from defeating the Iraqi army and deposing Hussein to nation building, ugh. Nation building. Double ugh.
The reason for the Turkish refusal no doubt related to Turkey moving troops into Northern Iraq at the beginning of that conflict in order to pull a soviet style "Molotov-Ribbentrop-Poland" manuever. If you know what I mean.
The Israeli's did a pretty good job in '73 after they recovered from their initial overconfidence and recognition of the increased tenacity of the Syrian armored assault on the Golan Heights.
But Inga could probably tell you all about that.
Inga: " you can add something of substance"
LOL
Thanks General.
eric said...
I hope to hear Trump speaking in a few weeks, or months and saying something like, "Thanks to our actions in Syria, the refugees who have flooded much of Europe, can now return home."
I would also like eternal youth, while we are at it.
Drago said...
Expelling Iraq from Kuwait is an obvious success.
Not from a wider perspective. The blowback from this conflict was 9/11, which resulted in the second Iraq war/quagmire.
eric: "That'll be the double whammy. If he ends the conflict in Syria and then demands the refugees go home?
That'll really piss off the Democrats."
That will never happen.
First, the European elites will never expel the migrants. Ever. They would sooner expel their own countrymen and women first.
Second, the conflict in Syria and in the ME at large will never end. It cannot. Even if Inga's beloved islamists drove every jewish man, woman (and all the other 97.78 genders as well) and child into the sea, they would still be amongst themselves doing what they've always done. And always will do.
No, this strike tonight was another "1 time" thing as we choke off the last ISIS holdouts in the nation obama gave to the Russians for safekeeping.
Between obama helping Iran with their nukes and funding their terrorists (hello pallets of cold hard cash!!) and giving the Russian entre into Syria, I'm surprised Trump's team at the Pentagon has cleaned this up this fast in terms of Syria/ISIS.
ARM: "Not from a wider perspective. The blowback from this conflict was 9/11,.."
LOL
Beyond stupid.
Even for you.
Why would Saudi sunni terrorists care if the US expels shia Iraqi's from Sunni Kuwait?
Get a grip man.
ARM: "The blowback from this conflict was 9/11, which resulted in the second Iraq war/quagmire."
Again, stupidity on stilts.
9/11 resulted in the Afghanistan operations to attack the Taliban and Al Qaeda and ended when Barack Obama personally rappelled down that rope with a knife in his teeth to take out bin laden in Pakistan!
The Iraqi operations were in response to other factors and taking out Saddam and any potential WMD capabilities did not have to result in mission creep nation building.
But the globalists wanted the nation building. And they got it.
Blogger Beloved Commenter AReasonableMan said...
eric said...
I hope to hear Trump speaking in a few weeks, or months and saying something like, "Thanks to our actions in Syria, the refugees who have flooded much of Europe, can now return home."
I would also like eternal youth, while we are at it.
Didn't you already use that one when someone said, "Trump is going to win the Presidency."???
From wiki:
After the 1991 Gulf war, the US maintained a presence of 5,000 troops stationed in Saudi Arabia. One of the responsibilities of that force was Operation Southern Watch, which enforced the no-fly zones over southern Iraq set up after 1991, and the country's oil exports through the shipping lanes of the Persian Gulf are protected by the US Fifth Fleet, based in Bahrain.
Since Saudi Arabia houses the holiest sites in Islam (Mecca and Medina), many Muslims were upset at the permanent military presence. The continued presence of US troops after the Gulf War in Saudi Arabia was one of the stated motivations behind the September 11th attacks and the Khobar Towers bombing. Further, the date chosen for the 1998 United States embassy bombings (August 7) was eight years to the day that American troops were sent to Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden interpreted Muhammad as banning the "permanent presence of infidels in Arabia".
In 1996, Bin Laden issued a fatwa calling for American troops to get out of Saudi Arabia. In the 1998 fatwa, Al-Qaeda wrote: "for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples." In the December 1999 interview with Rahimullah Yusufzai, bin Laden said he felt that Americans were "too near to Mecca" and considered this a provocation to the entire Muslim world.
It's never a bad idea to listen to what the enemy actually says.
And another thing ARM, if you think the Saudi's were keen on having Saddam's army hundreds of miles closer to the primary Saudi oil fields and operations, well, then you need to spend more time studying a map or two.
