Category Archives: Donald Trump

From The Fact That Sarin Was Used In Syria; It Doesn’t Follow That We Know Who Used It

Donald Trump, Middle East, Military, War, WMD

At the end of the war on Iraq, the only document that proved truthful was the one presented by a terrified Saddam Hussein, in which he accounted for his weapons of mass destruction: Hussein had none. At the time, those who killed that country laughed at him, in anticipation of The Kill.

So when a weak leader stands up to the big bullies of the world and says he didn’t do it; it’s worth listening to Bashar-al Assad. (Those of us who hail from the Middle East and know the culture, appreciate how easily Arabs play the idiot superpowers, to get what they want from them.)

In any event, from the fact that Sarin was used in Syria it doesn’t follow that we know who used it: And how do you verify a video? There is certainly no reliable information shared about this attack other than iffy video footage.

Mr Assad accused the West of making up events in Khan Sheikhoun so it had an excuse to carry out missile strikes on the government’s Shayrat airbase, which took place a few days after the alleged attack.

“It’s stage one, the play [they staged] that we saw on social network and TVs, then propaganda and then stage two, the military attack,” he told the AFP, questioning the authenticity of the video footage.

Mr Assad also said the Syrian government had given up its chemical arsenal in 2013, adding “even if we have them, we wouldn’t use them”.

Since 2013, there have been continued allegations that chemicals such as chlorine and ammonia have been used against civilians, by both the Syrian government and rebel groups.

Turkey and the UK say tests show Sarin or a Sarin-like substance was used in Khan Sheikhoun, which would be the first time since 2013 that a prohibited chemical had been used on such a scale.

Doctor Sarin:

Not All Politicians Buy The Blame-Assad Bull

America, Donald Trump, Foreign Policy, Middle East, War

A few independent-minded, mainstream politicians are questioning “whether Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s regime was responsible for last week’s chemical weapons attack on civilians that prompted US missile strikes.” Like Rep. Thomas Massie of Kentucky, they actually want evidence other than Nikki Haley waving a picture of a kid and Ivanka weeping.

One is Independent Australian MP Andrew Wilkie, also a former senior intelligence analyst. Wilkie “was ‘skeptical’ about who was responsible for the April 4 attack. ‘I’m actually skeptical about some of these claims,’ he told ABC radio on Tuesday. His comments come after US Defence Secretary James Mattis said ‘there is no doubt’ the Assad regime was responsible for planning and orchestrating the deadly attack.”

Wilkie has a history of showing good sense. Via ABC.Net.Au: He “resigned from the intelligence agency Office of National Assessments in 2003 in protest over Australia’s role in the Iraq War, said the Federal Government should have ‘learned from the past.'”

“I think we should be very cautious in Australia and not be too quick to automatically endorse what the US is saying,” said Wilkie.

You’d think!

Hard to believe that after Iraq, against which I railed in columns for years (“Broad Sides: One Woman’s Clash With A Corrupt Culture”), starting in September of 2002, American leaders are back to doing the same.

When you quote truth disgorged by a liberal, GOPers pounce. But truth is truth no matter who says it.

Princeton’s Joyce Carol Oates captured the US’s appetite for destruction:

“[T]ravel to any foreign country,” Oates wrote in the Atlantic Monthly in November 2007, “and the consensus is: The American idea has become a cruel joke, a blustery and bellicose bodybuilder luridly bulked up on steroids … deranged and myopic, dangerous.”

What Ivanka Wants, Ivanka Gets

Business, Celebrity, Democrats, Donald Trump, Feminism, Gender, Labor

What Ivanka Wants, Ivanka Gets” is the current column, now on The American Thinker. An excerpt:

“Donald Trump must get those kids out of the White House,” a blunt South African observer of our politics barked at me, weeks back. “You’re looking more and more like us.” She was alluding to the nepotism on display in the Trump White House.

Since the president started strafing Syria, it has become evident that Trump’s favorite offspring needs to be booted from the People’s House. The British press, more irreverent than ours, seconded the broad consensus that Ivanka had nagged daddy into doing it. For The Kids: The First Daughter was, purportedly, devastated by the (unauthenticated) images of a suspected gas attack in Syria.

Brother Eric Trump confirmed it: “Sure, Ivanka influenced the Syria strike decision.” White House spokesman Sean Spicer didn’t deny it.

Eric had headed back to the Trump Organization, as he promised during the campaign. Ivanka just wouldn’t go.

Who could fail to notice that the first daughter, a cloistered, somewhat provincial American princess, has been elevated inappropriately in the White House, while first lady Melania, a cosmopolitan steel magnolia, has been marginalized?

That Ivanka, now her father’s West Wing adviser, drove the offensive in Syria is but a logical deduction.

Ivanka promises that she and her poodle, Jared Kushner, are in compliance with the law. Clever lawyers told her so. Legalistic assurances pertaining to the 1967 Anti-Nepotism Statute mean nothing. Law is hardly the ultimate adjudicator of right and wrong.

Donald’s daughter has no place in the White House, no matter how cutely she “argues” for her ambitions:

“I want to be a force for good.” (Who defines “good,” Ivanka? Limited and delimited government means that it’s not you.)

“I want to pursue my passions.” (Your passions, Ivanka, are not necessarily the people’s passions—or even within the purview of their government.)

Whether she’s tweeting about the accomplishment that is the war on Syria or about inflicting her kids on China’s first couple, Ivanka’s tweets have the insipid emptiness of a contestant in a beauty pageant.

“Proud of my father for refusing to accept these horrendous crimes against humanity.”

“Proud of Arabella and Joseph for their performance in honor of President Xi Jinping and Madame Peng Liyuan’s official visit to the US.”

Such provincialism and solipsism were certainly part of the Obamas’ international persona. Barack and Michelle gave the queen of England an iPod, customized with images and audio from Mr. Obama’s inaugural and DNC addresses.

Wily Arabs are hip to White House dynamics. They know who’s running the White House and whom to flatter. For doing their bidding, Syrian rebels—”we don’t know who they are,” cautioned the Old Donald—have even given President Trump an honorific:

Abu Ivanka al-Amriki: father of Ivanka the American.

I don’t think President Donald Trump’s dispiriting deviation of policy on Syria signaled a lack of core beliefs. What the folly of bombing Syria signals, very plainly, is that what Ivanka wants, Ivanka gets. Republicans and Democrats likely know it but won’t say it. The former because Ivanka is a woman. Republicans dare not wage war on a woman, much less if she wages war on Syria. The latter because Ivanka is a Democrat by any other name. …”

… READ THE “DISPIRITING” REST. “What Ivanka Wants, Ivanka Gets” is now on The American Thinker.

World-Class Idiot Nikki Haley On How To Make Syria Great Again

Democracy, Donald Trump, Foreign Policy, UN, War

Nikki Haley is no longer a provincial idiot, but a world-class idiot who speaks for Donald Trump when she pontificates on how to make Syria great again:

JAKE TAPPER, CNN HOST, STATE OF THE UNION: Is regime change in Syria now the official policy of the United States?

NIKKI HALEY, U.S. AMBASSADOR TO THE U.N.: So, there’s multiple priorities. It’s — getting Assad is not the only priority. So, what we are trying to do is, obviously, defeat ISIS. Secondly, we don’t see a peaceful Syria with Assad in there. Thirdly, get the Iranian influence out. And then, finally, move towards a political solution because at the end of the day, this is a complicated situation. There are no easy answers and a political solution is going to have to happen.

But we know that it is not going to be — there is not any sort of option where political solution is going to happen with Assad at the head of the regime. It just — if you look at his actions, if you look at the situations, it’s going to be hard to see a government that’s peaceful and stable with Assad.

TAPPER: Well, of course, it’s hard to. Is it the position of the Trump administration that he cannot be ruler of Syria any more? Regime change is the policy?

HALEY: Well, regime change is something that we think is going to happen because all of the parties are going to see that Assad is not the leader that needs to be taking place for Syria.

Haley also told CNN last week the — rather last week the strike could be followed by more action if necessary.

HALEY: He won’t stop here. If he needs to do more, he will do more. So, really, now, what happens depends on how everyone responds to what happened in Syria and make sure that we start moving towards a political solution and we start finding peace in that area.