Trump Wags The Dog Re Illegal Syria Missile Strike

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.

White House press secretary Sean Spicer recently said the following regarding our (Trump's) ally Russia.

"...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 [1]. 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 [2].

Secretary of 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%").

Although Trump may have forgotten that he owns Raytheon, given that he turned his business over to his two sons (a not-at-all blind trust). Ugh. #crookeddonald, #SyrianStrikes, #wagthedog.

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.

Footnotes
[1] 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.
[2] The Tomahawk missiles used cost 1-1.4 million each, while replacing them will cost approximately 70 million. (Source).

SWTD #374

Exposing The Game Playing Canardo Hypocrites

The true hypocrite is the one who ceases to perceive his deception, the one who lies with sincerity ~ Andre Gide (11/22/1869 to 2/19/1951) a French author and winner of the Nobel Prize in literature in 1947. Gide's career ranged from its beginnings in the symbolist movement, to the advent of anticolonialism between the two World Wars.

I thought my hard work has paid off and I was finally banned from inaccurately titled blog rAtional nAtion uSA. Seeing as this is a goal I've been trying to achieve for awhile (and actually thought I had achieved awhile ago), now is the perfect time to author a post in which I get all full of himself and proud-like in regards to my accomplishment of securing another banning. Excuse me while I preen and strut all around Leftist blogistan, or at least here (with this post).

Now, you might be asking yourself "how did Dervish achieve this laudable goal?". Answer? A lot of hard work and tenaciousness and I eventually frustrated and got the goat of the blog proprietor, Lester Nation (AKA "rAtional nAtion", AKA "RN"), one too many times. He vowed "never again" and declared my welcome worn out. Am I OK with that? Damn straight I am. Although the fact that I gave Liberals and Progressives a bad name in the process is not something I'm entirely happy with. But if this is the price I have to pay in order to get the boot? Well, then I guess I have to accept it.

Or not. Turns out I'm not banned. Lester simply decided that he would have the last word in the particular comment thread (actually 2 comment threads) where he made some false accusations and lobbed some baloney insults my way. Lester determined that my objecting to his lies equated to me "beating a dead horse". Fine, Mr. Nation. It's your blog so you can present your lies as the truth and I can't stop you. But I can use my own blog to set the record straight... which is what I will now do.

As it also turns out, I have absolutely no desire to "preen" or "strut" or get myself banned on purpose. These are all inaccurate accusations that come from the lying lips of Lester Nation. Lies and characterizations that I categorically deny. Despite what the bloggers Joe Kelly-Hagstrom or Lester Nation or Willis Hart might say, I do not view myself as giving Progressives a bad name. Lester is stating his hypocritical self-important point of view. Lester Nation, an individual who views himself as vastly superior to everyone else, naturally believes everyone thinks similarly. It's called projection, and what it entails is someone accusing another of what they themselves are guilty of. Here Lester accuses me of having a big ego when that is what Lester is quilty of (in spades).

Other accusations made by Lester are also false - and the hypocrite has a lot of nerve putting forward these laughable charges - including me "baiting" him in order to "get his goat". I'm only attempting to engage others with differing views in honest debate. If anyone is looking to get someone's goat via baiting it is this Nation fellow. Fact is, this idiot ADMITTED (in a comment he submitted to my blog) that baiting and goat-getting was HIS goal in engaging me in conversation...

rAtional nAtion: Like I care wd. Really, your blog is a mere amusement for me, an oppurtunity to laugh and then infuriate you. I do recall you said having a conversation with me is infuriating. Rest assured it is a one way deal (9/13/2013 7:06pm).

That is in stark contrast to the fictions the rAtional carnardo promulgates on his own blog...

rAtional nAtion: I assure you Mr. Sanders I will treat your site with the same respect, unless and/or until such time as you fail to do the same (9/15/2013 4:19pm).

Note the dates of these two comments... on the 13th he ridicules my blog and says the only reason he comments is to purposefully infuriate me because it makes him laugh, then on the 15th he warns me to treat his site with respect or I'll be banned. And that isn't the end of Mr. nAtion's extreme hypocrisy! In the same comment he also says...

rAtional nAtion: You remain welcome to post here Mr. Sanders, as long as you refrain from ad hominen attacks (9/15/2013 4:19pm).