“It's never a bad idea to listen to what the enemy actually says.”
Drago’s too busy running his mouth to listen to anyone.
ARM: "It's never a bad idea to listen to what the enemy actually says"
You are a complete idiot.
The Saudi/Holy Lands argument isn't even the tip of the iceberg.
It was a "talking point" to get to the next steps.
Remember, Al Qaeda and for that matter ISIS have always called for all westerners to leave ALL Caliphate lands....which includes all of the maximum Ottoman Empire as well as all of Northern Africa AND Spain!
The islamists will always have a "next complaint" until you give them all of that territory back. So, unless you are prepared to hand over most of southeastern europe as well as spain right now, you are their enemy.
And, by the way, once you've done that, they also believe they are required to conquer the rest of the world by the sword that is not yet Caliphate.
You should read alot more of what Inga's beloved islamist supremacists want, not just a blurb or two from Wiki or the NYT.
Inga: "Drago’s too busy running his mouth to listen to anyone"
That must be an example of a "substantive" comment.
LOL
Blogger Mark said...Wag the dog. Bill did the same, this is likely to not work as planned just the same.
Comey going to Prague and the small potatoes of the IG report must br buried .... Presidential news conferences are only s temporary salve for the bleeding.
--
Interesting thought..though whether accurate in the contemporary news cycle is far from certain.
If you want to see a terrific response to the sort of Inga/ARM logic on display here this evening, who better then Christopher Hitchens to lay the smackdown:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=axHR8AOxxkc
See how far the termites have spread....
By the way, wasn't Mattis reported today (or very recently) to be dragging his feet on this?
Just sayin'
"Trump is quite unlike Obama".
Praise God for that!
"By the way, wasn't Mattis reported today (or very recently) to be dragging his feet on this?
Just sayin'"
3 Gypsy travelers rolling their vehicles past the Pentagon contributed to that report.
Howard said...
Inga: They have to telegraph to reduce what is called collateral damage.
4/13/18, 8:39 PM
Yeah. And when there is collateral damage (as there always is) the addled old shit will be the first here to shed crocodile tears for dead civilians and blame Trump for being "unfeeling."
In 2013, as the Obama administration was weighing a response to the Syrian government after it violated President Barack Obama's "red line" for its use of chemical weapons, Trump argued that the US should "stay the hell out of Syria" and criticized the administration for "broadcasting" its strategy.
"Why do we keep broadcasting when we are going to attack Syria. Why can't we just be quiet and, if we attack at all, catch them by surprise?" Trump tweeted in response.”
He can always point to that fire-breather Macron..
“For the first time in the history of military operations a country has broadcast what, when and where they will be doing in a future attack!" Trump also wrote back then.”
In war, the elememt (sic) of surprise is sooooo important.What the hell is Obama doing," Trump wrote, a day after Obama announced he believed the US should take military action against Syria with approval from Congress.”
LOL
For the record, I'm less than enthusiastic about this. It'll be fine if we are in and out quickly without boots on the ground. But please, no more talk of nation-building, winning hearts and minds, or any other Wilsonian bullshit. Some of us voted for Trump because he pledged he wouldn't do that. Hillary would have started WWIII by now.
The difference between Obama and Trump is the same as the difference between a yappy, growly Chihuahua and a badass attack dog.
I think this song said it best:
Warren Zevon - Rottweiler Blues
So Inga..he's unpredictable.
.. .. ..
Back in 2013.
“Do NOT attack Syria, fix U.S.A." Now that he's president, Trump appears not to think focussing solely on domestic matters is the correct course.”
exiled,
Did you hear any of that?
Obama's "red line" was actually a shit stain.
Inga,
Were there not reports of discord, reluctance re Mattis?
"Leaks" might not be leaks..
walter said...
exiled,
Did you hear any of that?
4/13/18, 10:39 PM
Nope, thank goodness.
William said...
...Still, I can't help but wonder at the people of the Middle East. It reflects poorly on them not only that they have such leaders as Saddam, Qaddafi, and Assad but that those leaders are the best possible leaders. The Middle East is one fucked up place.
