If... you believe the missile attack proves there is no connection between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, you could have easily thought, before the missile strike, that the missile strike would prove that. And then decide to do the missile strike, so that you could say exactly that ~ Lawrence O'Donnell, The Last Word 4/11/2017.
"...we can work with allies, including Russia" according to #Spicey. So, Russia is an "ally" (in regards to what should be done concerning the Khan Shaykhun chemical attack in Syria)? This from Spicey when his boss is being investigated by the FBI in regards to possible coordination between Candidate Cheto and Putin regarding his "influence campaign". A Freudian slip or an outright admission that Spicey's boss is buddy-buddy with Pooty Poot due to Pooty helping him "win" the election?
Obviously Spicey's answer (in response to a reporter asking if Trump is concerned with the Syrian people, does that mean his position re accepting refugees has changed) is pure bullshit. Remember that (during the campaign) Candidate Cheeto said, in regards to Syrian childern, "I can look in their faces and aay you can't come".
We're supposed to believe that this airstrike was based on Trump being broken up about dead Syrian kids? When he was concerned about their parents being terrorists? "No child of God should ever suffer such horror" was the bullshit line he used to explain his illegal action . An action (lobing 70 million worth of missiles at the Assad airbase from which the chemical weapon attack was supposedly launched) that he informed Russia about beforehand .
State getting Russian sanctions so Exxon can make a lot of money drilling Russian oil Rex Tillerson said "Russia had failed to carry out a 2013 agreement to secure Syrian chemical weapons [and] that Moscow was either complicit or incompetent in its ability to uphold that deal"... yet he informs Russia of the upcoming strikes so Pooty can tell Assad to move the chemical weapons?
I'v got to wonder if the military under Trump "taking action and deescalating what's going on in Syria" (according to PS Spicey) an outright lie or just evidence of how incompetent this (illegitimate) president is? I mean, planes were taking off the next day from the targeted Assad airbase. 59 Tomahawks (costing 1-1.4 million each) apparently were ineffective in stopping business as usual (more airstrikes by Syrian planes on Syrian citizens) for even a full day?
|Observers had reported the base had been badly destroyed by the 1,000lb warheads and that several planes and a runway had been put out of service. However it is thought that an advance warning given by the US to Russia allowed Syria enough time to remove many of its aircraft before the raid. (The Telegraph, 4/8/2017).|
My opinion is that this (Trump's concern over dead babies/Spicey's BS about the attack "deescalating" SQUAT) is nought but an attempt to wag the dog. Except here the Orange Administration is trying to distract from the Trump Russian connections (as opposed to a sex scandal, i.e. Bill Clinton supposedly distracting from his indiscretion with Monica Lewinsky by going after Bin Laden).
"To our very foolish leader, do not attack Syria – if you do many very bad things will happen & from that fight the U.S. gets nothing!" the hypocrite-in-chief tweeted back when a Black guy was president. This time, the US still gets nothing, but Trump gets to "disprove" any connection to Russia. "If there was anything that Syria did, it was to validate the fact that there is no Russia tie" Eric Trump recently asserted. Wag, wag.
So obvious, yet the media fawns, Congressional Republicans approve (despite declining to act when the Black president said Congress should hold a vote, and the public is duped. As per a recent CBS News poll "57 percent of Americans approve of the strike".
Wag success? Apparently when it comes to some of the Trump dupes. "Finally a president with courage and resolve to fight ISIS and the Moslems [sic]. President Trump said we'd start winning and we have! Thank you and God Bless President Trump" one such dupe wrote recently (on the WYD blog, an online forum where #trumpdupes gather).
Although some Tump enthusiasts are angry about this 180 (Some of Trump's biggest supporters are furious about his strikes in Syria). "I guess Trump wasn't Putin's puppet after all, he was just another deep state/Neo-Con puppet" Infowars contributor Paul Joseph Watson tweeted.