After this comment (in which he says I'm "welcome" to submit my thoughts) he accepted no further submissions from me. I sent through a few, and none of them contained any "ad hominen attacks". But the liar rejected them. He didn't like it (apparently) that I pointed out he was wrong in regards to the "ad hominen" attack claims. The supposed ad hominem from me occurred when I called another of his regulars (Willis Hart) an idiot, but that was IN RESPONSE to Mr. Hart using the pejorative against me first.

Now, this Hart character had already gotten MY goat by continually claiming that our president "backed himself into a corner" with his comments about the use of chemical weapons by Syria being a red line. Then Hart says President Obama is "trying to weasel out of by saying that the WORLD set the red line", even thought it WAS the world that set the red line. And, if that isn't enough, this guy then slanders Liberals with a vile lie, saying "as long as it's their guy who doing the killing, silence is golden" and that "it's politics. Period, end of discussion".

So, the lives of innocent people... not Syrian military types or the Al Qaeda associated freedom fighters opposing them, but innocents (ordinary civilians: women and children as well as men) caught in the crossfire (or in the chemical gas)... the lives of these people mean absolutely nothing to Progressives (like me) according to this mendacious dude. So, when he called me an idiot I went off on him. And in response (to Lester asking commenters to not attack each other), this idiot innocently says...

Willis Hart: The dude comes out of left field and throws my name into the mix purely trying to start an argument with me and I obliged him. (9/15/2013 AT 4:19pm).

Out of left field?! I was trying to start an argument WITH YOU?! Right, and I suppose you claiming Progressive are using the slaughter of innocents as a political football is something I *shouldn't* take offense to? And, Hart's claim that one of GWb's rationales for invading Iraq (in addition to the MAIN justification of "disarming" Saddam) was because of Iraq's use of chemical weapons against the Kurds (15 fricking years previously)... this means that Progressives are hypocrites (because they objected to the invasion of Iraq when Saddam used chemical weapons but are "supporting" Obama and "his" red line in regards to Syria). And this dummy says that me disputing this bullpucky is me "throwing his name into the mix"... and for no reason other than I'm "purely" trying to start an argument?!

Obviously these claims by Mr. Hart are laughable. Incredibly, unbelievably laughable. But the Hartster defends his name-calling by saying "he's right, Les, I did throw the first ad hominem... sorry, but when the dude said [something factually inaccurate] that did seem pretty darn stupid at the time". OK, on that the Hartster is correct... I got my facts wrong. And what I claimed was idiotic (in it's wrongness), and (for that reason) I probably shouldn't have went off on him... BUT, given the fact that he'd already teed me up (with his false slanders of our president and Progressives using the slaughter of innocents for political purposes) I threw a second ad hominem (and replied by using the same "idiot" pejorative against him).

The Hartster is still very much wrong with his "left field" and "trying to start an argument" claims, however. And even though I admitted I was wrong and I submitted a comment saying so (my comment DID contain some information that was factually inaccurate), all the "Rational Nation" commenters chastised me because I allowed Mr. Hart to get MY goat. And then they all discussed how they are fed up with me... and finally Lester defended Hart by saying Hart's "comment is not an attack, it is a statement of your intelligence as he sees it".

Riiiight, Lester. If I submitted a statement of YOUR intelligence as I see it Lester wouldn't view it as an ad hominem? Oh, and the deluded Dennis Marks joins in and proclaims I'm "like the little spoiled child who throws a temper tantrum when everyone doesn't want to play his game"... but I'm not playing any games. Playing games is RN's purview, as per his OWN ADMISSION!

But, wait, there is MORE! I just checked over at Willis' blog and found he is AGAIN lying about me in post-form...

Willis Hart: On wd Saying that He's "Not going to bother composing a serious comment if it isn't going to be published" Over at Les's Site... Being that he's written literally hundreds of comments here that he KNOWS aren't going to be published, the man is either a liar or he's admitting that the comments that he does leave here aren't serious (and more along the lines of harassment). Either way... (insulting accusations against me he has absolutely no way of knowing the truth about)... (9/25/2013 AT 3:47pm).

