The attack on the Syrian airfield has sent the polls for President Donald Trump into a sharp rise and he has been praised by various Democrats. Others have called for the commitment of thousands of troops. No one seems interested in speaking of the absence of congressional authorization. Indeed, when Sen. Rand Paul objected to the lack of congressional consent, Sen John McCain denounced him as a non-entity in the Senate who does not listens. Below is my column on the mounting attacks on Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D, HI) from Democrats after she called for the release of evidence on the culpability of the Syrian government in the recent gas attack on a village. Even though some (including a recent MIT professor) have questioned the evidence, Gabbard’s desire to see the evidence was viewed as inexcusable. It appears that war, like Saturn, devours its young.
Washington is back to business as usual this week with both parties pounding war drums over Syria and some demanding thousands of troops be sent to expand our latest undeclared war. What is most notable is how fast top Democrats dropped their post-Sanders rhetoric over war powers and have again adopted the pro-interventionist stance embodied by Hillary Clinton.
Before the attack, Clinton was back in public chiding President Trump on how she would have long ago bombed every airfield and started a major campaign against the Syrian military. Not one air field, mind you, all airfields. She received rapturous applause for the comments at the Women in the World Summit in New York.
Indeed, Democrats have turned on a congressional member who had the audacity to ask for proof as a precursor for war. The Democrats have shown once again that a party hell-bent on war will like Saturn devour even its own. However, even if our own history with the Vietnam war or weapons of mass destruction in Iraq is not instructive enough, they might consider Greek mythology before they start to nosh on the kinder.
The fact is that Washington loves wars and neither party wants to be on the wrong side of a popular war. Even for Washington, however, the shift of Democrats is notable from the recent election where everyone — even Clinton, albeit awkwardly — tried to show liberals that they were not the hair-trigger warmongers that Sen. Bernie Sanders’ supporters claimed during the campaign.
Yet, now, leaders are denouncing Hawaii Democratic Rep. Tulsi Gabbardafter she had the audacity to ask for proof of Syrian responsibility in the recent gas attack. Gabbard seemed to want more than a pedestrian role in war powers, while her colleagues prefer the safety of the sidelines. Playing the witness to wars avoids responsibility while reserving the right to be shocked and angry if the war goes badly.
The attacks on Gabbard “doth protest too much.” Gabbard has previously angered the establishment in Washington for the right and wrong reasons. She was legitimately criticized in January for meeting with President Bashar al-Assad. It was propaganda victory for this murderous dictator and undermined United States foreign policy.
Gabbard’s real sin however may be more political. Many Democrats are still upset with Gabbard for publicly charging (as was later supported by the Wikileaks material) that the Democratic establishment was actively engineering the primary for Hillary Clinton. She then supported Sanders against the establishment. Now, she has the audacity to demand proof before going to a war when House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, and Hillary Clinton are all in support of a new expanded war.
However, her cited statements were surprisingly modest. She objected that the missile strikes were “short-sighted and will lead to more dead civilians, more refugees, the strengthening of al-Qaeda and other terrorists, and a possible nuclear war between the United States and Russia.”
She also called for the administration to release more evidence of Syrian guilt before pouring more troops or missiles into the conflict, adding that “if President Assad is found to be responsible after an independent investigation for these horrific chemical weapons attacks, I’ll be the first one to call for his prosecution and execution by the International Criminal Court.”
The response from Howard Dean and others was shock and disgust. In a Trump-esque tweet, Dean declared, “This is a disgrace. Gabbard should not be in Congress.” Democratic leaders were outraged that a member would be “skeptical” about the action of the United States. Center for American Progress President Neera Tanden called on Hawaiians to dump Gabbard and asked, “People of Hawaii’s second district, was it not enough for you that your rep met with a murderous dictator? Will this move you?”
The Washington Post expressed shock that Gabbard’s statements “reveal her striking departure from the consensus that Assad’s government launched the attack.” However, at least in the initial days, that “consensus” was based largely on the conclusory statements of named and unnamed sources in the government.
The reaction to Gabbard’s call for evidence brings back troubling memories of the Gulf of Tonkin incident. On Aug. 10, 1964, the Congress passed the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution to give President Lyndon Johnson full authority to go to war in Vietnam without a formal declaration of war. It was based on the Gulf of Tonkin incident involving an alleged attack on the destroyer USS Maddox.