It comes from the inbreeding caused by cousin-marriage in tribal societies, done primarily to keep property within the family. I've read that this causes a much higher rate of birth defects in Arab countries.
“Inga,
Were there not reports of discord, reluctance re Mattis?”
————————————————-
“But organizing the retaliatory strike proved more complicated and time-consuming than he imagined, aides said, testing the skills of a commander-in-chief who never served in the military or held a government post before his upset victory in the 2016 election.
Mr. Trump spent the week stitching together a coalition with Britain and France to launch the strike. He also faced resistance from “Defense Secretary Jim Mattis, who wanted a more limited action that wouldn’t risk a wider confrontation with Russian forces occupying a piece of the Syrian battlefield, U.S. officials said.
Mr. Trump chafed over the delays and pressed Mr. Mattis for a more sweeping military option that would deter Syrian President Bashar al-Assad from launching any more chemical attacks.”
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-seeks-large-strike-in-syria-mattis-urges-caution-1523651589
Goodness, liberals like Inga are normally so consumed with what the Brits and Frogs think of us. Goodness, how enchanted they were when Dominque de Villepin flung his silvery locks around at the UN and denounced Bush! And how embarrassed they were to be Americans who were not enlightened like the wise French.
And yet now, they ignore the uncomfortable fact that their idols are backing Trump in this operation.
Goodness, one would think that they don't really give a shit what is done, the only thing that matters to them is who is doing it. Obama? Good! Trump? Bad!
They're like Chatty Cathy dolls.
PM Zoolander of the Great White North has issued a statement saying Canada supports the US air strikes on Syria.
Liberal Americans suffer severe cognitive dissonance as a result.
Inga,
I asked "were there not"?
"It comes from the inbreeding caused by cousin-marriage in tribal societies, done primarily to keep property within the family. I've read that this causes a much higher rate of birth defects in Arab countries."
That, and the fact that the rulers of most Islamic countries have never shown a great deal of interest in the wishes of the ruled. Jordan is the exception, I suppose.
"Zoolander of the Great White North"
Ha!
Madonna would just love to vogue all over that guy
Watching Episode 3 of the Ken Burns Vietnam series, covering the escalation under Johnson, '64-65. Johnson speaking after Tonkin Gulf sounds like Trump tonight. Promising no wide escalation to be inferred from retaliatory bombing.
Obama's "red line" was actually a shit stain.
"Bring me my brown pants!"
Inga: "Mr. Trump spent the week stitching together a coalition with Britain and France to launch the strike."
Not possible.
You told us Angela Merkel was the new leader of the free world.
She must have done this.
Obviously.
German authorities recused themselves from moral responsibility. What else is new?
Strikes that don't remove Assad are meaningless. Strikes that lead to the removal of Assad will leave us holding the bag …
The purpose of the strikes is not to “remove Assad.” That option died during the Obama regime’s 8-year bout with foreign affair half-measures and ally abandonment. The strikes are solely to remind Assad, Iran and Russia that chemical attacks are not worth the temporary gains that might be had.
Aside from attacking the American forces still there and using gas, Assad, Russia and Iran can do pretty much what they want. The only option that I see for Trump vis-a-vis Syria is to get our troops out as soon as possible. Syria was lost years ago.
Amazing that Trump just last week wanted our troops out of Syria within 48 hours no less.
Not “amazing” at all. It’s realistic to want American troops out of harm’s way and I don’t see any conflict between that goal and the air strikes. The USA and its coalition partners, GB and France, do not need American troops in Syria to send in more armament through the air should this latest lesson be lost to Assad, Russia and Iran.
Some more realism in the form of a prediction: We can keep up air strikes much longer than they will want to continue with the gassing.
My theory: The purpose of the gas attack was to see what Trump would do. Now they know. And you can lay odds that North Korea is watching all this very closely.
I agree, grackle. I think Putin doesn't want NK denuclearized (that would be a huge victory for Trump), but he can't say that publicly. This was/is an attempt to show NK that they can get away with not cooperating.
Mark thinks Comey (sic) traveled to Prague?
Mark means Cohen.
But it has been definitively proven that Trump's lawyer, Cohen, was not in Europe; he was in the United States.
Another Michael Cohen - no relationship with Trump - was in Prague, which proves the dossier was compiled using non-public information including data bases of foreign travelers.