This commentary came about as a result of me thinking I was banned by Lester... so I submitted a test comment (which can be described as noted above by Willis). But I'm not a liar, nor are my comments on Mr. Hart's blog non-serious. I simply am not looking to also leave comments on the blog of Lester if they aren't published (as I do on the blog of Willis). One blog where I do this is enough.

In response to this post on Hart's blog Lester says "Mr. Sanders isn't a serious person, nor is he always truthful". This is simply more projection from Mr. nAtion. Unless he means I'm not serious about playing games, lying, and attacking the blogs of others like he is. What I should do is ban him from commenting here again, but instead I'll do the same he says he is going to do to me, which is to let some comments through but not publish others.

To ban him outright would be to admit defeat. The idiot thinks he is getting the better of me (or he keeps insisting he is). In a recent comment (submitted but not published) Lester says, "LMAO! Keep trying (and spinning) Mr. Sanders. Rest assured the enjoyment is all mine". So, Lester gains enjoyment by making an ass of himself? Apparently he does, which is fine by me. So keep the comments coming, Lester. I may publish or I may not. As for your blog, I'm going to be visiting it less in the future.

Before ending this commentary I would like to address one other issue. On another comment thread located over at Hartster's blog the ID Spoofer Rusty Schmuckelford says "Your stalker is now posting as George Whyte.... batshit crazy". According to Rusty I am Willis' "stalker" and the "batshit crazy" remark is also directed at me.

This could be interesting... now Rusty is lying to his buddy Willis? I will have to keep an eye on this and see if Schmuckelford is able to dupe the Hartster into believing his bullplop. The truth of the matter is that George Whyte is (one of) the Bloggers whose account Rusty has impersonated. It was actually Rusty who posted as George Whyte (when he spoofed his ID). So, is Rusty is lying to his supposed buddy Willis, or does he actually believes his own bullpucky (in which case I think it is Rusty who is "batshit crazy").

Update, 10/11/2013: I am now officially banned by the Canardo Lester Nation of the ironically titled blog "rAtional nAtion uSA". Many times RN has insisted (here and on his own blog) that I was "lying" about him banning me. In actuality it was Lester who lied in an effort to get me to submit comments to his blog (some of which he'd publish and others he would send to the spam folder). This is typical of the kind of games the Canardo likes to play. Whoop-dee-do, I say. I could care less if I am banned or not from Lester's idiot blog. Add one to my total. I am now banned from three blogs, although each one of the three are blogs ran by one of the band of idiots that hang out at the previously mentioned irrational site (I speak of Dennis Marks, Willis Hart and Lester Nation).

Update, 3/25/2014: Turns out I wasn't banned on 10/11/2013. Although I'm banned now, as of today. At least for the time being. Lying Lester has banned me several times, so it is currently unknown if this banning will be the one that sticks. Me calling out Lester for lying about why the Civil War was fought was fought apparently pushed him over the edge.

For my harsh words regarding this matter I make absolutely no apologies, as I find this lie particularly vile. Lester, while referring (rightly) to slavery as a "national stain", also vigorously defends the lie that the Civil War was fought over States' Rights or Tariffs, which is utterly ridiculous and flatly contradicted by historians who say the war was fought because of slavery. RN, in embracing this lie, actually participates in the campaign of dissembling that is darkening the stain.

SWTD #206, lDel #8, wDel #36.

False Charges Of Hypocrisy Against The Left From Hypocrites On the Right Regarding Syria

It has been the political career of this man to begin with hypocrisy, proceed with arrogance, and finish with contempt ~ Thomas Paine writing on America's first Right-wing president, John Adams. Thomas Paine (2/9/1737 to 6/8/1809) was an English born American Writer and political pamphleteer, whose "Common Sense" and "Crisis" papers were important influences on the American Revolution.

The Left came out against former president bush when he illegally invaded Iraq, touting a baloney rational of needing to "disarm" Saddam. This despite the fact that the IAEA weapons inspectors on the ground at the time were saying it looked like the country was pretty much devoid of WMD. Now that a Democrat is president and it looks like we may lob a few missiles over there (Syria, this time) in order to take out their admitted WMD stockpiles, the Right is having a field day pointing out the Left's "hypocrisy".

Take, for example, a recent article by Noel Sheppard of NewsBusters, which is "a website dedicated to exposing & combating liberal media bias" that (for the most part) doesn't exist...

Noel Sheppard: When George W. Bush was president, Hollywood stars turned anti-war activists such as Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins were all over the airwaves touting peace. As America apparently heads to war with Syria under a liberal Commander-in-Chief, such folk are mysteriously silent. (Article: Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins Refuse to Comment on Syria, 9/9/2013).

If Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins (who are no longer a couple) don't want to comment on Syria, whereas they did comment on Iraq... maybe it has something to do with the moderate "Blue Dog" President Barack Obama telling us the truth and pushing an accurate "chemical weapons out-of-bounds" angle. Remember that when these two celebs spoke out against bush's war - it was a war that bush lied us into! I mean, objecting to a war where the stated justification is an out-and-out lie (and those paying attention knew it) is a little different than waiting to see how a possible military action against a country accused of breaking international law plays out.

This is the reason that I too have been silent on this issue. I did not want to jump to any conclusions, given the fact that we haven't actually done anything militarily yet! Has Obama ordered an invasion? No, he ruled that out during his address Tuesday evening (9/10/2013). The United States is not going to put any boots on the ground in Syria. Yet the Right is quick to break out the comparisons when it comes to who is a hypocrite for not objecting like they did when bush lied us into a boots-on-the ground war in Iraq!

With Iraq it was president bush who broke international law with his illegal invasion; whereas with Syria is it Assad who broke international law with his use of chemical weapons. Granted, the ideal place to handle this would be the United Nations... and I've heard very little on that front (I don't recall President Obama mentioning it during his speech). But now that Syria's foreign minister has admitted that they do indeed have chemical weapons and that the regime is "ready to accept a deal advanced by Russia... to place the weapons under international supervision"... perhaps now is the time to shift responsibility for this mess into the hands of the UN?

The loss of innocent life is extremely troubling; and that, coupled with the fact that Syria has broken international law... this has led me to believe that standing by and doing nothing isn't an option. But, on the other hand the American people are NOT with the president on this. That, plus, even if we only lob a few missiles over there... some innocent people are bound to be killed, and (as a result) some Syrians will surely end up resenting our intrusion (and hate us for it). Nobody is going to buy the "greeted as Liberators" crap that the bush administration was peddling prior to his invasion of Iraq. This time that won't sell.

This is why we've sat this out for so long, I believe. There are simply no good options here. And that may be why these "hypocrite" Hollywood celebs are staying silent too. I honestly do not know what we should do, although I would strongly protest any kind of prolonged engagement for sure; but this is something the President said was definitely not in the cards during his speech. Fact is, while it looked like a vote by Congress would be the route Obama would go for awhile (and that Congress would say NO), that too has now been delayed until the Russian proposal for Syria to disarm itself of it's chemical weapons can be considered.

So, what's with this rush to condemn people for not speaking out against "war" with Syria when it isn't clear what we're going to do? Obviously these people could not give a flying fig about war. It's politics. Period, end of discussion. That's why they're saying things like President Obama "backed himself into a corner" with his "red line" statement about Syria and their use of chemical weapons, when the fact is that, as pointed out by the president himself, "the world set a red line". Indeed, it is the world that has drew the "red line" and not President Obama... so we can dispense with this silly "painting into corners" nonsense...

Wikipedia: The Chemical Weapons Convention (CWC) is an arms control agreement which outlaws the production, stockpiling, and use of chemical weapons and their precursors. A total of 196 states may become members of the Chemical Weapons Convention, including all 193 United Nations member states. Of the seven United Nations Member States that are not, two have signed but not yet ratified the treaty (Burma and Israel) and five states have not signed the treaty (Angola, North Korea, Egypt, South Sudan and Syria).

Still, this does not stop some from making this "corner painting" or "backing into" assertion. Truth be told, this argument first came to my attention via the Libertarian blogger Willis V. Hart. I pushed back against this absurd accusation, and what follows is a reply of his (the most recent to repeat the "corner backing into" claim)...