The government reported two attacks that are now considered highly questionable. The government claimed that on Aug. 2, 1964, three North Vietnamese torpedo boats harassed the destroyer. When the Maddox fired three warning shots, the government claimed that the boats attacked with torpedoes and machine guns. The Maddox showed only a single bullet hole.
The government then claimed a second attack on Aug. 4, 1964. Historians have questioned these accounts and most notably former U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara admitted that there was actually no response to the Aug. 2 attack and thus no “sea battle” as claimed at the time. He further admitted that the second attack never occurred. None of that mattered of course because few members wanted to hear at the time that these “sea battles” were hokum.
There is every indication that the evidence will support the United States, which has been releasing more information in the last week. It is notable that, while Russia and Syria have called for investigations of responsibility for the gas attack, Russia just blocked a United Nations resolution demanding Syrian cooperation with just such an investigation.
Russia has claimed that a bombing raid hit ISIS chemical weapons and that this is a pretext for the expansion of the war. Yet, Syria has previously used chemical weapons and Russia is now hindering efforts for such an investigation.
In the end, Gabbard is right about the need for the release of evidence before we expand this undeclared war. The administration may indeed be moving in that direction with the leaking of intercepted communications from the field.
Which brings us back to Saturn. Saturn, or Cronus to the Greeks, was obsessed with a prophecy that he would be overthrown by his children — a sense of panic not unlike the Democratic establishment with the rise of Sanders and his young supporters. As a result, Cronus, a Titan, devoured each child when born including Demeter, Hestia, Hera, Hades, and Poseidon.
His son, Zeus, however, was hidden (Rhea, his mother, gave Cronus the “Omphalos Stone” wrapped in swaddling clothes to trick him). Later, Cronus was given an emetic as a trick and he threw up the children. Zeus and his siblings then rose up and overthrew the Titans, including Cronus. For his part, according to Homer, Cronus was left to languish in the Tartarus, or a deep abyss of pain and torment.
For most politicians, the Tartarus is the abyss called life out of public office. However, before the Democrats start to swallow members like Gabbard whole, they might want to consider how the youth can reappear with a vengeance.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University.
How many people remember this classic:
“The girl, whose testimony helped build support for the Persian Gulf war, was identified only as “Nayirah,” supposedly to protect family members still in Kuwait. Another piece of information was also withheld: that she is not just some Kuwaiti but the daughter of the Kuwaiti Ambassador to the U.S”.
http://www.nytimes.com/1992/01/15/opinion/deception-on-capitol-hill.html
No way would the US government fabricate atrocities for nefarious reasons. NEVER.
The notion that atrocities were not taking place in Kuwait is a gruesomely silly thesis. Take up 9/11 twootherism. At least you can get lost in the intricacies.
So that story was false?
You diverting the professional PR stunt, dir4ected by a member of Congress that basically fabricated a specific travesty, especially one that involved babies, to 9/11 shows how absent your response is of any legitimate substance.
You can wish I’d go a way but your constant arrogant style of Taliban intolerance of anyone with an opinion you don’t agree with is inspiring.
That particular story may have been misreported, as stories commonly are (see New Orleans Superdome, 2005). You did not have hundreds of thousands of people fleeing Kuwait in 1990 because it was all sunshine and smiles. Nor did the U.S. military find the place trashed because the Iraqi troops were the height of disciplined professionalism. This is not that difficult.
Something’s not being said in the refusal of congress to debate and vote on a declaration of war. My cynical side believes they don’t want to go on record with a vote and risk their political careers if things don’t go well. That’s far too simplistic of an explanation though Who would congress be authorizing us to go to war against? A nation-state, a terrorist organization? What power will the President have once war is declared by congress? Who declares the war is over? How are the powers taken back? With an already “weaponized” administrative state and a legislative branch already weakened by their unwillingness to challenge the executive branch (uber-Presidency), would it be reasonable for congress to not give the President even more power by declaring war?
What’s missing?
That’s very true concerning Congress ducking their role in this, but as we have seen with Paul, even bringing up the subject makes you an easy target. Somewhere along the way Americans have learned that laws are for convenience only, and that there should be no time alotted to wasteful endeavors. And yes, these freeloaders in government are hiding from the tough jobs. Kind of like Kerry illustrating that for us in the ’04 election when “I was for it before I was against it [war in Iraq].” Another words, he was a proud member of the blank check Democrats who gave trio of tribulations exactly what they wanted. It’s apparent the only power left to the legislative branch is power over us, and not 1/3 of the check of government.