In other words, Mark inadvertently brings up Obama's spying on Trump and Obama's using the intelligence apparatus of the US government for political purposes.
NYT this morning: "President Trump talked tough. But his strike on Syria was restrained".
See, just like Obama's red line. Or something.
-sw
Mark thinks Comey (sic) traveled to Prague?
Mark means Cohen.
But it has been definitively proven that Trump's lawyer, Cohen, was not in Europe; he was in the United States.
Another Michael Cohen - no relationship with Trump - was in Prague, which proves the dossier was compiled using non-public information including data bases of foreign travelers.
In other words, Mark inadvertently brings up Obama's spying on Trump and Obama's using the intelligence apparatus of the US government for political purposes.
This is a bit OT, but pretty much the only way that they could have gotten that information was searching highly classified federal govt databases. I think that this is indicia, and maybe smoking gun, that at least some of the Steele Dossier information came from Title VII FISA searches, and, in particular here, the "about" searches that the NSA found, in its review ordered by Adm Rogers, that the FBI had been abusing. How else do you find this sort of information, than essentially searching Customs databases using names, without any other identifying information, such as passport or SS number? This is precisely the sort of information that a search of those FISA databases using the names of Trump's inner circle as search keys would turn up.
Did Steele actually acquire the information in his Dossier from the Russians? Or, maybe some of it was originally acquired through the FBI FISA misuse that the Rogers ordered NSA audit turned up. Notably, the FBI was allowing contractors to access those databases, and the FBI (or those contractors) were discovered searching those databases for reasons other than national security and counterterrorism. It has been suggested that Fusion GPS was one of those contractors, and that their purpose for bringing in Steele was to launder their Title VII information through Steele, in order to supply it to the FISC for a Title I wiretap order. The good news is that the DoJ OIG very likely knows the answers to these questions, and will hopefully provide them to Congress with their 2016 election report that they have said they will deliver about this time next month, since AAG Bruce Ohr appears to be one of the OIG cooperators (I.e. reassigned, but not allowed to leave the DoJ), and he was the major conduit between the DoJ and Fusion, since his wife, Nellie, was the Russian expert there, and they were friends with the owners of Fusion. We shall see.
Sure, Trump gave too much warning. But I don't think that was a bad thing. But losing the element of surprise being important requires th the purpose of the strike to have been military. I don't think that it was. And, yes, the Syrians shot down some of the missiles, but most they did not, and that was the important part, that they had no real protection from us, despite the backing of the Russians and the Iranians. And, no doubt, little Rocket Man is looking over his shoulder tonight with three carrier battle groups within striking distance of his country, and crazy Trump willing to just blow through Syrian defenses with seeming impunity just to deliver the message on using chemical weapons on their civilians. Esp since the NORKs are doing far worse to theirs.
Bruce Hayden,
Syria claims a 10% rate of shooting down missiles. (13/120)
One should expect the number is lower than 13, given that 13 is the propaganda number. So the best Russian defense was lower than 10% effective. That's not exactly Iron Dome rates of success.
That is why the U.S. must stop Chinese espionage. Our tech is what separates our military from others'.
Whoa. The beta persona are out in force today. ARM, Howard the Duck, and Inga, bless her heart. I bet she has great tits. Distraction.
You see we bombed Syrias gas weapons plants and sites because we kinda got a morally obligation to do such things. Why? I know you guys can't think that far. Because if you let him get away with it this time then it will be worse next time and since, if you lot were in charge, there would be a next time. Trying to limit the next times.
Put this in a context you all can understand. If a bully calls you a cock sucking pussy and then pushes you and demands your lunch money and then you punch him in the face as hard as you can he will think you're a cock sucking pussy all he wants, but he will never again say it to your face or push you or demand your lunch money.
Same thing with Assad. He's gonna keep his pussy assed chemical weapons in their bunkers or he's gets another punch in the nose.
Obama gave Assad his lunch money.
But what if the strikes were only removal of the remaining weapon depots and bases used by the McCain sponsored CIA front called the Syrian Rebel Army, who are actually the El Bagdhadi lead terrorists once called ISIS.
That required a week'sdelay for Russia and Syria to coordinate the attacks with us.