Willis Hart: I said that he backed himself into a corner with this idiotic red line (which he's now trying to weasel out of by saying that the "world" set the red line - the world evidently not setting a red line when Hussein gassed tens of thousands of Kurds 20 years ago) comment of his. (9/11/2013 2:09pm).

How is President Obama pointing out the very real line that has existed since the Geneva Protocol of 1925 prohibited "the use in war of asphyxiating, poisonous or other gases, and of bacteriological methods of warfare" backing himself into a corner? BTW, the gassing of the Kurds occurred in 1988 when George HW Bush was president, and his administration's reaction was to continue selling these chemicals to Saddam. The world "evidently" did set the red line then, but the first Bush administration simply chose to ignore it. Now we have a president who chooses to not ignore it, and all the weaselly Hart can do is criticize him (and clearly for political reasons)?

And, according to Mr. Hart the Leftist Hollywood celebs are "silent" because "as long as it's their guy who doing the killing, silence is golden". Concerning "people Like Bruce Springsteen and Tim Robbins" Willis says they are "seemingly not giving a rat's-ass" about the non-existent possibility of "war" with Syria (a "boots on the ground" war that can not, in any way, be compared to Iraq, that is). Frankly, I think that the Hartster pushing these lies from the Right is shameful.

Finally, Mr. Hart gives a shout-out to veteran Leftist Ed Asner who claims that "a lot of people don't want to feel anti-black by being opposed to Obama". Sorry, Mr. Asner, I've got a lot of respect for you (and I appreciate you taking a stand on Syria), but that's total bullpucky (or at least mostly bullpucky).

The real reason for the "silence" from Hollywood Liberals is because "an all-out war in Iraq under Bush... was a much bigger deal than potential missile strikes against Syria under the direction of Obama". That's according to Mike Farrell, another Hollywooder who is among the vocal celebs when it comes to opposing "war" with Syria (quotes from a 9/6/2013 Hollywood Reporter article by Paul Bond).

Also according to Asner (and on this I agree with him), "the lack of an organized effort against war in Syria is a matter of timing. Bush took months to make the case for war in Iraq, giving the antiwar Left plenty of time to prepare a response". It isn't that the "Hollywood Left" is being "silent" now, it's that nobody is sure what we're going to do yet, and (in the case of Iraq) bush wanting war was apparent for quite some time (and that gave the "Hollywood Left" time to organize it's opposition). And the lying too. We must not forget the lying.

Conclusion? These claims of "as long as it's their guy who doing the killing, silence is golden" are FALSE, and are being peddled by hypocrites and liars... or fools suffering from delusions of grandeur (Hart). This Hart guy views himself as superior to us "partisans" when he's the one who's guilty here. Guilty of taking his Obama-bashing cues from the Right and guilty of not seeing that we're dealing with an honest president here and a REAL red line... when the last president who made the case for war was a liar and tried to frighten us with imaginary "mushroom clouds" (something else Hart denies). Not to mention the fact that President Obama is specifically not advocating an invasion (something I would categorically oppose).

As for the bombing, I am not convinced that would be a good idea either. Let the UN handle this, or at least make a case there. The citizenry of the United States is clearly opposed to our taking the lead in Syria, and if President Obama pushes forward on this I think he will be making a mistake.

Correction 9/14/2013: I cited the Chemical Weapons Convention of 1997 as the treaty that resulted in the world drawing a red line in regards to the use of chemical weapons in warfare. The red line was actually drawn with the Geneva Protocol of 1925. The 1925 treaty prohibited the use of chemical weapons while the 1997 treaty prohibits the manufacture and stockpile of chemical weapons. I know I knew this, but still made the mistake for some reason... maybe because I'm an "idiot" as pointed out by Mr. Hart. This post has been modified to reflect the correct information.

Further Reading
[1] President Obama's Masterful Job on Syria by Grung E. Gene, Disaffected And It Feels So Good 9/12/2013.
[2]Top 10 Unproven Claims for War Against Syria by Dennis J. Kucinich, The Huffington Post 9/05/2013.

SWTD #204, wDel #35.