And to make matters worse, we’re just piling on mountains of debt to an already mountainous debt of $20 trillion. But when push comes to shove, you can bet CongressCritters won’t take that on the chin, it’ll be up to the rest of us to swallow that debacle. Time to wipe the slate clean in elections coming up. That’s the best wake-up call we could possibly give.
Theodore Postol is a political ideologue with a generation-long history of making contentious claims intending to embarrass the military. Regard with due skepticism.
I’m of two minds. One, this post is an exceptional article on the hypocrisy of Democrats in Congress and the group-think puppets they as a party have become to the interests of the powers that be; in this case, the MIC, and transnational investment interests that want the American tax payer to shoulder the expense of endless war in the Middle East to prevent Russia and China from competing for assets such as pipe lines, air and sea ports, and control over petro-resources in the middle east.
.
Two, I should-a thunk 0 that. The only way to get many to agree that an investigation is warranted into what actually happened in Syria and who is actually responsible for what before lobbing missiles around, is to find the angle where it’s the DemoRats fault.
Then, whomp… “Yep, I’ve been saying that all along….Investigate”
Poor, defenseless, beleaguered President Trump whose hands were tied to the launch button by those wicked DemoRats. Who would-a thunk of an investigation in his place? What President of the US would have consulted with Congress before acting? Show me a single Commander In Chief who would ever have bothered to read the Constitution before swearing to defend it? My heart bleeds for this poor misunderstood and misguided patriot who must have taken at least an agonizing 3 seconds to piss off each and every one of his campaign promises when his blackmailers told him it was either “do Syria” or go down over Russia-Gate.
Well, take heart. There is a simple explanation for such behavior that should please many and avoid any and all endless investigations usually done by people more corrupt than the people they are investigating. Trump is a closet Democrat (or a fair wind bag of wind 🙂 Same diff). Voila. Case closed.
And (free-be bonus) we get to keep the fact that both parties are equally corrupt akin to a state secret for those tender sensibilities that endlessly snarl for Dems to be publicly drawn and quartered, or at least arm bands to be worn in public for anyone who is, or has in the past, associated with a member of the DemoRat party.
Bridge
The hypocrisy is not only found with the Democrats. It is so ripe on the Republican side with pimples like Rubio and McConnell that one would need an oxygen mask to witness it in person. The Republicans take the cake when it comes to power mongering via hypocrisy and holding America hostage. Democrats smell bad but Republicans and Trump stink to high heaven.
Reblogged this on 1EarthUnited.
Once she met with Assad, she lost her credibility. Anything she says about the chemical attack is just that of that of an apologist.
Gabbard/Feingold 2020
Gulf of Tonkin, Yellow Cake/ Aluminum Tubes/Mobil WMDs 4.0
Yeah, yeah, yeah–you got it!!
What is “MIC” ?, you asked. That is the Military Industrial Complex. Ike told us about that when he was leaving office on the last day. I would say “oriface” but that would be wrong. Who is “Ike” you might ask. Well, Ike was President Dwight David Eisenhower who was a former military general who led us in WWII. Folks out there in America who read this blog: Big Business wants you to be at war all the time. Send off your sons and daughters to be killed. Drop bombs on a gas storage house in Syria and thus kill civilians that way. Stir up the American public. Shop at Publix. Nuff said. You are all brain dead. Go feast on a dead beast. It’s Easter Monday. Celebrate a friggin rabbit.
We did not “win” the Korean War. Or the Vietnam War. Or the muddle east wars. Or the War in Afghanistan as yet. The MIC wants war now in Syria on a full scale.
You will note that our media does not cover wars anymore. It took other media outlets to go take the videos of the dying and dead kids in Syria who were gassed. CNN, Fox, and the outlets usually hire some friggin Brit to stand on the scene in some war zone and relate news.
We don’t need American troops on the ground in Syria right now (there are some already in case you don’t know it) but we need American journalists on the ground. There are some questions: Who shot what at whom?
Here is what John McCain said in his prayer just as he stepped on his plane to go to Vietnam for that war back in the 60s: “Hey Zeus! Full of juice! Don’t let your meat loaf!”
The lack of spines in Washington has never been more clearly illustrated than with Syria. The American people wanted out of Iraq after the incompetence of the Bush administration. Obama complied. The American people did not want to get involved in Syria. After the Iraq mess and understanding that there was no clear and reasonable alternative to Assad, only self focused rebel groups ranging from religious to fanatically religious to insanely religious, the Obama administration as well as both Republican and Democrat majorities decided to stay out and assist the rebel groups that were the least insane. Russia’s involvement was their naval base only at that time. Then Assad used chemical weapons to kill a hundred or so. That is a hundred or so of hundreds of thousands. For some reason a person killed by chemicals is more dead than someone killed by barrel bombs or other methods. The Republican Congress screamed for action. Obama put together a plan for attacking Syria’s air force that was five times greater than the slap on the wrist of Trump. When the Republicans saw Obama exercising strength and response, they criticized the plan as too small and stood against Obama’s exercising military force. At that time Russia had not integrated its air force in the fight. Then you have the bravado of Trump and all of a sudden this is the right thing to do, now that the Russians are there and will have to be warned-something Trump said never to do. Trump also implored Obama not to attack Assad when the timing would have been infinitely better.
This whole affair is nothing more than political hay. It has nothing to do with going to Congress because Congress has no spine, only power mongering, both Democrats and Republicans. It is closer to a dictator’s move, someone like Erdogan. Trump made points by the useless bombing of a warned airfield. Then he dropped a yuge bomb on Afghanistan. The only way these countries will ever make it is from within. If Russia will end up being Assad’s pal and the killing stops then how is that any different from any one of the many scenarios where the US supported a strong man who slaughtered its people to stay in power.
The hypocrisy and spinelessness is the real problem here. There is no way the US can go into Syria now with the Russians everywhere. The cost of that confrontation is well above the point this idiot of a President and the spineless representatives would be trying to make.
Congress blew it when Obama had the chance but did the right thing to come to them. No wonder Trump doesn’t bother with them. There is nothing in Congress but spineless hypocrites.
“Democrats good, Republicans bad..definitely bad.” Rain Man
“Never go full retard.” Tropic Thunder
The story says. The Congress woman was legitimately criticized in January for “meeting with President Bashar al-Assad. It was propaganda victory for this murderous dictator and undermined United States ” IF she is. “legitimately criticized” for a meeting then tell me again what “National interest” were at risk enough for us to enter a civil war to protect them. In fact just tell me why we are there at all.
LIES: Gulf of Tonkin (Vietnam), Satellite pics of Hussein troops ready to attack Saudi Arabia, killing Kuwaiti incubator babies (first Iraq war Bush I), WMD’s and Hussein did 9/11 (second Iraq War Bush II), Libyan genocide (destruction of Libya now failed state home of ISIS).
Now we have the ridiculous claim Assad made a gas attack even though he was winning the war with conventional weapons, after the previous chemical attack hurt him (evidence later indicated he didn’t do it), after the US claimed they took all his chemical weapons, the victims were again NOT not his enemy & our “allies” Al Qaeda/ISIS/Al Nusra “rebels” and he could easily have killed more people with conventional weapons.
When will people wake up to being robbed by the war profiteers that own both corrupt parties? How friggin’ stupid are people? Go Green!
‘how he’ Darn near made it throught perfect that time.
Oh Yes i’m a moderate registered Independent and Constitutional Republic Party when and if it gets started but as a self governing citizen stand in the true center. Where else would you find the Constitution?
Now about the actual topic. Representative Gabbard also Major Gabbard a two tour veteran of the Middle East Wars EARNED the right to ask the question. First through honoring her oath of citizenship, second through military service and honoring her oath of office and third being elected to serve the Constitution in a second way as a delegate to the federal congress from Hawaii.
God loves the Infantry and Major Gabbard too. Not sure how the thinks of the rest of you who follow the teachings of Marx and Engels.
Brilliant column. Brilliant discussion.
And it just proves we have entered some kind of weird twilight zone were 90% have seemingly lost all reasoning.
That’s exactly what it feels like. Our only power left (assuming we make it until then) is to vote them all out. Can that happen? Hmmmmmm.
Agreed, and perhaps stranger things have happened. Trump was elected President.
The chicken hawks always go after the people who served. They are a disgusting lot. We know McCain served, but we also know he’s pretty much crazy.
slohrss29 – that McCain is ‘pretty much crazy’ understands his problem.
There is no such thing as a ‘chicken hawk’. It’s just an asinine ad hom.
Which political ideology has got this nation into the most wars, declared and undeclared since 1900?
A. DEMOCRATS ( I chose the date because that’s when Progressives moved in.
Which political ideology has caused the most deaths of US Service personnel since 1900?
A. DEMOCRATS
Which political ideology holds the record for losing the most wars since the end of WWII?
A. DEMOCRATS
Which political party installed the Selective Service System (draft)?
A. DEMOCRATS
Which political party refused to repeal it after Vietnam?
A. DEMOCRATS
Whicn political party was, so far, the only one who called for using the draft after Vietnam?
A. DEMOCRATS
Which political party installed the War Powers Act? Reason Upholding the requrements of the Panama Canal Treat. and to keep other Presidents from going to war without approval of Congress.
A. DEMOCRATS
Which political party honored the War Powers Act twice.
A. REPUBLICANS Bush for Kuwait and Bush for Iraq
Which political party has refused to honor the requirements of the War Powers Act?
A. DEMOCRATS
When is the last time the War Powers Act used? Right after 9/11 it continues to this day.
A. What is that kill ratio of US SErvice personnel since the end of WWII?
18 to 1. 18 killed in conflicts started by Democrats to ONE in conflicts started by Reublicans.
A. What was that ratio since 1900?
Over 200 to 1 Democrats own that prize too.
Which President campaigned on pulling out of Iraq immediately?
Obama DEMOCRAT
Which President used the War Powers Act as passed by Congress for that war in order to move troops out of Iraq and into Afghanistan?
Obama DEMOCRAT
And which CONGRESS has ordered a cessation based on that open ended situatation?
NONE OF THEM.
Adding up the score which Party wins the Title as WAR MONGERS?
Libertarians or Greens….Just kidding
DEMOCRATS
What is the ideology of the Democrats?
Our Democracy which ends up as Marxist Leninism with a touch of National Socialism when needed
What, excepting the Republicans in Name Only is the ideology of the rest of the nation.
Representative Constitutional Republic
Why didn’t someone serve? Don’t know don’t care Draftees are more trouble than they are worth and the draft while still in force hasn’t been used ….yet.
What is the most signficant social failing of the Draft? Equality as women are not allowed the benefits of being considred full citizens on the one hand while on the other they get the same financial benefits of the men who are involuntary volunteers at age 18. sss.gov read the f’n fine printl The men who signed up became ex potential draftees and immediate volunteers awaitng reporting orders.
The women were relegated to be baby factories.
My Point of View … 24 years infantry and paratroops plus more. Where were your drops?
I thought so. STFU and if you want to find theh devil? Look In The Mirror. Notice anything? There’s no one looking back. Except your conscience.
War-mongering is a bi-partisan act. Bother parties are complicit.
We live in a troubled world. The notion that the Democratic and Republican parties are the cause of that is beyond stupid.
The first person who came to mind after reading this article was Jeannette Rankin, and how she was vilified and assailed after she cast the sole dissenting vote to declare war on Japan in December of 1941. She was one of about fifty who voted such way upon the declaration of war for the Americans during the first world war.
We don’t need rubberstamps as elected officials. Certainly it could be argued that the electorate contained at least tens of thousands of like-minded pacifists, and though most are certainly without her congressional district, having someone advocate this segment of our population, even if a tiny minority, has merit in our system of government.
Pacifism is immoral and cowardly.
I suppose you could call Mennonites ‘immoral and cowardly’, but that seems rather misplaced; there are unworldly and ready to die. The sort of pacifism traded in by the Brethren and rank-and-file Quakers relies on a certain sort of magical thinking. That’s not very serious, but it isn’t immoral or cowardly. The real pustule is the pacifism of political recrimination, which is utterly phony and repulsive but well in evidence on these boards. See Chris Hedges for a sterling example.
Refusing to defend by strength of arms yours and what’s yours and thus relying on others who are so willing to protect you and yours is the very definition of immorality and cowardice whatever your professed reason or justifying pretext. It insures the success of evil (if left only to your devices) and permitting any evil when you have the power to contest it is indeed the hallmark of immorality.
Refusing to defend by strength of arms yours and what’s yours and thus relying on others who are so willing to protect you and yours is the very definition of immorality and cowardice whatever your professed reason or justifying pretext.
You’re thinking about people in rather abstract terms, and not about the decisions they make in their daily life (as compared to decisions anyone else will make).
Nothing abstract at all about what to do about a knife at your throat.
Absolutely none of these people have a knife at their throat and their chances of having one there are pretty minimal…
And the reason they don’t is their dogged insistence to stay squarely behind those willing to fight.Not a lot of pacifists electing to ply their trade in ISIS held provinces.
Inasmuch as you appeal to the hypothetical scenario of having a knife against one’s throat, allow me to respond with an actual historical example of the life-saving efficacy of a non-violent response to something even worse:
“On Sept. 20, 1958, 29-year-old Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was in Blumstein’s Department Store in Harlem, signing copies of Stride Toward Freedom, his account of the 1955 Montgomery Bus Boycott, which he spearheaded.
“Izola Curry, a well-dressed 42-year-old woman, approached the reverend and asked if it was really him. When he replied yes, she said, ‘I’ve been looking for you for five years,’ and plunged a letter opener into his chest.
“When police arrived on the scene, they found the civil rights leader sitting in a chair with the letter opener’s ivory handle still protruding just below his collar.
“Fearful of the blade’s proximity to King’s heart, Officer Al Howard warned him, ‘Don’t sneeze, don’t even speak.’
While his assailant was taken into custody, King was carefully rushed to Harlem Hospital, where chief of thoracic and vascular surgery John W.V. Cordice, Jr. and trauma surgeon Emil Naclero were quickly summoned. Coming from a wedding, Naclero arrived still wearing a tuxedo, and prepared for surgery.
“In a painstaking operation, surgeons opened King’s chest, exposing his aorta, and removed the letter opener with a surgical clamp.
His would-be assassin was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, and spent the rest of her life in mental institutions. King was quick to forgive her, saying in a press release on September 30 that he felt ‘no ill will’ towards her and hoped that she would get the help she needed ‘to become a free and constructive member of society.’
“King’s surgeon told him that the police officer’s warning had been right: The edge of the blade had been resting on his aorta, and a sneeze would have caused a fatal puncture.”
http://mashable.com/2016/01/18/mlk-stabbing/#j7RfMUJ5FPqt
Had this sincere advocate of non-violence physically struggled against his assailant, he would have died in 1958, and the world would have been denied his ministry for the following ten years.
That’s the craziest non-sequitur to what we’re discussing Ive ever read. Kudos.
@ mespo727272
“That’s the craziest non-sequitur to what we’re discussing Ive ever read. Kudos.”
I’m sorry that the comparison of King’s and Trump’s reactions is too concrete for you to assimilate.
Perhaps if Trump starts nuclear WW III with additional violent reactions to world events, you’ll be able to grasp the difference between his and King’s efforts at conflict resolution.
Does the distinction between aggressive and defensive warfare also elude you?
mespo was right. You were way off the mark. also boring.
Well said, Ken. The same warmongers on this blog as the same in congress, when war starts, whether them or McCain/Graham will be nowhere to be found.
War is hell, once it breaks no one has any control any more…evil runs rampant and many many people will fall.
The clouds of karma are hovering above us right now, waiting for the blowback winds to stir them into a frenzy, they won’t leave anything standing.
Pacifism is the ONLY thing to prevent us falling into the abyss of nuclear war…pacifism is the normal thing not the exception.
The blade is on our common aorta right now, we better not sneeze.
Thanks for the thoughtful response, Po.
I’m praying for some Divine Intervention to save us from ourselves.
Too obtuse.
It is too bad that Gabbard tainted herself somewhat by meeting with Assad. It gave the Schumer -Wasserman branch of the Democratic Party ammunition to go after her when she made a valid request for information regarding the source of the chemical weapons.
But this may all be meaningless soon if war breaks out in Korea.
IMO there is no pot of excrement deep and hot enough for Bill O’Reilly to boil in for eternity. A couple days after Trump launched his missiles in Syria, Bill decried ex-Senator Paul (and possibly Tulsi Gabbert too) as insane loons or some other worse description.
The fact that our last fourteen years of (illegal) wars, “regime change,” blood shed, thirteen trillion in increased debt, maimed soldiers, etc, etc, etc has net nothing but negative results, weakened the USA, split us in half politically, etc, etc, has apparently not occurred to the war monger in Chief O’Reilly.
Why the heck did this slime ball war monger O’Reilly not serve in the military? Oh if he could only have “served” and caught a bullet, the devils in hell could be enjoying his company sooner. OTOH, Bill has been doing the devil’s work promoting war all these years, to good effect for Satan.
IMO there is no pot of excrement deep and hot enough for Bill O’Reilly to boil in for eternity.
Seems rather de trop.
O’Reilly is well compensated for shooting his mouth off. Cretins on these boards are much worse. They just haven’t learned to how to monetize it.