Many of the bunkers were empty because Russia had already moved out the Sarin months ago, and now with plenty of warning moved anything valuable off the suspected sites, this was a good test to see how effective the anti ballistic defense is and how well our Tomahawks work. In terms of the ground war it seems Russia,Iran and the government seem to be taking more territory and the situation is still desperate for many. ARM thanks for the history reminder on our previous engagements in the middle east .
@Rusty:
So we have a "moral obligation" to stop a "bully" in Syria while simultaneously aiding, abetting, praising, and supporting a bully in Saudi Arabia whose military is busily bombing Yemeni farms and food production facilities and carrying out a blockade specifically intended to starve the civilian population. Is dying by chemical poisoning somehow worse than dying by starvation or cholera due to a foreign government deliberately destroying your access to food and medicine? Your bully analogy could possibly make sense if so much of US foreign policy wasn't built on supporting, funding, and arming bullies. See, for example, the military dictator of Egypt, a favorite of western powers.
@roesch/voltaire:
In terms of the ground war it seems Russia,Iran and the government seem to be taking more territory and the situation is still desperate for many.
The Syrian government gaining control of its own territory is a good thing. The alternative to a Syria without Assad is a fractured Syria plagued by internecine warfare between competing groups. Obama's blunder was never his throw away "red line" remark. That is just part of the establishment's idiotic obsession with "credibility." No, his biggest blunder was believing that we had to assist, arm, and fund a violent insurgency intent on overthrowing the government. Our "partners" in the region (e.g. Turkey, Saudi Arabia, UAE) also plunged into the conflict by assisting their favored violent jihadi groups to wage war against the government of Syria.
Whoa. The beta persona are out in force today. ARM, Howard the Duck, and Inga, bless her heart. I bet she has great tits. Distraction.”
Rusty, you’re pretty dense. I didn’t say I was against a limited strike. I said Mattis had it right. And I bet you have a small dick. Tit for tat, so to speak.
@grackle:
The purpose of the strikes is not to “remove Assad.” That option died during the Obama regime’s 8-year bout with foreign affair half-measures and ally abandonment. The strikes are solely to remind Assad, Iran and Russia that chemical attacks are not worth the temporary gains that might be had.
What "ally" was abandoned? I honestly find it quite shocking that the standard conservative critique of Obama was that he was insufficiently interventionist. Obama, like Bush, destroyed an entire country (Libya). He ramped up, expanded, and took the reigns off the drone bombing assassination campaign. He escalated the war in Afghanistan. Assuming that the "option" to remove Assad did exist, why in the hell would that be an advisable thing to do? What would a Syria look like after its government fell. Syria, like Iraq under Hussein, is a minority-controlled country. There is every reason to believe that regime change in Syria would result in exactly what regime change in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Libya resulted in: guerrilla warfare waged along ethno sectarian lines. Had Assad fallen, there is also the likelihood that any number of competing jihadist groups in the country could have obtained control over his military arsenal.
Aside from attacking the American forces still there and using gas, Assad, Russia and Iran can do pretty much what they want. The only option that I see for Trump vis-a-vis Syria is to get our troops out as soon as possible. Syria was lost years ago.
I agree with this, but I still don't understand what Syria being "lost" actually means. If the Asad government can regain control over Syria, that is a win for us. That it is also a win for Russia and Iran does not change the fact that it is a win for us, as well. Asad is still significantly weakened, and Russia and Iran had to devote a lot of resources to supporting him. And even, the achievement has been mostly a return to the status quo.
FTR: The McCain and CIA sponsored Syrian Rebel Army are the ones who have been systematically making Syria into a Christianrein place. No wonder Obama refused to take any action. It takes several years to exterminate a people.
The alternative to a Syria without Assad is a fractured Syria plagued by internecine warfare between competing groups … Your bully analogy could possibly make sense if so much of US foreign policy wasn't built on supporting, funding, and arming bullies.
I’m thinking hard and simply cannot identify ANY nation (other than Israel) in the Middle East that does not rule through force of arms or who didn’t come into power through force of arms. Turkey was kind of a candidate for awhile but it recently reversed its previously non-secular leaning governance and went down the Islamic-ruled road and is revealing itself to be among the “bully” nations. I’m curious. What non-bully in the Middle East, other than Israel, does the commentor believe the USA should ally itself with?
