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.
@desperatelyseekingsasquatch, April 17, 2017 at 9:13 am
“Theodore Postol is a political ideologue with a generation-long history of making contentious claims intending to embarrass the military. “Regard with due skepticism.”
And who, then, is an overweening, power-adulating political hack with a lengthy history of making contentious claims intending to embarrass yourself by, among other stratagems, spuriously denigrating your betters? 😉
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodore_Postol
MIT Professor Theodor Postol – not gonna be on the MSM anytime soon
Another reason the establishment warmongers who profit from the MIC and endless chaos hate Tulsi is because of her “Stop Arming Terrorists Act”
“The legislation would prohibit the U.S. government from using American taxpayer dollars to provide funding, weapons, training, and intelligence support to groups like the Levant Front, Fursan al Ha and other allies of Jabhat Fateh al-Sham, al-Qaeda and ISIS, or to countries who are providing direct or indirect support to those same groups.”
https://gabbard.house.gov/news/press-releases/video-rep-tulsi-gabbard-introduces-legislation-stop-arming-terrorists
The war machine is now owned by Trump and HIS ARMY. That is what he called the US ARMY – HIS ARMY.
Shoot! There goes all our wars, Autumn!
A member of Turkey’s Parliament called attention to the strong evidence that Turks facilitated the smuggling of sarin through Turkey into Syria. Amazingly (not) he was subsequently charged with treason for his efforts to expose thisTurkish support of anti-Assad Islamists in Syria, including supplying them with chemical weapons.
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/12/16/turkey-implicated-in-sarin-false-flag-attack-on-syria-and-new-coverup/
James Thompson, another candidate eaten by the DNC
He ran for Congress in central Kansas. in a district in which no Democratic presidential candidate has broken 40% in the last 20 years. The one Democrat who has represented the Wichita commuter belt since the Depression was a temporizer who voted with the Republicans about a quarter of the time. It’s not bloody surprising Mr. Thompson lost.
@Jill, April 17, 2017 at 3:23 pm
“This is an interesting article: http://stormcloudsgathering.com/trump-world-war-3/”
This is an excellent article, Jill. Thanks for calling attention to it and to that website.
I see some grounds for hope, in the case of Syria, that Trump notified Russia in advance of the unwarranted and illegal (but thankfully limited) attack on the Syrian airfield. This suggests that he’s not totally out of his mind with his participation in the collective warmongering psychosis afflcting the death cult of US officialdom.
Ken and Autumn,
This is also a good look at the real motivation behind Trump’s attacks on Syria. There’s a very long history going on there and we have a large chunk of the documents to show what is really going on:
“History shows that public understanding of US foreign policy depends crucially on assessing the motivations of US officials. It is likely inevitable as a result that US officials will present themselves to the public as having more noble motivations than they share with each other in private, and therefore that if members of the public had access to the motivations shared in private, they might make different assessments of US policy. This is a key reason why WikiLeaks’ publishing of US diplomatic cables was so important.
The cables gave the public a recent window into the strategies and motivations of US officials as they expressed them to each other, not as they usually expressed them to the public. In the case of Syria, the cables show that regime change had been a long-standing goal of US policy; that the US promoted sectarianism in support of its regime-change policy, thus helping lay the foundation for the sectarian civil war and massive bloodshed that we see in Syria today; that key components of the Bush administration’s regime-change policy remained in place even as the Obama administration moved publicly toward a policy of engagement; and that the US government was much more interested in the Syrian government’s foreign policy, particularly its relationship with Iran, than in human rights inside Syria.”
http://www.truth-out.org/progressivepicks/item/33180-wikileaks-reveals-how-the-us-aggressively-pursued-regime-change-in-syria-igniting-a-bloodbath#14924686117391&action=collapse_widget&id=0&data=
I see some grounds for hope, in the case of Syria, that Trump notified Russia in advance of the unwarranted and illegal (but thankfully limited) attack on the Syrian airfield.
I’ve been wondering about that.
