Did Trump order the strike against a Syrian airbase to boost his sagging poll numbers? Did he do it to divert attention from the glacial investigation of his ties with Putin? Did he do it to show he is not colluding with Putin?
Reports today say that Syria war planes bombed the same town again, taking offfrom the airfield that our missiles allegedly destroyed.
Syria strikes: Site of chemical attack hit again – CNN
https://apple.news/AHhbLlTtcQu6K8mm5_7vNcA
An ineffectual gesture. Nothing like the appearance of decisive military action to give the impression of leadership.
This symbolic action is known as Wag the Dog. It generically means change the subject of discussion to divert attention from something you don’t want discussed
http://www.gingersoftware.com/content/phrases/wag-the-dog/#.WOkQ9oEpCaM
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Wag the Dog seems to be the consensus of newscasters and their military consultants. There was no military or humanitarian gain from the attack.
LikeLike
But are they asking the real question . What did Assad stand to gain vs what did he stand to lose in this attack . .
I am going to go out on a limb here . 2 weeks from now Assad may be
gone to be replaced by the “new Boss same as the old Boss ”
Sanctions will be lifted on Russia and Assad, Trump and Putin will be collecting a pension off of the 500 billion Exxon oil deal . My only question is where he will be . Because he can not trust his buddy Putin.
LikeLike
Joel,
I agree.
Kabuki theater.
LikeLike
A $50-million dollar wag the dog just in the cost of the missiles. The malignant narcissist burns through public money like that money belongs to him.
LikeLike
He’ll claim it’s fake news and it never happened. 50 million in rockets and they still can’t take down the airstrip? And they have 2 or 3 more airstrips within about 50 miles of that one they obviously didn’t blow up.
LikeLike
Just read a report from ABC that the Trump administration warned Russia of the attack and that witnesses say the Syrians pulling all their equipment and most of their personal out of the base before the missiles hit.
LikeLike
Please see these:
Trump’s ‘Wag the Dog’ Moment – Consortiumnews
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/04/07/trumps-wag-the-dog-moment/
Five Top Papers Run 18 Opinion Pieces Praising Syria Strikes–Zero Are Critical | FAIR
http://fair.org/home/five-top-papers-run-18-opinion-pieces-praising-syria-strikes-zero-are-critical/
Corporate media, including PBS, with its $$$ ties to war profiteers, always love U.S. wars, even when they are illegal and war crimes.
All those “exciting” action scenes boost their ratings and blood profits.
LikeLike
Worse is the convoluted explanations they come up with, for the running back Assad punching the Ref in the nose, with no one between him and the goal line . Only the American press and dishonest politicians of both parties can let this one go.
Time to call your Reps and ask them if they support Putin committing a war crimes so that Trump can wag the dog.
LikeLike
Definitely, merely a diversion, they say the Russians were informed before congress and they in term informed Syria. This was an action to bolster Trump’s image and deflect his continued collusion with Russia. A blind person could see this. Believe nothing this President says, he’s a liar.
LikeLike
When Trump breathes, each breath goes in as fresh and/or polluted air and each breath comes out tainted with endless lies.
LikeLike
Wag the dog would imply that Trump is waging the dog with an ineffectual response meant to divert attention from his other problems.
But if somebody set in motion with your participation or tacit knowledge there of, a set of circumstances that enabled you to wag that dog . What do you call that.?
Could your treason now have turned into a war crime.
LikeLike
I vote the dog is wagging. This is merely a handy diversion and blind attempt to boost ratings. Trump also assumes Russia will put up with anything because he and Putin or best buds. We’ll see.
LikeLike
Yes . But more is on the way. How do they achieve their strategic objective, having more to do with skimming profits off a 500 billion investment from Exxon. Than the National interest of the USA.
LikeLike
Assad’s use of SARAN GAS against his own people was the reason for the measured response. That is why there were no boots on the ground or U.S. planes in their airspace.
TRUMP WAS SIMPLY ENFORCING OBAMA’S RED LINE, proclaimed in 2013. The bombing against the airfield was targeted to make it more difficult to launch another chemical attack from that location.
No one thought for a moment Assad would suddenly stop killing his citizens. He has been doing it for the last five years or so. Leaders around the world are very supportive of the action taken by our President. I have seen a couple of Syrian refugees doing television interviews today and they are now hopeful that they and their extended families, now in different countries, may be rejoined in Syria one day.
Secretary of State Tillerson is still meeting the Russian Prime Minister in Russia next week. This, even though the administration and the rest of the world (except maybe Iran) are asking IS RUSSIA COMPLICIT, OR JUST INCOMPETENT, since they were tasked with making sure Assad never used chemical weapons again back in 2013.
Secretary of State Tillerson is working toward an INTERNATIONAL COALITION to determine best how to remove Assad. Leaders in the Middle East are eager to support Assad’s removal and stabilize the region.
LikeLike
Got it. Having pledged repeatedly never to get engaged in Syria, Trump has decided to implement Obama policy.
LikeLike
Obama laid down the RED LINE in 2013 when Assad used chemical weapons against the citizens of Syria. He backed down, Trump held the line. Have you ever noticed how if one child gets by with bullying someone, soon others will do it as well? Assad specifically was targeted for his killing of innocent children in a manner that violated international law. As a twofer it sent a message that such “bullying” will not be tolerated by this administration and other nations around the world have quickly stepped up in support of his decisive action.
LikeLike
A pretty hollow response, considering that the base that was attacked is now fully operational and just bombed the same town again.
It is hard to see the difference between weakness and a hollow gesture.
LikeLike
BS
Trump did not hold the line against chemical weapons. The Trump administration warned the Russians about the strike before it took place, and then the Russians warned the Syrians who then moved their equipment and most of the personnel out of the strike zone.
As soon as the $50-million in U.S. missiles hit, the Syrians moved back in and the same day launched another bombing run on the same area they hit with chemical weapons.
Chemical weapons can also be delivered with artillery shells and artillery is not tied to an air base. Artillery can fire a mission from one location and then be on the move immediately to another location to fire again.
That $50 million strike with cruise missiles was an expensive PR stunt by the master of distraction.
No telling how much free and misleading PR, the malignant narcissist in the White House got in the traditional media from this expensive PR student that the taxpayers paid for.
LikeLike
Semantics. red line. line in the sand. agreement. Obama did whatever the “it” was – and by the way when there was talk of going into Syria the GOP Congress and then civilian pres said bombing Syria was crazy. Talk about hypocriesy and flip flopping. Now they’re all happy as clams and pres is their hero. uggh.
That “red line” worked – and WOULD STILL BE WORKING if pres wasn’t threatening everyone right and left.
AND – it won’t surprise me one bit when we find out RUSSIA encouraged or staged the SYRIAN attack to give the pres his entree to attack.
This man is scary. He is drive by his ego, dismantling O presidency and he’s still trying to win the votes over hillary. THat is what motivates him
What was his first reaction to the strike. THose innocent babies (who he will not allow in this country)? No- HE BLAMED OBAMA. Why in the world is that on his mind in a crisis.
This man is SCARY
LikeLike
Trump said many times on TV, in speeches, and on Twitter that going into Syria was crazy. His word. Insane. His word.
But bombing an airbase and disabling it for 24 hours makes him a tough guy.
Can’t wait for the next polls.
That is what this is about.
LikeLike
I don’t think he was implementing Obama’s Policy although he went against campaign stances.
You claim I’m always picking on Hillary, well, I’ll change direction for you. You harbor a Putin mania that always alludes to collusion with Trump – the reason for her loss – that Putin helped Trump win – and that Putin succeeded in infiltrating the U.S. government at the highest levels. So I ask myself the following – who really is the Putin puppet?
How else would you explain a newly elected president looking the other way after an act of Russian aggression?
A president that agreed to a one-sided nuclear deal?
A president that mocked the idea of Reagan’s that Russia represents our foremost geopolitical foe ?
A president that accommodated the illicit nuclear ambitions of a Russian ally?
A president that knowingly allowed a Russian foothold in the Middle East?
A president that refused to provide arms to a sovereign country invaded by Russia?
And lastly –
A president that minimized our defenses and pursued a Moscow-friendly policy of hostility to fossil fuels?
How else to explain a newly elected president looking the other way after an act of Russian aggression. That’s Obama and Crimea. That’s Obama and Ukraine. Obama never budged on giving Ukraine ‘lethal’ weapons to defend itself from Russian attack, which we had sworn by treaty to do. We were the ones that made Ukraine give up its military in exchange for our defending them against such aggression. When Putin commits an act of aggression, Obama said “You better cut it out. You better stop doing it,” and with Syria he drew a red line and dared Assad to cross it. Assad crossed the red line; Putin kept acting aggressive. Nothing was done to stop it.
Agreeing to a one-sided nuclear deal – that’s Iran. Agreeing that the region’s number one terror state will be permitted to develop nuclear power under terms of an agreement with the American president, that’s Obama.
And mocking the idea that Russia represented our foremost geopolitical foe, that’s the presidential campaign of 2012 when Mitt Romney was doing everything he could to convince people that Russia was a foremost enemy, and it was Obama and his team mocking Romney for seeing a communist behind every rock, making a mountain out of a molehill and being stereotypical in his foreign policy.
It was Obama at every stage of the way aiding and abetting and facilitating Putin.
How else to explain a newly elected president “accommodating the illicit nuclear ambitions of a Russian ally?” Of a president, Obama, welcoming a Russian foothold in the Middle East? Hello, Syria. Hello, Iran.
How about an American president refusing to provide arms to a sovereign country invaded by Russia? Remember Ukraine?
An American president diminishing our defenses and pursuing a Moscow-friendly policy of hostility to fossil fuels? That would be Obama and climate change, which benefits Putin and the Russians who need high oil prices for their weak economy.
Barack Hussein Obama, not Donald Trump – had a cozy fuzzy warm relationship.
Obama had a re-set with Russia shortly after Georgia in 2008. He concluded the New START agreement with Moscow that reduced our nuclear forces but not theirs, and you wonder why Trump wants to spend a measly 53 billion to correct that . Obama rejected Mitt Romney as a Cold War relic.
Not a single instance of this collusion can be laid to Donald Trump because he was not even running for president when this stuff happened. The evidence of Kremlin, Moscow, and Washington collusion is with Obama and Putin.
It was Barack Obama and the Democrat Party that was working with Russia to their benefit. Not Trump.
Putin would want Hillary Clinton to win to continue just this kind of deference.
Trying to void ones self of the hatred to Trump and using common sense guided by intelligence, there is no way Putin would want to deal with some newcomer like Trump with his America first rhetoric. Would he not prefer Hillary Clinton who would guarantee to continue the same appeasement policies of Obama as she was promising to do?
Obama was the Russian puppet, because of naïveté and weakness. Obama didn’t expect any rewards when he asked then-Russian President Dmitry Medvedev during a hot-mic moment at an international meeting to relay to Vladimir Putin his ability to be more “flexible” after the 2012 election; he was “colluding” with the Russians – a good strategy?
Its not Trump!
LikeLike
Linda: they are not “boots on the ground.” They are humans, and they are Americans, not boots.
As I’m sure you know full well, Trump did not ask Congress before he bombed the base. Obama did ask back then, and Congress told him no.
Difficult to launch another attack from that airfield? Not at all, they are launching planes from it today.
LikeLike
Linda Giffin
I will make this simple for you .Because it is very simple . Assad had no reason to use gas . Assad used that gas with the full knowledge of Putin . Putin and Assad knew that they were going to get exactly the response that they did from Trump because the general outlines had been laid out long in advance .
You sound like you probably enjoy football . So if your running back just spiked the ball with no one between him and the goal line would you feel something was rigged . That is what Assad just did . It was not a win the response was predictable and certainly could not be repeated . So why do it. Because it was pre arranged by Putin and Trump in a general outline.
Putin just threw Trump a big present meant to take the heat off the investigation . Period end.
I say the ultimate play will be the end of Russian sanctions and the end of Assad . Retires to a nice Island . But the “new boss will be the same as the old boss”
in a civil war that will not end till there is no one left to kill . Unless you want to send 300,000 American boys there to be killed at 5-10 thousand a year .
LikeLike
LikeLike
Dan Rather is the only journalist calling out the lemmings to do their jobs: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/dan-rather-airstrikes-trump_us_58e7f536e4b05413bfe3049d?4gi&ncid=inblnkushpmg00000009.
As heinous as the use of poison gas is, it always amazes me how video evidence throws people in a frenzy to act—at least for the short term (remember how long the moment lasted when the Syrian boy washed up on the shore, even shorter for the Syrian boy in the ambulance). Can someone please explain to be how the deaths of 80 in a gruesome gas attack draws immediate outrage and action and the deaths of 400,000 through conventional methods gets a big fat meh?
LikeLike
The sad part, there is no solution in the entire region. The Brits started it. I think we should make the Brits fix it. Or perhaps we could send Betsy DeVos with free vouchers for Christian academies (sarcasm noted ) .
Thanks for the link
LikeLike
The Brits may have made some dumb decisions in setting these countries boarders but the Americans have been pouring money and armaments into that area for the last 30 years at least. And the point hasn’t been to bring peace or stability but to secure a strategic resource – oil.
LikeLike
Greg,
The issue is the fact that using chemical weapons – no matter how they are delivered – is against international law for which Syria signed upon
And I remember during the Vietnam war we would get daily numbers of those who died – I guess the lame stream media didn’t want to do that during Bush Obama years….hmmmm and now we run numbers.
LikeLike
Assad’ father used chemical weapons against his own people in Hama in 2005. George W Bush did nothing.
LikeLike
“Did he do it to show he is not colluding with Putin?”
Yep, that’s what I thought, too. As if then people would think that’s evidence he couldn’t possibly be serving two masters…
Trump risked losing more of his dwindling 37% approval rating though. Maybe some mainstream press and pundits fell for the ruse, but the bombing didn’t work for all of his base. The move angered a number of folks who don’t see attacking Syria as indicative of “America First” and view it as contrary to Trump’s campaign promises:
“‘I’m officially off the Trump Train’: Trump’s online base is furious about the Syria strikes”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-intersect/wp/2017/04/07/im-officially-off-the-trump-train-trumps-online-base-is-furious-about-the-syria-strikes/
LikeLike
From Time magazine, April 6, 2017, “The Trump Administration Warned Russia About the U.S. Missile Attack on Syria”
“Russian forces were notified in advance of the strike using the established deconfliction line,” said Pentagon spokesman Jeff Davis. “U.S. military planners took precautions to minimise risk to Russian or Syrian personnel located at the airfield.”
http://time.com/4730306/donald-trump-vladimir-putin-russia-missile-attack-bashar-assad/
Republicans are currently basking in the glory of their power grab, as enshrined in photos in the press showing the smirks of Paul Ryan and the gloating of Mitch McConnell. What will it take for the GOP to ever acknowledge, renounce and prosecute treason, when they have a vested interest in ignoring it, and they clearly believe that the end justifies the means?
Now that Republicans have control over all three branches of government and McConnell engineered a change in the game so that they can rule with a simple majority, since he did away with requirements for a super majority, do we have any alternatives for combating their tyrannical rule –short of revolution?
Oh my G-d…
LikeLike
The news you didn’t see; Deleted Daily Mail Online Article: US Backed Plan for Chemical Weapons Attack(s) in Syria to be Blamed on Assad. http://www.globalresearch.ca. So first they steal the gas, then assemble gas precursors at base, then use gas attack they did to justify the missile attack they did. And that is WAY offed up.
LikeLike
And that is way effed up. . . . don’t change my e to a o a-holes.
LikeLike
And that dump is outraged. What a liar. He’s always “mad” or groping some female and even then he’s “mad.” Sick of this spoiled narcissistic brat who occupies the WH. He’s evil.
LikeLike
This one gave me a couple of laughs and is to the point.
Even formulated a new name for F–faceVon Clownstick
President Vladimir TrumPutin
http://www.theroot.com/a-conspiracy-theorist-guide-to-the-u-s-war-with-syria-1794112357
LikeLike
A false flag operation conducted by the CIA is also a possibility. Last week Noam Chomsky wrote an article warning about the possibility.
LikeLike
More likely DIA namely Mike Flynn. . When he wished Kislyak a happy holiday, 5 times in one day.
Not the details but the framework. The person who may not have been in on it is Assad, who could shortly be looking for “new digs”
The details are winks and nods when there is an understanding of goals.
.
LikeLike
The interesting thing is that trump didn’t have the requisite authority from the senate but noone in the military people said “this is unlawful, we cannot do this”.
LikeLike
He or someone on his behalf informed the Russians but not the Congress.
LikeLike
It is tough t figure on what is truth and fiction – We now know that Obama, Kerry and yes, Susan Rice, the 3 time liar, lied to the American public again!
NY TIMES – A former top official in the Obama administration admitted in a report Sunday that the United States government “always knew” Syrian President Bashar al-Assad still had chemical weapons following a 2013 agreement, despite routinely boasting otherwise.
“We always knew we had not gotten everything, that the Syrians had not been fully forthcoming in their declaration,” Tony Blinken, former deputy secretary of state and deputy national security adviser, told the New York Times recently.
Blinken’s comments directly refute those his bosses made between 2014 and as recently as this January. Now that’s a leaker and a name to go with it
Clarity – the object wasn’t to kill anyone – but I know you know that.
LikeLike
Jscheidell,
If we start to add up lies, Trump is still #1.
Now he says he will intervene whenever babies are burned with napalm or barrel bombs are dropped on innocent civilians. No wonder he wants another $56 billion for the military. We are going to be striking many places.
LikeLike
Both sides of the political aisle stretch the truth – it is just that the Susan Rice and Obama and Hillary lies on Bengazi caused a movie producer to be jailed because of their repeated narrative that didn’t fit the truth and the movie clip had nothing – nada, to do with the attack – which after the mangling of the actual facts they finally alluded to the fact that it was a planned terror attack. How many died for Hillary’s inaction.
‘
How many died because the Obama admin including Kerry were overjoyed that they got rid of 100% of the chemicals – a narrative they new was false as they told the “stupid” Americans.
How many died because of trump and his lies? I didn’t know one has to have a calculator to compare numbers – a lie is a lie = black or little white lies
Linda Giffin didn’t present a “hollow” response it happens to be one that doesn’t fit the left wing narrative –
LikeLike
Four people died at Benghazi. Nearly 300 Marines died when their barracks were struck in Beirut during Reagan’s first term. Did you complain?
LikeLike
Trump is a world-class liar.
LikeLike
“Susan Rice and Obama and Hillary lies on Bengazi”
I want to ask you what Alt-Right misleading media source you rely on for your false facts.
There were 8 Congressional Committee Investigations on Benghazi. There were 32 Congressional Hearings.
ihttps://thinkprogress.org/proof-that-the-benghazi-investigation-is-totally-unlike-any-other-in-two-charts-74bb343f7292
And not one of these investigations and hearings found Hillary Clinton at fault or guilty of anything.
The Benghazi BS was a WITCH HUNT that refused to end because the goal was to smear Hillary Clinton and mislead and fool as many voters as possible.
LikeLike
Lloyd,
The Benghazi hearings served their purpose.
LikeLike
Sorry lloyd
I forgot you wanted my alt-right sources on the video deal
Wapo should fit in for you
LikeLike
Trump waited for Hillary to say we should go in and bomb then he pulled the trigger spending loads of money and killing 7. http://www.cnn.com/2017/04/06/politics/hillary-clinton-syria-assad/index.html
LikeLike
The following comment I’m sure you will enjoy and its from Clara Jefferey the editor in chief of Mother Jones –
She is another example of why Clinton lost – she has accused the “tomahawk” missiles that were fired at Syrian airbase last week of cultural appropriation that “must enrage a lot of Native Americans”. She didn’t talk to any Native Americans – I guess she doesn’t like the football team- Redskins name either and sees that as cultural appropriation as well?
Speaking of Clinton and her losses – she provided in an interview last week her reasons for losing the election I’ll bullet point them for you – notice who she doesn’t blame – and this is from an interview with the New York Times’ Nicholas Kristof when she emerges from the woods
Clinton blamed FBI director James B. Comey, who re-opened the investigation of her private emails in the final days of the campaign. She also blamed Russia for allegedly meddling in the election by reportedly hacking the personal email accounts of Democratic National Committee staffers and her campaign chairman, John Podesta.
She blamed the hacking group WikiLeaks for publishing the stolen emails during the election.
Clinton blamed the “weaponization of information.”
She also jokingly blamed her chief Democratic primary opponent, Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., and media for her general election loss.
She also blamed misogyny.
“Certainly, misogyny played a role. And that just has to be admitted, and why and what the underlying reasons for that, is what I’m trying to figure out myself,” she said. “I think in this election there was a very real struggle between what is viewed as change that is welcomed and exciting to so many Americans and change which is worrisome and threatening to so many others.”
“You layer on the first woman president over that, and I think some people, women included, had big problems,” she added.
Notably absent, however, from Clinton’s hall of blame were mentions of the many things her campaign got wrong.
She didn’t mention, for example, the fact that she didn’t set foot in Wisconsin once during the entire general election. She didn’t mention her team’s initial decision to frame the campaign in terms of how voters could help her (“I’m with her!”) and not vice versa. She didn’t mention her team’s mind-boggling decision to outsource part of its millennial outreach efforts to Al Gore, 69, and Dave Matthews, 50. She didn’t mention the campaign’s bizarre decision to send Lena Dunham to North Carolina. She didn’t mention the moment she claimed at a fundraiser in New York City that “half” of Trump’s supporters were “irredeemable” bigots.
Clinton also ignored all mentions of the fact her team actively ignored and took for granted disaffected white and working class voters whom Obama had won, even after Bill Clinton, who won the rust belt twice, implored them to reconsider their strategy.
The point of this isn’t to pile on or twist the knife, but Clinton and her campaign got a lot wrong. They need to own it instead of just blaming Putin and misogyny.
Clinton had nearly every conceivable advantage going into 2016. She had a massive war chest, a party that was far more unified than her opponent’s, a well-established network of influential donors and political hands and the enthusiastic backing of A-list celebrities as well as two very popular presidents. She also had her opponent, usually his own worst enemy.
And she still insisting on a fault-free postmortem.
LikeLike
Diane and homeless educator,
The following fits right into your conspiratorial questions –
On Friday’s broadcast of MSNBC’s “The Last Word,” anchor Lawrence O’Donnell stated that “if Vladimir Putin masterminded the last week in Syria, he has gotten everything he could have asked for.” O’Donnell then floated a theory that Putin told Syria’s Bashar al-Assad to launch a small chemical attack that was big enough to attract media attention and prompt President Trump into launching a missile strike, which would then change the subject from Russian influence.
O’Donnell said, “[W]ouldn’t it be nice if it was just completely, totally, absolutely impossible to suspect that Vladimir Putin orchestrated what happened in Syria this week so that his friend in the White House could have a big night, with missiles, and all of the praise he’s picked up over the last 24 hours? Wouldn’t it be so nice if you couldn’t even in your wildest dreams imagine a scenario like that?”
He added, “I don’t know what it is. Is it a 2% chance? Is it a 50% chance? Is — I don’t know. But what — I don’t think it’s a 0% chance, and it used to be, with every other president prior to Donald Trump.”
O’Donnell further stated, “Well, when Bill Clinton fired missiles during his presidency, Republicans questioned that. They questioned whether that was to distract attention from the Monica Lewinsky scandal, and that was a legitimate question.”
O’Donnell later added, “It’s perfect, just perfect. I wish it wasn’t. If Vladimir Putin, if, if, if Vladimir Putin masterminded the last week in Syria, he has gotten everything he could have asked for. Vladimir Putin was essentially the man in charge of making sure that Syria got rid of all of its chemical weapons under a deal with the Obama administration. And so it makes perfect sense to question whether President Bashar al-Assad would have checked with his most important patron, Vladimir Putin, before using chemical weapons that Vladimir Putin was supposed to have helped get rid of. It would be terribly embarrassing to Vladimir Putin if President Assad had exposed Vladimir Putin as having completely failed to get rid of those chemical weapons. You wouldn’t want to be Bashar al-Assad in a conversation with Vladimir Putin after that, unless you had a conversation with him before that. Unless Vladimir Putin said, ‘I have an idea. go ahead, do a small chemical attack, nothing like the big ones you’ve done in the past, just big enough to attract media attention. So that my friend in the White House will see it on TV. And then, Donald Trump can fire some missiles at Syria, that’ll do no real damage, and then the American news media will change the subject from Russian influence in the Trump campaign and the Trump transition and the Trump White House.’ It’s perfect.”
He continued, “For most of the news media, it changes the conventional wisdom about the dynamic between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump. President Trump has finally dared to do something that Vladimir Putin doesn’t like. It changes everything. As long as you never, never question whether Vladimir Putin wanted all of this to happen this week. And when you question that and you look at what has happened, it’s always worth remembering that if Vladimir Putin really does have ways, known or unknown to Donald Trump, to influence Donald Trump, then every day that is a good day for President Trump is a good day for President Putin. Now not one word that I’ve just said could possibly have been said about any president prior to Donald Trump.”
O’Donnell further said, “you will hear opinion in this hour that is counter to the possible scenario that I have just outlined, but what you won’t hear is proof that that scenario that I’ve just outlined is impossible.”
O’Donnell did say that he raised this scenario “without assigning a statistical probability to it. I don’t know what it is. I just know that it’s not zero, and it should be zero. It has been zero with every previous president. But when you look at the way the events have unfolded this week, Donald Trump could not have asked for a better end of the week, for his presidency as he sees it.”
During the panel discussion that took place after O’Donnell’s monologue, he did concede that it did make sense to notify Russia in advance of the strike to avoid further escalation.
WHAT IF IF IF Ifs
LikeLike
For those who complained of the ,ometary expenditures on the strike and noticed the runways not taken out – can any one explain why you would want to waste tomahawks costs on runways which can in hours be resurfaced?
Looks like an intelligent move – saving you all money!
LikeLike
Monetary – quick thumbs!
LikeLike
What ifs and lying –
Trump, the supposed Putin lover — Trump supposedly in the tank for Putin, Trump supposedly co-opted by Putin, Trump supposedly aligned with Putin — attacks Russia’s client state, Syria – no solid proof to any of the above allegations – but-
.
What if: Do the lies told about the Syrians chemicals have a close relationship to a similar possible failure with respect to Iran and the nukes? Now there is scary thought regarding the scariest of dictators.
Remember this is the same Obama administration that claimed the Iran deal will keep Iran from ever getting a nuclear bomb. How are you feeling about that now, folks?
LikeLike
Lloyd
Here are the statement from Hillary – Washington Post – et al regarding the movie as the cause
Hillary Clinton’s statements
10:08 p.m., Sept. 11, press statement:
“I condemn in the strongest terms the attack on our mission in Benghazi today. As we work to secure our personnel and facilities, we have confirmed that one of our State Department officers was killed. We are heartbroken by this terrible loss. Our thoughts and prayers are with his family and those who have suffered in this attack.
“Some have sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the Internet. The United States deplores any intentional effort to denigrate the religious beliefs of others. Our commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. But let me be clear: There is never any justification for violent acts of this kind.”
11:12 p.m., Sept. 11, e-mail to her daughter, Chelsea Clinton:
“Two of our officers were killed in Benghazi by an al Qaeda-like group. . . . Very hard day and I fear more of the same.”
Sept. 12, e-mail recounting phone conversation with Egyptian foreign minister:
“We know that the attack in Libya had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack—not a protest. . . . Based on the information we saw today we believe the group that claimed responsibility for this was affiliated with al Qaeda.”
Sept. 13, public remarks with Moroccan foreign minister on Sept. 13, in which the attack in Benghazi is also briefly mentioned:
“I also want to take a moment to address the video circulating on the Internet that has led to these protests in a number of countries. Let me state very clearly – and I hope it is obvious – that the United States Government had absolutely nothing to do with this video. We absolutely reject its content and message. America’s commitment to religious tolerance goes back to the very beginning of our nation. And as you know, we are home to people of all religions, many of whom came to this country seeking the right to exercise their own religion, including, of course, millions of Muslims. And we have the greatest respect for people of faith.”
Sept. 14, remarks at transfer of remains ceremony:
“This has been a difficult week for the State Department and for our country. We’ve seen the heavy assault on our post in Benghazi that took the lives of those brave men. We’ve seen rage and violence directed at American embassies over an awful internet video that we had nothing to do with. It is hard for the American people to make sense of that because it is senseless, and it is totally unacceptable.”
Looking at Clinton’s public statements, it is clear she was very careful to keep the attacks separate from the video; the two incidents do not appear in the same sentence (unlike the controversial televised remarks by then-U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice).
For instance, in her Sept. 14 remarks, Clinton devotes one sentence to the “heavy assault” in Benghazi and then another sentence about the “rage and violence” over the “awful Internet video.” She does not say they are connected, although listeners may have gotten that impression.
Speaking before the Benghazi committee, Clinton explained that her private remarks reflected the fragmentary information that was available at the time. “We were not making up the intelligence,” she said. “We were trying to get it, make sense of it, and then to share it.”
She added: “When I was speaking to the Egyptian prime minister or in the other two examples you showed, we had been told by Ansar al-Sharia that they took credit for it. It wasn’t until about 24 or more hours later, that they retracted taking credit for it.”
Clinton also said she was reacting to the continuing turmoil in the region over the video, which resulted in 40 protests around the globe. “I needed to be talking about the video, because I needed to put other governments and other people on notice that we were not going to let them get away with attacking us, as they did in Tunis, is they did in Khartoum,” she said.
(Update: John Nolte of Breitbart faulted The Fact Checker for not including a reference to Clinton’s conversation with Libyan president and a State Department notice that Ansar al-Sharia had claimed credit, both of which took place before the issuance of the 10:08 statement. We are not sure what this adds to the picture. Ansar al-Sharia within 24 hours withdrew its claim of credit. Meanwhile, State could not ignore the fact that the video had generated an attack of the U.S. Embassy in Cairo.)
(Mark Hemingway of the Weekly Standard offered another critique of this fact check.)
However, Rubio also said that Clinton spoke about the video to the families of the victims. Several family members have asserted this is true.
Charles Woods, the father of Navy SEAL Tyrone Woods, told Fox News: “I gave Hillary a hug and shook her hand and she said, ‘We are going to have the filmmaker arrested who was responsible for the death of your son,’” Woods said, reading the account from his journal.
Kate Quigley, sister of Glen Doherty, told CNN:
“I met her when we were at Andrews Air Force base. She spoke to my family about how sad we should feel for the Libyan people because they are uneducated, and that breeds fear, which breeds violence, and leads to a protest. . . . When I think back now to that day and what she knew, you know, it shows me a lot about her character that she would choose in that moment to basically perpetuate what she knew was untrue.”
It’s hard to reconcile these statements by the relatives with the careful phrasing Clinton used in public.
Add the following news buster: “Here’s the Times in October 2012: “Ms. Rice, the United States ambassador to the United Nations, has said that the judgments she offered on the five talk shows on Sept. 16 came from talking points prepared by the C.I.A., which reckoned that the attack that killed Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens and three other Americans had resulted from a spontaneous mob that was angry about an anti-Islamic video that had set off protests elsewhere….Later that Sunday, though, American intelligence analysts were already sifting through new field reports that seemed to contradict the initial assessment.”
Here’s the Times in November 2012: “C.I.A. analysts drafted four sentences describing ‘demonstrations’ in Benghazi that were ‘spontaneously inspired’ by protests in Cairo against a crude video lampooning the Prophet Muhammad. (Later assessments concluded there were no demonstrations.)”
Here’s a recent report on Tuesday from The Hill, which managed to actually read the new report, showing that Hillary Clinton knew it wasn’t the video:
The GOP-led House Benghazi committee says the Obama administration claimed an anti-Muslim video was responsible for the 2012 attack, even though that explanation did not reflect eyewitness or real-time reports….House Republicans noted members of the administration — including then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — publicly pointed to the video as the reason for the attack. Clinton privately acknowledged in an email provided to the committee that an al Qaeda-like group was responsible for the attack.”
LikeLike
Jscheidell,
Your obsession with Hillary is sick.
Look at the moron in the WH.
LikeLike
Diane
I could say the same with your passion for factual proof of Putin and collusion with trump.
Painful to see the loser and the rest of dems who cant believe they lost
And if you would really like to see the real Rusky puppet you need to look at Obama now and his actions or non action with Putin
LikeLike
Jscheidell,
Maybe you weren’t born when terrorists blew up the Marines’ barracks in 1983.
281 Marines died.
Was it Ronald Reagan’s fault?
Were you born in 2005 when Assad Sr. gassed thousands of civilians inHama, Syria, and George W. did nothing?
LikeLike
Sean Spicer said today that Hitler didn’t use chemicals against his own people. When asked to clarify, he said Hitler brought them to “Holocaust Centers.” Is that like a community center for Jews?
LikeLike
This is a BS obsessive waste of time. I reject your allegations.
LikeLike
Lloyd,
Sorry to waste your time with factual evidence and from WAPO – that is contrary to your bubble universe…I reject your rejection
LikeLike
Let’s look at some real factual evidence.
The PolitiFactscorecard for Hillary Clinton
True, Mostly True, Half True = 75 percent of the time.
Mostly False, False, Pants on fire = 26 percent of the time.
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/hillary-clinton/
The PoliticFAct scorecard for Donald Trump
True, Mostly True, Half True = 30-percent of the time
Mostly False, False, Pants on Fire = 69-percent
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/
During the debates, Trump alleged that Hillary Clinton never did anything, never accomplished anything.
BIG LIE – VERY BIG LIE – PANTS ON FIRE
There is a long recorded history of Hillary Clinton fighting for women and children even when she was in college as a student and again in the Senate where she co-sponsored and sponsored bills in support of women and children in addition to reforming election contribution finance laws.
http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/
“For decades, Clinton has prioritized bills and policies promoting reproductive rights, equal pay, and family leave—far more so than Sanders. This is not to say that Sanders has not supported such legislation or practices. The key difference is that, for him, they simply haven’t been as much of a priority.”
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/04/more-than-just-a-symbol/476490/
Has Hillary Clinton been caught lying? Of course. Find a politician that has never said a lie.
An individual’s life history counts more than a few allegations over e-mails that came to nothing and allegations of Behgnahi that came to nothing.
What about Trump’s life history – groping and molesting women, cheating on his wives and cheating on his mistresses, the thousand of court cases, the bankruptcies, the lies, the endless lies, not paying contract debts he owes workers, defying judges orders in court cases he was involved in, his documented lifelong history of involvement with and friends in organized crime from the U.S. to Russia, etc.
LikeLike
Lloyd,
I made one item of note that clinton lied as well as Obama and Rice and that was the story of the video on Bengazi. I did not make any other allegations to the rest of the story.
If I remember correctly – and I have no problem if you do the research to prove me wrong – Clinton paid her staff less than the men doing the same job – just like her partner – Sen Warren – She can pass all the bills but it means little to those who worked for her –
Are you implying WAPO wasn’t recording her actual statements?
LikeLike