Readers, they are all “bullies.” Such history constitutes one of the main characteristics of an Islam-ruled state - and they are ALL Islamic in that region. Nations ruled by Islamic dictators are all the region (other than Israel) has to offer in the way of American allies.
The sentiment expressed by the commentor is what could be called the Virtue-Signaling Concept of Foreign Affairs. It’s a subset of the Blame America philosophy. Under this foreign policy America would have NO allies other than Israel in the Middle East and maybe not even Israel.
My view is that America should seek allies based strictly on what is good for America and American allies.
And lastly, “internecine warfare between competing groups” in Syria seems like a GOOD thing to me. Let the asshole countries and “competing groups” fight it out, thereby depleting their weaponry and fighting forces, and may the best bully win.
"My theory: The purpose of the gas attack was to see what Trump would do. Now they know. And you can lay odds that North Korea is watching all this very closely."
And Israel.
Everyone watches Israel.
This is an example of "It's the Right Thing to do," actions. Especially on the Shabbat following Yom Ha Shoah. Gas.
"Tonight, I ask all Americans to say a prayer for our noble warriors and our allies as they carry out their missions.
"We pray that God will bring comfort to those suffering in Syria. We pray that God will guide the whole region toward a future of dignity and of peace.
"And we pray that God will continue to watch over and bless the United States of America.
"Thank you, and goodnight. Thank you."
The Right Thing To Do.
What "ally" was abandoned?
Answer: Israel, the Kurds, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Read about it in the Atlantic:
[Obama] … has succeeded in forging deals with hostile nations after decades of estrangement, and emphasized the importance of collaborating with allies to address international challenges, while nevertheless leaving a number of allies feeling estranged.
Had Assad fallen, there is also the likelihood that any number of competing jihadist groups in the country could have obtained control over his military arsenal.
Question: What damage could “competing jihadist groups” do with Assad’s arsenal that Assad isn’t already doing? Gas children?
J. I think I specifically mentioned gas.
Leave the goal posts alone and deal with the fact that Assad used WMDs on his own and others. There are UN treaties against such thingsh as using gas. Surely not for the use of gas. Or is that not relevant in this instance? Or are you advocating something else?
@grackle:
I’m curious. What non-bully in the Middle East, other than Israel, does the commentor believe the USA should ally itself with?
Perhaps my point was not clear. I was not arguing that we should not do business with "bullies." In fact, I was saying the opposite point. The internationally recognized governments of most middle east nations are bullies. So the notion that we are attacking Asad because he is a "bully" is obviously nonsensical.
Answer: Israel, the Kurds, Egypt and Saudi Arabia.
None of these countries are allies. They are, at most, clients. The article you quote makes the same errors. And your notion seems to be that the US must constantly indulge clients. In regards to the Iran nuclear deal, it was supported (and is still supported) by all our major allies (e.g. UK, France, Germany, the EU). Which country do you think is more important to America's geostrategic interests, Germany or Israel?
Question: What damage could “competing jihadist groups” do with Assad’s arsenal that Assad isn’t already doing? Gas children?
Transfer it to forces outside of Syria's borders.
@Rusty:
J. I think I specifically mentioned gas.
Leave the goal posts alone and deal with the fact that Assad used WMDs on his own and others. There are UN treaties against such thingsh as using gas. Surely not for the use of gas. Or is that not relevant in this instance? Or are you advocating something else?
First, the US has no authority or obligation to unilaterally UN treaty obligations. Second, no goal posts have been moved. There are UN treaties against what Saudi Arabia is doing in Yemen, and not only are we not doing anything about it, we are supporting and participating in it. There are UN treaties that Israel is violating in the West Bank. Does that mean Russia should launch missiles against Israeli forces in order to compel their compliance to UN treaties.
Little dick?
Jesus Inga. At least be creative.
Three two letters words for small. Is it in?
See.
If you can't be smart at least be entertaining.
BTW My dick is so big it's being investigated by the FBI.