It might be better if Trump were totally out of his mind and we could get on with his removal. The problem I see with his “notification” and supposedly “measured” missile response. One, he gave Russia only hours of advance notice and no say in the matter. Two, he flipped his foreign policy strategy, overnight, as if it were a flap-jack. I don’t see Putin being reassured by Trump’s utter fickleness or frightened by his clumsy (never mind illegal) response.
I can’t imagine Putin has much patience for this sort of Casino Bravado US Policy based (as Putin knows full well) on what ever black mail du jour the CIA puts on Trump’s desk in the morning. Trump imagines he is being clever. Putin realizes this buffoon is actually capable of creating a button pressing situation – probably by the stupidity of being clever – but nonetheless.
I don’t know about China, but I suspect Putin is going to continue being as reasonable or measured as possible, until he stops, while positioning Russia to take advantage of Trump’s inevitable blunders. It’s the point at which he stops that concerns me. And the point where Trump’s bravado becomes irreversible that he seems to be walking right into; his perceived successes in in this fantasy/reality TV show presidency where the MSM applause and ridicule keeps egging him on.
The many questions being raised here are the reason congress needs to take up debate on this. What is the strategic goal? What is the threat from Syria that impacts our national security?
Although I disagree with Gabbard on some issues, there is nothing to fear from information. As long as it is not classified and/or endanger assets, then the public has the right to public scrutiny on the information that leads to a military response.
Russia’s actions seem to show that they, too, believe Assad is responsible. They have changed their stories so many times on what they believe happened, and now they are trying to block an investigation by the UN. Russia claimed this was an ISIS chemical weapons factory (why was that factory in Syria?) to this was a stockpile of Assad’s chemical weapons (why was that stockpile in Syria?) to trying to block an investigation. That is not the action of a country who believes Assad is innocent. Now Russia and China are clashing with many nations in the UN over its involvement in Syria. It boggles my mind that Russia has the ability to veto any United Nations Security Council resolution. Which is good to explain to anyone who does not understand the criticism that the UN is mostly useless.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-39500319
“Footage following the incident shows civilians, many of them children, choking and foaming at the mouth.
Witnesses say clinics treating the injured were then targeted by air strikes.
Some of the victims were treated across the border in Turkey. One woman in hospital said: “We were affected by the gas. We couldn’t stand up. I felt dizzy and sick. I suffer from shortness of breath. I couldn’t breathe.”
The World Health Organization said some of the victims had symptoms consistent with exposure to nerve agents.
A team from medical charity MSF treating victims in Idlib found patients’ symptoms were “consistent with exposure to a neurotoxic agent such as sarin gas”, the charity said in a statement.”
The Russians are now claiming that Syrian planes hit a rebel depot, which had chemical weapons. But “a chemical weapons expert, Col Hamish de Bretton-Gordon, told the BBC that the Russian version of events was “pretty fanciful”.
The idea that a nerve gas like Sarin could spread after a weapons manufacturing process had been bombed was “unsustainable”, he added.” That is because Sarin gas is highly volatile. So blowing it up burns it off, for the most part.
So, what’s wrong with Assad? He’s killed, to date, 250,000 people, 5 million refugees have fled, and 6 million more people are displaced inside the country. And the extremists are most organized in opposition to him, including ISIS.
It’s a mess. And it’s really true that “there are no happy endings in Syria.”
KarenS – numerous people have shown the attack was fake including the Swedish Doctors for Human Rights organization:
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2017/04/06/swedish-medical-associations-says-white-helmets-murdered-kids-for-fake-gas-attack-videos/
Swedish Doctors for Human Rights organization:
Exactly what tools would a collection of Swedish doctor / public-nuisances have at their fingertips which would demonstrate this ‘fake’?
This is an interesting article:
“The powers want to tip the game board, rewrite history and start again. They think you’re too stupid, too distracted, too easy to manipulated by emotional platitudes to examine the evidence.
It would be completely illogical for Assad to use chemical weapons at this stage of the conflict . They had nothing to gain from this and everything to lose. The Syrian army had the clear advantage at this stage with conventional means, Russia has their back, and that gave them an extremely strong position going into negotiations which were scheduled for the very next day (April 7th). Assad would have to be a total moron to do something like this (and he’s not).