What an idiot. Wagged and duped. In that he buys the Eric Trump meme that the attack "proves" Trump is no Putin Puppet, but didn't have any clue beforehand that Trump is a pathological liar ("working to undermine US democracy" according to Senator Bernie Sanders. The goal being to move us farther along the road to another form of government. As his cabinet of oligarchs proves, IMO).
Previously (when it was Obama considering what to do re Syria and chemical weapons) I thought that intervening for humanitarian reasons was a reason for US action. Although, when a deal was negotiated for the UN (who "sent in inspectors to carry out the removal and destruction of Syria's arsenal") to oversee the process (Resolution 2118) I thought the issue was (successfully) dealt with. And with no military action (necessary?) by the Obama Administration.
Wikipedia notes that "the actual destruction operations, performed by a team of U.S. Army civilians and contractors, destroyed 600 metric tons of chemical agents in 42 days [and] On 6/23/2014, the last declared chemical weapons were shipped out of Syria for destruction".
So WTF happened? Re Wikipedia, "to avoid a military intervention, the United States, Russia and Syria agreed to the Framework for Elimination of Syrian Chemical Weapons". Obviously Obama was duped by Putin and Assad. And Trump is enforcing the "red line" the pussy Obama backed away from. But that's what happens when you replace a (secret Muslim) president with a decisive White Male Christian. Or so goes the narrative among the brainwashed dupes.
The truth may be that Syria retained some of it's chemical weapons (chlorine and ricin as per Wikipedia) or that this is another frame job and it was really the (not-at-all) Moderate rebels who are responsible. As they were re the Ghouta chemical attack of 8/21/2013. If you think Seymour Hersh, who wrote (in December of 2013) that "al-Nusra Front [AKA the Moderate rebels]... had mastered the mechanics of creating sarin and was capable of manufacturing it in quantity [and that] al-Nusra should have been a suspect, but the [Obama] administration cherry-picked intelligence to justify a strike against Assad".
Me, I don't know. But I do believe that Trump needed to get Congressional approval to conduct military actions against Assad. Which Obama attempted (and was denied) and Trump did not attempt (and therefore his action was illegal). And I am convinced that his action was NOT because he believes that "no child of God should ever suffer such horror". That I do not buy for one second.
BTW, those 59 Tomahawk missiles are manufactured by Raytheon, "the world's largest producer of guided missiles". A company Trump (reportedly) owns stock in! Stock that increased in value following our use of Raytheon product (Marketwatch reports Ratheon "up 0.8%, after jumping more than 3%"). Other defense industry stocks rose as well (along with the per barrel oil price, "up some 2%").
Video: Rocky Mountain Mike's "When The Black Guy Did It", a parody of a Don Henly tune that asks why, when Obama was prez and sought to do something about Syria, the Republican Congress voted no. Not that I think they should have said yes. I'm just pointing out that they're cowards who don't want to take a vote they could be held accountable for (therefore if Trump just does it, legality or illegality is not something they give a shit about). Also, this was part of their plan to paint Obama as weak on foreign policy/American military might. See Obama's supposed "apology tour", "leading from behind", him lacking the "courage" to fight ISIS (as per the WYD dupe previously quoted), etc.
 The missile strike was illegal under the War Powers Resolution. If Trump had struck the rebels, I think the administration could argue that was legal, since they are affiliated with al Qaeda and the AUMF that was passed under bush is technically still in effect (the one that gives the potus the power to go after "the terrorists"). But he struck a base belonging to the Syrian government. Not that I expect that Congress will hold Trump accountable. Presidents, history has shown, usually get away with such things. That does not change the fact that the strike was illegal under United States law. The troll Luke, who wrote on his blog "Trump's missile attack was not illegal, but I wouldn't expect a delusional liar like Dervish Trump to know that", is WRONG.
 The Tomahawk missiles used cost 1-1.4 million each, while replacing them will cost approximately 70 million. (Source).