J.Farmer opines: The Syrian government gaining control of its own territory is a good thing. The alternative to a Syria without Assad is a fractured Syria plagued by internecine warfare between competing groups. Obama's blunder was never his throw away "red line" remark. That is just part of the establishment's idiotic obsession with "credibility." No, his biggest blunder was believing that we had to assist, arm, and fund a violent insurgency intent on overthrowing the government. Our "partners" in the region (e.g. Turkey, Saudi Arabia, UAE) also plunged into the conflict by assisting their favored violent jihadi groups to wage war against the government of Syria.
Agree 100%. Assad, much as we hate him, is standing between either Sunni extremist jihadis taking over or Shiite Iran taking over, neither of which is a favorable outcome.
It wasn't utilateral J. there were other countries involved. Britain and France , I think.
Did I mention gas? I may have mentioned gas.
And yes you're moving goalposts.
None of these countries are allies. They are, at most, clients. The article you quote makes the same errors. And your notion seems to be that the US must constantly indulge clients.
Allies, clients, whatever. I don’t get caught up in mere semantics. Whatever they are, the USA should back them up IF it is in America’s interests to do so. If THAT concept constitutes ‘indulgence’ then I plead guilty.
"BTW My dick is so big it's being investigated by the FBI."
Too big to fail.
Transfer it [Assad’s arsenal] to forces outside of Syria's borders.
And how would America gather Assad’s arsenal? The only way would be to put a lot of American troops into Syria to fight our way to the different storage facilities that warehouse the armaments – IF we have the intelligence. Excuse me, but that sounds like a very risky operation. It sounds like the beginning of a “quagmire,” a term that the MSM would LOVE to apply to Trump.
Perhaps my point was not clear. I was not arguing that we should not do business with "bullies." In fact, I was saying the opposite point. The internationally recognized governments of most middle east nations are bullies.
Here’s the quote from the commentor:
Your bully analogy could possibly make sense if so much of US foreign policy wasn't built on supporting, funding, and arming bullies. See, for example, the military dictator of Egypt, a favorite of western powers.
My view is that America should seek any ally that is in America’s advantage to support regardless of such a nation’s governance method. That includes Egypt or any other nation that will cooperate with America’s goals and policies.
Inga: "I didn’t say I was against a limited strike. I said Mattis had it right."
LOL
And strike planning teams everywhere breathe a sigh of relief.
This comment thread is tending to confirm me in my opinion that the Islamic Middle East has become fluid - not divided or fractured, but fluid. It's so fluid that there is no lasting, meaningful outcome possible as a result of any action imaginable by anyone on any side. It's good to try to halt gas attacks. But meaningless murder by some means will continue and will have meaningless, terrible consequences. Islamic society and government in that area is liquefying and flowing over its own people like hydrochloric acid. Everyone in an Islamic society in that area hates; everyone has lost someone to someone else, to The Others; everyone wants revenge for torture. How is Islamic society in that area possible?
Assuming that the "option" to remove Assad did exist, why in the hell would that be an advisable thing to do?
The answer is that I do not think it “advisable” for America to depose Assad. Such an action would require a lot of American boots on the ground. The MSM, the Democrats and the eGOP opposing Trump in Congress are at this moment salivating at the prospect of a Trump quagmire in the Middle East. I doubt that Trump will fall into THAT trap.
I agree with this, but I still don't understand what Syria being "lost" actually means.
It means that realistically the USA can do very little in Syria that hasn’t already been tried and hasn’t already failed.
Blogger Birkel said...
Bruce Hayden,
Syria claims a 10% rate of shooting down missiles. (13/120)
One should expect the number is lower than 13, given that 13 is the propaganda number. So the best Russian defense was lower than 10% effective. That's not exactly Iron Dome rates of success.
That is why the U.S. must stop Chinese espionage. Our tech is what separates our military from others'.
4/14/18, 7:03 AM
I'd like some facts on this. If the Russians say they only shot at missiles affecting the areas that Russia was defending and they went 13 for 13 on those intercepts, that looks different. But we don't know what any of the truth is.
Was it even Tomahawk missiles or did they use anything invented post-1970s? What did the Russians use? I would actually think that a Tomahawk would be a pretty easy target to detect and destroy. They're not stealthy.