Then there’s the fact Assad doesn’t actually have such weapons. According to the OPCW, the last of Syria’s chemical weapons were handed over for destruction in 2014. John Kerry confirmed this assessment.
“But Assad used chemical weapons before!”
Really? When? According to the U.N. investigation conducted on the gas attacks of 2013, as reported by the BBC, it was the Rebels that used Sarin, not Assad.
Obama backed down in 2013 because the U.S. backed rebels got caught, and we held them accountable. As a people we activated in 2013 against these airstrikes. We flooded the phone lines as congress approached the vote. We didn’t ask nicely. We made it clear that we knew their names and addresses and that we would hold them personally accountable for the consequences.”
http://stormcloudsgathering.com/trump-world-war-3/
I mean, would this govt. lie to you?
Jill, remember what General Wesley Clark revealed about regime change plans in the Middle East post 9/11. Syria was on the list.
I’m disappointed Mr. Turley has concluded President Bashar al-Assad is “dangerous” without factually supporting it. I guess Abe Lincoln was dangerous, too, when his country was about to fall apart by insurrection. At least Lincoln didn’t have a superpower trying to overthrow him too.
Apart from that, Mary Todd Lincoln, did you enjoy the show?
As Ron Paul and many others have pointed out, it is simply not credible that Assad would have authorized the latest sarin attack, in view of the fact that with Russia’s assistance, the Syrian rebels were on the verge of defeat, and that such an attack would spark international outrage, thus jeopardizing the imminent victory of the Syrian government.
For other geo-political players, however, the attack made perfect sense in terms of attempting to draw the US further into the conflict and against Assad.
The following is excerpted from critically important reporting by Seymour Hersh in the London Review of Books entitled “The Red Line and the Rat Line” (April, 2014). His reporting has lost no significance, notwithstanding being three years old:
“A US intelligence consultant told me that a few weeks before 21 August, he saw a highly classified briefing prepared for Dempsey and the defense secretary, Chuck Hagel, which described ‘the acute anxiety’ of the Erdoğan administration about the rebels’ dwindling prospects. The analysis warned that the Turkish leadership had expressed ‘the need to do something that would precipitate a US military response’. [My emphasis]
“By late summer, the Syrian army still had the advantage over the rebels, the former intelligence official said, and only American air power could turn the tide. In the autumn, the former intelligence official went on, the US intelligence analysts who kept working on the events of 21 August ‘sensed that Syria had not done the gas attack. But the 500 pound gorilla was, how did it happen? The immediate suspect was the Turks, because they had all the pieces to make it happen.’ [Emphasis added]
“As intercepts and other data related to the 21 August attacks were gathered, the intelligence community saw evidence to support its suspicions. ‘We now know it was a covert action planned by Erdoğan’s people to push Obama over the red line,’ the former intelligence official said. ‘They had to escalate to a gas attack in or near Damascus when the UN inspectors’ – who arrived in Damascus on 18 August to investigate the earlier use of gas – were there.’ [My emphasis]
“The deal was to do something spectacular. Our senior military officers have been told by the DIA and other intelligence assets that the sarin was supplied through Turkey – that it could only have gotten there with Turkish support. The Turks also provided the training in producing the sarin and handling it.’ Much of the support for that assessment came from the Turks themselves, via intercepted conversations in the immediate aftermath of the attack.
” ‘Principal evidence came from the Turkish post-attack joy and back-slapping in numerous intercepts. Operations are always so super-secret in the planning, but that all flies out the window when it comes to crowing afterwards. There is no greater vulnerability than in the perpetrators claiming credit for success.’ Erdoğan’s problems in Syria would soon be over: ‘Off goes the gas and Obama will say red line and America is going to attack Syria, or at least that was the idea. But it did not work out that way.’ [Emphasis added]
“The post-attack intelligence on Turkey did not make its way to the White House. ‘Nobody wants to talk about all this,’ the former intelligence official told me. ‘There is great reluctance to contradict the president, although no all-source intelligence community analysis supported his leap to convict.
“There has not been one single piece of additional evidence of Syrian involvement in the sarin attack produced by the White House since the bombing raid was called off. My government can’t say anything because we have acted so irresponsibly. And since we blamed Assad, we can’t go back and blame Erdoğan.’ ’’
https://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n08/seymour-m-hersh/the-red-line-and-the-rat-line
Pending a serious investigation, it’s quite reasonable to suspect that having failed in his attempted manipulation of Obama, Erdogan thought he had little to lose and much to gain by trying the same false-flag ploy with Trump.
As Ron Paul and many others have pointed out, it is simply not credible that Assad would have authorized the latest sarin attack, in view of the fact that with Russia’s assistance, the Syrian rebels were on the verge of defeat, and that such an attack would spark international outrage, thus jeopardizing the imminent victory of the Syrian government.
1. Ron Paul’s knowledge of military tactics = 0
2. Ron Paul’s insight into the psychology of Near Eastern warlords = 0.
Now Seymour Hersch is the authority? Reviews of Mr. Hersch’s previous books by Fred Greenstein, Martin Peretz, Robert McClory, and Garry Wills are available for anyone’s perusal at your nearest academic library.
Ken: Thanks for the Hersh article. It’s fascinating to visualize the depths to which our deceptive foreign policy takes us without an inkling of guilt for the murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent human beings.
mespo727272, April 17, 2017 at 8:13 am
“Pacifism is immoral and cowardly.”
I hope it gives you at least some pause that desperatelyseekingsasquatch is essentially supportive of your anti-pacifist position.
If not, perhaps the following will help put your position in historical perspective:
“While many governments have tolerated pacifist views and even accommodated pacifists’ refusal to fight in wars, others at times have outlawed pacifist and anti-war activity. In 1918, The United States Congress passed the Sedition Act of 1918. During the periods between World Wars I and World War II, pacifist literature and public advocacy was banned in Italy under Benito Mussolini, Germany after the rise of Adolf Hitler, Spain, under Francisco Franco, and the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin. In these nations, pacifism was denounced as cowardice; indeed, Mussolini referred to pacifist writings as the ‘propaganda of cowardice’.”
“Herman Goring described, during an interview at the Nuremberg Trials how denouncing and outlawing pacifism was an important part of the Nazis’ seizure of power: ‘The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.’ ”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacifism#Anarcho-pacifism
But one needn’t be a pacifist in the sense of eschewing all physically violent resistance to aggression (defensive warfare) in favor of non-violent resistance to it to recognize that aggressive war is the supreme crime that spawns all other war crimes:
“The criminal trial of German and Japanese leaders after World War II, the Nuremberg Judgment issued in 1945 was a milestone in this process. The Judgment declared: ‘To initiate a war of aggression… is not only an international crime, it is the supreme international crime differing only from other war crimes in that it contains within itself the accumulated evil of the whole,’ and although Nuremberg was flawed by being an example of ‘victors’ justice,’ the American prosecutor, Justice Robert Jackson, made what has been described as the Nuremberg Promise in his closing statement: ‘If certain acts in violation of treaties are crimes, they are crimes whether the United States does them or Germany does them, and we are not prepared to lay down a rule of criminal conduct against others which we would not be willing to have invoked against us.’ ” [My emphasis]
http://warisacrime.org/content/hello%E2%80%A6-state-dept-aggressive-war-supreme-war-crime
I trust that you (if not desperateseeker) can at least acknowledge that the Syrian government has not attacked the United States, and that, therefore, any act of war against Syria is ipso facto an act of aggressive war.
Well said Ken!
I agree.
“Pacifism is immoral and cowardly.” Quite the opposite is often true.
“I lost my religion in Viet Nam,” says Brown, a soft-spoken, hazel-eyed avuncular figure who ties his long white-brown hair in a ponytail with red rubber bands and sports a T-shirt that proclaims, “I Wish To Live Without War.” He thought at the time, “If God is all-good and all-wise, what am I doing holding a dead baby?” Brown, of Buffalo, N.Y., enlisted in the Marines in 1966 “without a lot of forethought” to get a two-year hitch “over with” and return to civilian life. “I was a very naive guy,” he recalls reflecting on that youthful decision. And what he saw in Viet Nam has haunted him ever since.
“A sniper shot at us from about 300 yards across a rice paddy and everybody shoots back and when we get over there it’s all dead women and children. We made a mistake. That really opened my eyes. If you can make a mistake at that distance so can a drone operator sitting on this side of the Atlantic make a mistake and kill a person in Afghanistan.”
http://www.veteranstodayarchives.com/2012/05/21/why-an-ex-marine-turns-pacifist/
My hands are tied
For all I’ve seen has changed my mind
But still the wars go on as the years go by
With no love of God or human rights
‘Cause all these dreams are swept aside
By bloody hands of the hypnotized
Who carry the cross of homicide
And history bears the scars of our civil wars
I don’t believe the “official story” either. It might be true, or it might not. But who would believe anything the mass of government says without question??? Same with Global Warming. We are lied to sooo much, how can we believe anything??? It’s like living with drug addicts.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Thank you Jonathan Turley and Rep. Tulsi Gabbard for being independent thinkers and having the courage to speak out. We need more of you.
First, what is wrong with American citizens that so many of us love war? If we love a good war so much then we ought to love a good, no exceptions draft. Trump wants to send several thousand more ground troops into Syria. He’s sending them into Somalia. He’s sending our people to N. Korea. (Issac, Obama did not take troops out of Iraq–he was forced to shift them over to the State Dept. because the Iraqis had signed an agreement with Bush to get us out of there. Of course, we never left and now WE’re BACCCKKK.) We still in Iraq and Afghanistan. So I guess things are going great in the US!
We are definitely a death cult. It simply does not occur to enough people that the govt. lies us into war all the time. It further does not occur to enough people that there are much better options than going to war across the planet. It’s called diplomacy and it would be great if we’d try it. This govt. has been incompetent for a long time now. We don’t care to find negotiated solutions even when they are readily available. The ICC exists. We could use it but of course, we don’t because our own “leaders” should be there along with Assad.
That most of Congress and too many other citizens think it is unpatriotic to question the president and ask for evidence is a disgrace. The essence of citizenship is not acquiescence to our “leaders”, it is to honor our own Constitution Doing that calls exactly for brakes on executive power and stopping violations of the Constitution, not cheering them on. Most of Congress dishonors our nation by failing to abide by their oath of office. It is required of Congress that they defend our Constitution. Instead, most are shredding it. It’s shameful that people calling for Congress to follow the rule of law are reviled by the cowards and war mongers of both legacy parties.
In about a week, Trump has decided there are emergencies in Syria, N. Korea, Somalia, Afghanistan and Iraq. Few question how this could happen in one week. Few wonder where the troops to do all this kinetic action will come from. Fewer still wonder where all the money is coming from. Through using the youth of our nation as human shields for these insane wars, USGinc. puts the world at risk. It’s getting very fashionable to kill (eat) our young and the young of other nations.
As citizens, we should snap out of it. We need to uphold our Constitution. If a member of the govt. upholds the rule of law, this is a good thing. There is another way.
First, what is wrong with American citizens that so many of us love war? If
You’re problem,Jill, as always, is that you have no demonstrated talent for not caricaturing the world around you. (You also do a certain amount of blatant lying).
dds,
Absolutely!
That goes for your post about me below. Absolutely. You are very astute and I must bow to your superior intellect. (Or, am I lying????)
What you lack is not intellect, but character.
Few question how this could happen in one week.
They’re not functionally inter-dependent problems, so it would be a dumb question to ask.
http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-35806229
You might find this interesting.
Karen, peaceful protest is fine, but who is arming (with US-manufactured TOW anti-tank rockets, Libyan tanks, and BM-21 multiple rocket launchers) the Free Syrian Army, al-Nusra, and now Tahrir al-Sham, and why is Syria our problem?
From the 2014 Hersh article that Ken Rogers posted: “The full extent of US co-operation with Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar in assisting the rebel opposition in Syria has yet to come to light. The Obama administration has never publicly admitted to its role in creating what the CIA calls a ‘rat line’, a back channel highway into Syria. The rat line, authorised in early 2012, was used to funnel weapons and ammunition from Libya via southern Turkey and across the Syrian border to the opposition. Many of those in Syria who ultimately received the weapons were jihadists, some of them affiliated with al-Qaida. (The DNI spokesperson said: ‘The idea that the United States was providing weapons from Libya to anyone is false.’)”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tahrir_al-Sham
http://www.businessinsider.com/syria-rebels-and-tow-missiles-2015-10
I just wish Congress would man up (and woman up) to the responsibility of authorizing such military actions, and not run the other way.
Autumn is a great commenter here and JT made her day w/ this column. She LOVES Tulsi. I don’t agree w/ much of Tulsi’s politics but if I ran the Dem party I would be grooming her for the WH. She is very easy on the eyes.
Glad to see republicans aren’t the only ones with low standards.
Nick, YESSS! I think Tulsi would be an excellent candidate for 2020. She is bright, accomplished and actually has principles – and that’s exactly why the DNC will try to destroy her.
She should have won an Oscar that year:
I agree with Mr. Turley’s column with the exception of this: “[Gabbard] 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.”
As for the meeting, do you really want representatives whose goals are the sound bite or the photo opportunity or do you want them to skip the rhetoric, roll up their sleeves, and do what they think is best for this country?
As for “murderous dictator,” and “undermined foreign policy,” these premature assertions are similar to the sarin-gas attack of which Gabbard wants more evidence. Just how do you know al-Assad’s a murderous dictator? How do you know Gabbard undermined foreign policy? Are you taking the Trump approach? Does it undermine foreign policy with the world knowing how many innocents Trump has killed for no good reason since taking office and that he’s moving us toward WWIII?
The fact is that Gabbard is one of the few in Congress who have not lost their moral compass. As for Howard Dean’s 180-degree turn on warmaking, his deferment during the Vietnam War shows how some folks were born made to raise the flag, so long as they don’t have to dig a fighting hole.
If only we had more thinkers like Gabbard in Congress…… She shouldn’t be standing alone.
BK, Your party hates people who think for themselves. That’s why they vilify Tulsi.
MY party? I am not registered with the Democrats or the Republicans and, except for one very competent county clerk, I haven’t voted for either for decades.
I don’t believe you, BK.
Tulsi caucuses as a democrat. The arrangement actually works for all as she easily wins her very liberal district. The establishment dems can criticize but I bet they seriously don’t bother to primary her. As Trump continues to bomb, hopefully, more and more will step up to criticize the god emperor for regarding weapons as his personal toys.
The god emperor Obama and the almost god emperor Hillary Clinton
Trump said Obama was too timid and now he is the real deal who is building his arsenal of military toys.
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/853604334944354305
I was not arguing with you. It’s an addendum. Obama was only a Titan emperor. Hillary thinks Trump was too soft on Syria.
Thanks.
anon – Obama was a false emperor. Even as a true emperor he would have never risen to Titan.
Paul, Obama was the “Baby Jesus”. I read that on this very blog or was that “fake news”? 🙂
anon – it was either irony or wishful thinking.
Actually the Dims did try to primary her and cut off funding (see Wikileaks) after she nominated Sanders at the convention. But she won her seat easily.
A democrat really needs no funding to win that district. The district is 80 percent democratic.
I stand with Rand and now stand with Tulsi Gabbard.
I stand with Rand and now stand with Tulsi Gabbard.
Well said, Steve. I was going to comment on McCain having met with the so-called moderate rebels. The same ones who are passing their training and weapons freely on to ISIS? Maybe he met with the 10 people who are actually classical liberals who want freedom and self-government, but I am cynical.
Prairie Rose, I didn’t know McCain had met with the rebels. Good point.
Well said above, Steve.
McCain has met with every “rebel” group we are arming for regime change, alquaeda/nusra in Syria, neo-Nazis in Ukraine and Isis in Lybia.
Steve, great comment. Agree about Gabbard’s meeting with al-Assad as well as questioning the evidence for declaring al-Assad a murderous dictator (at least any more murderous than our own). And with your overall praise of Professor Turley’s article.