I have no idea whether Assad used gas or not, but if he did it's hard to understand why. He was winning, Trump had announced US forces were soon leaving Syria and it was a militarily insignificant strike. Assad had to know beforehand the primary result of using gas would be that America would retaliate and perhaps become more involved in the war. It doesn't make sense.
But maybe it doesn't matter who used the gas so much as it matters to A) send the message to the world that if gas is used, bombs will fall on the accused culprit, no question. Any of the world's many bad actors would have to think long and hard about that before they decided to gas their opponents. And B) to reinforce the idea Trump means what he says when it comes to drawing a red line.
Maybe our side knew it likely wasn't Assad, but who else are you going to bomb? If a rebel group we support was wanting us to stay so they staged the gas attack, we can't very well bomb them. It would be counterproductive and how would you designate a target in the environment the rebels operate? It would just kill a lot of civilians and make rubble bounce.
Assad is our named enemy, he's a very bad guy, if you must drop bombs in Syria to send a message, why not bomb him? And he's the only one with any worth while targets still standing. Maybe they decided it's better to take the opportunity to bomb Assad than to do nothing.
Just speculation.
Yesterday was National Blame Someone Else Day. Coincidence?
https://nationaldaycalendar.com/national-blame-someone-else-day-first-friday-13/
This was a terrible mistake by the God Emperor. Once again the globalists and the neocons have achieved their goals.
They delayed the bombing long enough for the Russians to flee and get their military assets out of harms way. Long enough for the Syrians to hide the poison gas. It is all kubuki theater. Bubba bait for the boobs.
The only hopeful sign is that the President said we had no designs on remaining in Syria. Now is the time to withdraw and let the Syrians sort it out. Let the Russians and the Turks fight over the corpse. Just ban any Syrians from entering the United States. Let Europe adsorb the rapists and terrorist and all around piece of shit Muslims that destroy everything they touch. Put America First.
No more endless wars in the Middle East. No more endless expenditures in the Middle East. Leave them to rot. They are worthless pieces of shit who are never going to worth a bucket of warm spit. Fuck them and the camel they rode in on.
Trump should’ve thought about Putin and his associations before he wanted a relationship with him. - Inga
Or maybe the lazy asshole who was President before him could've done something instead of simply running his mouth and making a bad situation worse.
Trump inherited this shit. You're welcome for him attempting to clean it up.
Back in 2013.
In case you haven't noticed, it's 2018.
@grackle:
Allies, clients, whatever. I don’t get caught up in mere semantics. Whatever they are, the USA should back them up IF it is in America’s interests to do so. If THAT concept constitutes ‘indulgence’ then I plead guilty.
It is not "mere semantics." There are important distinctions between legitimate allies and client states. For countries like Germany, Japan, and South Korea, we are under treaty obligation to come to their defense in case they are attacked. We are expected to sacrifice American lives in defense of their countries. With the exception of Turkey, we have no such obligations to the countries of the Middle East.
As for your second point, I completely agree with it. The question, of course, is how we define American interests. What American interests are served in bombing Asad's facilities? What authority do we have to do this? Why, exactly, should the US oppose Asad?
My view is that America should seek any ally that is in America’s advantage to support regardless of such a nation’s governance method. That includes Egypt or any other nation that will cooperate with America’s goals and policies.
Exactly my point. If you recall, the context of what I was saying was in response to another commenter who said that we had a "moral obligation" to attack Asad because he was a "bully."
@Jim at:
Or maybe the lazy asshole who was President before him could've done something instead of simply running his mouth and making a bad situation worse.
Trump inherited this shit. You're welcome for him attempting to clean it up.
Obama's error in Syria was that he did too much, not too little. The US was covertly arming rebel groups early in the civil uprising in Syria. If the US was going to be involved in all, the pragmatic thing to do would be to assist Asad in keeping control of his country. But mostly, the US should have simply stayed out of Syria.
Every president inherits his foreign policy from his predecessor. Nothing is stopping Trump from withdrawing US troops from Syria and ending our involvement in that conflict. Instead, the administration has signaled that may keep American troops in Syria indefinitely. Under what authority these troops are deployed I have no idea. Furthermore, we have now carried out two airstrikes on Syrian government facilities. Is this because we must make a show of force to maintain our credibility? The US has been bombing countries in the middle east pretty much nonstop for the last 17 years.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा