Friday, April 28, 2017

CRUCIFYING GENERAL FLYNN


HE FAILED TO SIGN THE APPROPRIATE FORM--AS A PRIVATE CITIZEN

General Michael T. Flynn has had a distinguished US Army career, rising to the rank of Lt General. He served in the Army from 1981-2014. He was deployed for combat in Grenada, Haiti,  Iraq, and Afghanistan. He served as Trump's (short lived) National Security Advisor, and prior to that served President Obama as Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency.  Today, this patriot who has serve his country honorably and with distinction has had his good name smeared with no evidence or trial and is being characterized in the press as a modern day Benedict Arnold.  The truth is,  Flynn is the innocent lamb being sacrificed by the Democrats and some Republicans on the altar of Trump hatred in the unlikely and counterproductive  hopes of unearthing something—-anything—-to use against the  new President.  

It is clear that the accusations against  General Flynn by his anonymous accusers are simply internecine warfare and POLITICS.  They are fueled by the fruitless pursuit by the Democrats of the "Russian connection”. An idea fostered by the Dems to deflect blame from their shocking loss in the  2016 campaign and of the weak and ultimately unelectable candidate they presented to the nation. 

Flynn served honorably and well as Obama's Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency.  In that post the record shows that General Flynn consistently warned President Obama about the danger of undermining the Assad regime in Syria, and of the ties to Islamic terrorism the Obama Administration’s anti-Assad forces, supported with CIA cash, and weapons had.  President Obama did not want to be faced with the facts about Syria counter to his domestic and foreign policy agenda.  Flynn was accused by to the Obama Administration of "working against policy".  But the Defense "Intelligence " Agency is tasked with gathering intelligence to help formulate policy.  Not the other way around.  Obama,  our scholar President, should have known that, but like some of his less well endowed predecessors—i.e George Bush who used this system to press the nation into a disastrous war— preferred to formulate a policy then gather “intelligence” which supported his policy.  Flynn also wisely favored working “constructively" with Russia in Syria.  He also warned about the perfidious nature of the Turkish intervention in Syria and its negative consequences for the US position and for Syria.  He was proved correct on all of these presidential advisories. 

One story about Flynn which gets wide and “gleeful” circulation in the anti-Trump press was an assertion by Flynn that he had seen "photos" of handwritten signs in Arabic,  posted in our Southwest border region.  (Flynn’s posting in Iraq an Afghanistan as an intelligence officer would provide him with credibility to recognize such evidence) These signs were purportedly used to help direct Muslims entering the US illegally.  The  press jumped all over this story to disprove it.  They found a compliant Border Patrol Agent who claimed he had never “seen any signs delineating smuggling routes”..and he assured them there were “none in Arabic”.  But no  one in the press bothered to ascertain just where this agent was posted in the Southwest.  Or did he even know what Arabic script looked like?  In the parts of the southwest I am familiar with, the natives wouldn't  know what an Arab looked liked, no less being able to identify the florid design of Arab script as a sign post. 

The fact is that General Flynn was fired for telling the truth. Had President Obama taken Flynn's warnings more seriously, and formulated foreign policy around facts rather than around political and domestic politics, Syria would not be the basket case nation it is now,  and thousands upon thousands of Syrian lives might have been saved.

The present “investigation” into the affairs of General Flynn, which are known only through rumors, unsubstantiated assumptions, as well as leaks to the press via Rep. Elijah Cummings (D) of the House Oversight Committee.  These all revolve around the possibility that the former General, after he retired from the Army,  “failed  to obtain required approval” before accepting funds from a foreign government.  The same Elijah Cummings and his Democrat colleagues who are so eager to pillory the General, completely ignored (and some helped obscure) the much more serious claims against Secretary of State Hillary Clinton who with her husband accepted huge sums of money from numerous foreign sources —including the Russians .   After General Flynn retired from the Army, like  every other Admiral, General, colonel, and any second class factotum who held any position of authority in the government, Flynn went out into the market place to sell his “expertise”.  Though the actual dollar amounts mean little, they are insubstantial by DC and Wall Street standards.  What we do  know is that General Flynn accepted some $45,000 to attend and speak at a government affair in Moscow.  Just getting to Moscow and staying for a few days, would account for a good portion of those funds.  (A British Air, first class flight might cost one as much as $13,000.)  General Flynn was clearly not enriching himself with these sums.  Another fee, of about $22,000, was accepted by Flynn from another foreign country for a similar purpose.  This is chicken feed by DC standards. 

As an example of the “revolving door” for Washington DC experts…let’s take a look at a real virtuoso, our past President.  Out of office for a little more than three months, and our former President has hit the speaking circuit with zeal.  In the last few days Obama sold himself to some Wall Street Bank for the princely sum of $400,000.00 for an hour’s speech, and then a few days later did it again at another venue, for an additional $400 Gs.  He made a shameful $800,000 dollars for a few hours in front of two audiences.   Not to be classed as androcentric, he sent Michelle out there too, to scoff up more money on a similar gig.  And they were not even “broke” like Hillary and Bill when the original touchstone-money-grubbing couple of all time left the White House. 

That is the crux of the “crucifixion” and the so-called “charges” against General Flynn. He failed to sign a form.  So far as we know, the General did sign the appropriate forms before he accepted these paltry sums while he was a private citizen.  If he didn’t, was this omission(of a mere formality), of such to cast him as a “felon” or a “traitor”,  or a Benedict Arnold?  As the MSM seem to like to do?  

How many retired admirals, generals, and other have been in the same circumstances and of which we hear nothing?

This nation should be  ashamed—no mortified— by the way we have treated General Flynn and others like him who have devoted their lives and careers to their nation’s defense and well-being. 


Tuesday, April 25, 2017

DONATE $23 BUCKS EACH FOR OUR WALL


The Dems are dead set against it. Somehow they claim the wall is "racist".     The GOP is averse to any more debt. But they have sat on this idea for decades.   Speaker Ryan is not on board either.    But the wall is essential to getting immigration, drug running, and crime under control.   The wall is too important to let it slide----again.  It's a smalll percentage of the total budget, at less than 0.03%.  That is, it will cost $1.4 billlion to get the wall project started and moving toward completion.   Let's show the DC crowd we mean business.  Let's help MrTrump get us that wall.

 I'd say there were more than 60 million who voted for Mr. Trump.  The amount we are talking about is $1,400 million dollars  ($1.4 billion) divided by $60 million  Trump voters = $23 dollars apiece.   If each of these voters coughed up about $23, or the amount we spend on sweets or cigarettes each week...we could begin the construction of that wall.  

Call your Congressman or Congrresswoman...ask them where can we send our  $23 dollar "Wall Donation"?  

SHATTERED: HILLARY CORRUPTION, DEMOCRAT SHAME REVEALED IN NEW BOOK

The new book:”Shattered, Inside Hillary Clinton’s Doomed Campaign” by Johnathan Allen and Amie Parnes (2017) documents the recent history of the Clinton campaign.  It should be a required read for all Americans.  In analyzing the inner workings of the failed 2016 Clinton campaign it underscores  both the weaknesses of our duopolistic American political party system, as well as the  strengths of the Constitutional strictures put in place by the Founders.  The book exposes the monumental greed, corruption and malfeasance manifested by a wealthy, politically-connected, elite, and powerful dynasty as it attempted to manipulate the election process—-as well the strengths of the underlying American political structures—the Constitutional strictures—which in the end, produced a result which more closely represents the will of the diverse people of this nation.  We should be both frightened and elated by the last 2016 election. 

The book “Shattered”, gleaned  from sources within the Clinton campaign, documents what many voter have known all along.  That as a nation, we have, since WWII, spawned a weakened political system fraught with bouts of “gridlock”,  and “Washingtonistis” where our representatives arrive in DC to largely ignore the nation and people they represent and focus solely on their own reelection.  This weakened center of power in Washington became the venue where a determined, unscrupulous, politically-connected and well-funded candidate could establish a massive, powerful and corrupt political machine, to railroad one-half of the political system into lock-step support.  A dangerous situation for the nation. 

One telling example revealed in this book: 

After the failed 2008 campaign, rebuffed and chastened candidate Hillary Clinton and former President Bill, instituted a system of loyalty scores in preparation for the 2016 campaign.  With the help and collusion of hangers on, “aides”, “staff” and officials they kept working for them--using money from the  Clinton Foundation slush fund, and/ or later from the the State Department they proceeded to implement  “loyalty scores” for members of Congress.  The scoring system was enumerated from 1-7 based on how loyal a Snator, or Congressmember was to Hillary.  Ratings  ranged from one—"most loyal to Hillary", to seven—"least loyal to Hillary".
The “sevens” in Congress were all targeted during the years of the Obama Administration for "removal from office" by the "Clinton Machine".  What an nerve, what chutzpah!  The powerful, popular ex-President Clinton was instrumental in effecting these removals,  This campaign against these  Congressmen and women, who may have been exemplary in every way but were possible competitors of Clinton or “disloyal to Hillary”.  These politicians faced the possibility of cuts to funding, smear campaigns,  and most fearful for a sitting politician support for  an opposition  candidates to challenge them in Democrat primaries, as well apulling support during elections.  This was  purportedly to “purify” the Democrat ranks prior to the election in 2016 so as to insure the nomination of Mrs. Clinton. The result was of course a less responsive and weakened Democrat field. 

The only person to have the impertinence to oppose this juggernaut Clinton machine candidate was an old back bench Senator from a tiny rural state, who was ignored by the Clinton "seven" team because he was a nobody and was not even a Democrat.  That was Bernie Sanders--who ran a shoe string campaign that blossomed into a real threat to Mrs. Clinton. Had he the "testiculos" "cojones"  to actually attack Mrs. Clinton, he may have succeeded and be sitting in the Oval Office today.  But his candidacy and his campaign was a farce.  He didn't want go for the jugular and talk about her "email controversy" and admitted at that point he was not a real candidate...only a straw dog for Mrs. Clinton to slay.

That is how far the Democrats fell during the Clinton ascendency.  

These corruptive efforts came close to overpowering our representative system in 2016.  The Clinton political machine surged forward toward its goal of electing a candidate driven only by personal and pecuniary ambitions who was unable to enunciate even a “reason for running” for president (other than: “it is my turn now!”).  In the end, these machinations of the Clintons and their supporters weakened and paralyzed one half of the nation’s duopoly political system and opened it up to being overpowered from the right. We should all be concerned that such circumstances are NOT repeated.  

The rise of the Trump phenomenon can be directly related back to the weaknesses of one-half of our two party system.    We need both parties fielding viable candidates with clearly established policies which address real issues of American citizenry so as to continue to make this system responsive to all the people of this nation.  

Looking back one senses that our system survived.  We can be elated on that score.  The Founders who where both distrustful of the majority and of the elites---found ways to insure that neither a tyrannical individual or the pitchfork wielding mob would easily hold sway.  Our system of "checks and balances" insures that we are often faced with gridlock, but at least we know that some tyrant will take over.  

Monday, April 24, 2017

BUILD THAT WALL! A NO BRAINER


BUILD THE WALL

The Democrats have no argument against this proposal.  Interestingly most of those top Democrats who are vehemently against it now, voted for a “border wall” during the Obama Administration.  What's wrong with the same idea now?   

Furthermore, the people have spoken.  Mr. Trump was elected to build that wall.  It is a NO BRAINER.  If we ARE a nation, we MUST  have control over our borders.  Anyone who tries to equate this with “racism” is just pulling your string.  

Attorney General Jeff Sessions spoke eloquently today ((April 24, 2017) on the need to control entry along the southern border.  He noted that  completion of the “wall” will reduce expenditures for crime prevention, border control officers, and drug interdiction.  And he elucidated ways to pay for this feature as well, noting that over the long term it will actually reduce expenditures.  He is correct.  


Build the wall…it should have been done long ago!

STOP SABER RATTLING-STAY OUT OF SYRIA--USA FIRST




I read a report in the UK, Mirror on the G7 meeting which took place in Tuscany, Italy today (April 11, 2017). The report seems to underscore the conflict the new Trump Administration is having bringing its recent campaign rhetoric and the political and international reality into congruence.  The G7  is an organization of the major wealthy and advanced nations of the world.They represent opinion of an influential segment of the global population.    The members, the USA, Japan, Canada, Germany, France, Italy and the UK which represent nations which control more than two thirds of the net global wealth (@ $300 trillion dollars).  They meet annually to attempt to fine tune the world economy…presumably for their own profit and stability.  Our brand new Secretary of State Tillerson was present to represent the USA.   The Mirror (on line) reported that Mr Tillerson’s proposal to sanction Russia for their complicity in the recent reputed Khan Shikoun gassing of civilians in Syria was rejected by the member nations.  They apparently considered his proposal unhelpful for advancing the stability and profitability off the global economy. The UK, Canada, Germany Italy France Japan are said to have “rebuked Secretary of State Tillerson for proposing sanctions against Russia prior to any investigation of the Khan Shikoun event in Syria”.  I suspect that they would have been even less supportive of Mr. Trump’s attacks on the Syrian airbase for the same reason.  There was no evidence of wrong doing. Mr Trump’s attack on a sovereign nation was an unwarranted act of war.  To add insult to injury, it was made prior to any evidence which would have supported such an attack  

The is still NO evidence that the Syrian Government used Sarin gas In Khan Shikoun in Idlib in 2017.  

The White House is continuing its blame game on Syria, boldly attempting to implicate Russia as well with the culpability for the so called “Sarin gas” attack on civilians. To this date they have not produced any hard evidence of such an attack or of Syrian culpability, no less that of Russia knowing about the attack. A purported radar track of a Syrian plane…supposedly flying over the area is of course meaningless.  The US intelligence community’s persistant claim that it “can not release the actual supportive data for their conclusions” because it would compromise their secret methods is a ploy that permits them to manipulate the press and public opinion with no evidence and impunity.  History is rife with their untruths.  Since there has been no unbiased investigation. There is no evidence. Mr. Trump’s actions are all based on TV film footage and still photographs. 

There are many inconsistencies and questions about this story.   There is no evidence that the attack or release of gas was in fact Sarin gas—yet the White House and the media continually use that term.  Sarin gas is difficult to generate and store.  If it was Sarin gas it would be more likely that some established state—not a rebel group—would use it.  The evidence for that gas remains lacking, however.   Fore example: The number of people affected, (60-100) are too few for an aerial attack which would have affected a wide zone and perhaps thousands of individuals. In addition, the fact that many victims were photographed seeming to suffer only mild breathing difficulty.  In several videos these victims are seen to recover and walk off.  Fiinally, photographs and video often showed the aid workers treating victims by flushing water over their bodies and then handling them and  their clothing with bare hands.  They having no ill effects. All this points to some gas other than Sarin.  

A possibility is some other gas such as Chlorine, or Bromine gas which might have been easily generated by crude methods in  rebel munitions workshops .  The case is not closed. The evidence is not clear.  

Important too is the timing and motive of the attack.   It seems highly unlikely that such an attack would be launched by the Syrian regime,  which is in fact winning the war.  There was no clear  motive for Assad or his supporters to initiate a gas attack. What would they gain?   The timing is suspect as well.  The event occurred only days before a planned peace conference in Brussels.  The rebels and other outside players ( the Gulf States, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and the USA) all of whom support  the anti Assad forces, would all have had the ability and the motive to use a gas attack to sway world opinion and undermine and weaken the Syrian government bargaining position just before entering into the peace process.  As I indicated in an earlier blog the Assad regime simply had no motive to use gas.  What is needed is a formal investigation by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.  

Let’s hope that Mr. Trump cools down the rhetoric, gets control of loose cannons (like Niki Haley, UN Ambassador) in his cabinet which seem to be leading him rather than the other way around, and refresh his memory of how and why he was elected over the other GOP hopefuls. 


 What were those reasons?  Mr. Trump’s GOP and (later) Democrat competitors did not call for an “America First” policy.  They were all in favor of  regime change, nation building and endless global war.  The people rejected them.   The voters know that these policies fritter away tax dollars, focus national wealth on militarism, waste material and human resources, and shunt national wealth abroad wealth which is desperately needed to “Make America Great Again”.  Let’s not forget what the election was about. 

Friday, April 14, 2017

MR TRUMP IGNORES VON CLAUSEWITZ WARNING ABOUT GENERALS

TRUMP FALLS INTO DANGEROUS TRAP (LIKE BUSH JUNIOR) OF DEFERRING TOO MUCH TO THE GENERALS. THEY DESTORYED HIS PRESIDENCY.  TRUMP BEWARE.


"WAR IS TOO IMPORTANT AND SERIOUS TO BE LEFT TO THE GENERALS." VON CLAUSEWITZ



In two recent events, Mr Trump seems to have delegated duties and authority as  Commander in Chief to unknown regional military commanders.  There is a danger in that policy.  In the case of the bombing of eastern Afghanistan, with our most powerful non-nuclear weapon (MOAB), it appears that Mr. Trump was not even in the decision making loop.   Yet he permitted a regional commander to deploy a weapon that was designed to be used as a strategic weapon. That action in Afghanistan may have (unintended?) international consequences.  Some of which may be positive.  In this case perhaps there was no harm done and perhaps some good.  But in terms of general policy at the White House it is a mistake of massive proportions.



"Even when there is a necessity of the military power within the land , a wise and prudent people will always have a watchful and jealous eye over it." Samuel Adams 1768



There are too many examples of over eager generals taking too much authority on their own and ignoring the will of the responsible elected officials to recount here.  But perhaps one.   In the early 1950s the example of General Douglas McAurthur the "greates general of his era" and the ultimate strategist and tactician --a military genius--yet his focus only on the "battle before him and the defeat of his enemy" led him to ignore the geopolitics of his actions, and his defeat and forced resignation.  His single-minded focus on winning the battle in North Korea led to a dramatic loss of life when tens of thousands of Chinese troops poured over the Yalu River, which McAurhtur considered a near impassable barrier.  Mao Tes Tung "McAuthured" him with his surprise attack from an unexpected quarter. President Truman finally fired General McAuurthur and ended his career.    



 Mr. Trump must be reminded of the Von Clausewitz aphorism, loosely translated above...which  warns that the "generals' and the state have different objectives and they must be kept separate.  Because we admire our fighting men, particularly in times of war or danger to the state, does not mean that we should defer to their decision making.  One must keep in mind that they have a culture and expertise all to their own...separate and distinct from the civilian and the statesman. They are trained to use the crude weapons of war to settle disputes. They are trained to destroy an enemy designated by their civilian authority.  They live in a culture that brooks no questioning of authority...from below.  Their culture demands that they  take and follow orders. It does not to prepare them to make broad, national strategic decisions with long term consequences for the citizens of a democracy. (Oh you will remind me that there are exceptions--who can do it Eisenhower for one. ) Finally they are not elected officials, they do not represent the will of the people.  They have no mandate to govern.  They are only one ---the last resort---of means by which the decision makers--our representatives and the President--make manifest the policies of the state.  They have no authority to make policy.



For Mr Trump--even Mr. Trum who is a novice politician and with no military experience--for him--who has the imprimatur and the power of the election of 2016---to  defer to the general's will is to abdicate the power of the executive and the will of the people.



Wednesday, April 12, 2017

TRUMP MORPHS INTO 'ESTABLISHMENT' IN RECORD TIME?

All Presidents eventually “acclimatize” to the Washington culture of power, money and corruption and become part of the “establishment”.  Mr. Trump seems to have made the “transition” in warp speed. 

Trump has had a few unsettling days since sending off the shed-load of cruise missiles into Syria.  His flash turnaround on Syria and Russia after viewing  a few TV images and photographs has unsettled the “America First Crowd” in the Manchester Diner, here in Vermont.  The locals are worried that with the turnaround in foreign policy to a more aggressive “Bush-like stance”  Mr. Trump will have to shelve his promises to the working and middle classes in the hinterland of Vermont and the rust belt states that elected him to the job.  These working folks know that you can not get blood from a stone. An “establishment Trump” will be spending more tax payer’s trillions on adventures abroad and ME wars and that would mean an end to the promises Mr. Trump made about: America First, jobs, building the wall,  etc., etc.  Mr. Tump may be able to make these 180 degree flash turns in policy, but  the  rest of us, hide-bound by rationality and logic, need time to “catch up” —if they will want to or if that will ever be possible. 

Apparently there is a massive “reboot” going on in the Trump White House. The politicians  are morphing  Mr. Trump from a fresh faced establishment novice “outsider” into a hardened Washington pol. The “establishment” types, neo-cons, Bush hold-overs, scarred up old war hawks and the armchair variety have all got to the new President’s ear and sold him a bill of goods on Syria and Russia.   Has our President of the campaign evolved into a big fat ‘gator lyin’ in the sun” in the warm dank swamp water?  We can not be sure.  Unlike Mr. Trump we need evidence to alter our long-held and considered positions.

The issues, needs, policies and programs that launched Mr. Trump's popularity---and his election--are still with us.  Why would he abandon them?  

Tuesday, April 11, 2017

G7 REBUKE: TILLERSON NEEDS EVIDENCE: TRUMP HAS NONE

In the UK Mirror, today (April 11, 2017) I read that at the meeting of the G7 Group in Tuscany Italy  yesterday, thakeat group of economically advanced nations  rebuked  Secretary of State Tillerson for proposing sanctions against Russia prior to any investigation of the Khan Shikoun event in Syria.  I suspect that they would have been even less supportive of Mr. Trump’s attacks on the Syrian airbase for the same reason.  There is no evidence. 

There is still NO Evidence that Syrian Government used Sarin gas In Khan Shikoun in Idlib in 2017. If the US has these materials they have kept them secret. 

The White House is continuing its "blame game" on Syria, now boldly also attempting to implicate Russia in the culpability for the so called “Sarin gas” attack on civilians. To this date they have not produced any hard evidence of a Sarin gas attack or of Syrian culpability, and even less  of Russia knowing about the attack. There is no evidence as the G7 attendees pointed out---because there has been no investigation to date.  Mr. Trump’s actions are all based on TV film footage and still photographs. 

First there is no evidence that the gas was Sarin gas--a weapon only the Assad regime would have. Yet that charge is repeated over and over again.   The facts don't add up.  The number of people affected, (60-100) were too few for an aerial attack which would have affected a wide area and perhaps thousands of individuals.  Additionally, many were photographed seeming to suffer only mild breathing difficulty—-then seem to recover and walk away.  Finally, photographs and video which showed the aid workers treating victims with their bare hands and having no ill effects points to some gas other than Sarin.  A noxious gas that might have been being generated in rebel munitions workshops as the Russians claim.  The case is not closed. The evidence is no clear.  a rush to judgement is not 

Second it seems unlikely that such an attack would be launched by the Syrian regime which is winning the war.  As I indicated in at in earlier blog the Assad regime simply had no motive to use gas.  What is needed is a formal investigation by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons.  But that will come long after the damage of this policy would have been done. 
 warranted
Let’s hope that Mr. Trump cools down the rhetoric, gets control of the loose cannons (like his UN Ambassador) and neocons in his cabinet which seem to be leading him, rather than the other way around. Let's hope he refreshes his memory of how and why he was elected over the other GOP hopefuls.  They did not call for an America First policy.  They were for regime change, nation building and endless global war…..

We all understand how a new conflict in the ME will diffuse focus and funds from the domestic needs here at home to "Make America Great Again"--"-We been there and done that!"

To our deep regret.  



TRUMP CAPTURED IN WH, LETS NIKI HALEY MAKE FOREIGN POLICY?

CONFUSION REIGNS IN WHITE HOUSE ON SYRIA

TRUMP CAPTURED BY NIKI HALEY. HIS UN AMBASSADOR?

WHAT IS TRUMP FOREIGN POLICY?

In the last few days after the response to the Syria gas attacks in Idlib Province Mr. Trump's White House has entered the Zombie Zone.  It seems clear Mr. Trump does not know where he is going and seems to being led around by the nose by his underlings.  This is not a good image for a leader.

President Trump had better take charge.  He must remember that he was elected on the "America First" banner.  All those people in the hinterlands are trying to understand who is in charge.  Is Mr. Trump just a figure head who is unable to control his UN Ambassador?  We did not elect her to the sit in the White House Oval Office and make decisions.  Yet is seems she is making policy on her own from her New York office at the UN.

We don't want any more of Bush Doctrine.  Trump seems unable to control his diverse cabinet.  The people are worried.

Get back to pragmatic foreign policy Mr. Trump.  Get control of your loud mouth UN ambassador, tell Tillerson what YOUR foreign policy is!  He looks confused and uncertain every time he gets in front of the cameras.


Sunday, April 9, 2017

SYRIA ATTACK :TRUMP CHANGES HISTORY OF FIRST 100 DAYS?



My take on the Trump strikes in Syria.

It remains unclear who was responsible for the release of the toxic gases which horribly killed and sickened women and children and others in Idlib Province, Syria. If the US has any "incontrovertible" evidence regarding who perpetrated this tragedy, they have not released it. Both Assad and Putin adamantly claim that they were not responsible and are calling for an impartial investigation. The world media and government agencies also seem unsure as to whom to blame. But whomever was responsible, matters no longer. Trump acted ---seemingly precipitately---and changed the entire story.line here at home, where Trump's Syrian military actions were intended to play out.

My thoughts? When the story about the gas attack hit the TV screens and media outlets in the White House---the Trump team saw an opportunity. It was a political opportunity that could change the course of the first 100 days of the Trump Presidency. It did not matter to them that so little time had elapsed between the event and the proposed military response or that Assad had not been conclusively fingered as the perpetrator. The Trump White House took what was offered from politically astute Syrian insurgents and ran with it. In a few hours after the TV pictures were aired Trump gave the order for the launch of a cluster of cruise missels and changed the uneven history of his first 100 days.

Why did Trump act? As with many of our past Presidents--and their motives for military actions abroad--who were often (too often) driven not by sound logic, or diplomacy but by the imperatives of domestic politics. What were the domestic motives which drove Trump? The prime motive was to undermine the politically devastating "Russian connection" story-line that the Democrats had been playing so effectively since Mr. Trump was elected. How could reasonable Democrats continue with the Russia story when Trump is seen actively pummmeling Putin's chief ally in the Middle East? Another motive was to boost Trump's sagging poll numbers and establish Turmp's bona fides as a :"no nonsense" leader. The attack would also burnish Trump's reputtiaon for acting decisively (some would say precipitously) when he set down his own chemical weapons "red line". Unlike Obama, whom at every opportunity Trump continues to remind us all that Obama backed off his threat of military response in similar circumstances, Perhaps most importantly the US strikes in Syria would "send a clear message" to North Korea's belligerent young leader-- Kim Joung-un. The fifty or sixty cruise missels which rained down on the air strip in western Syria could just as easily be directed (with devastating effect) on the young leader's compound...putting an end to his penchant for threatening our allies by miniturizing nuclear munitions to fit to his long-range ballistic missels. And yes! The Trump team could even blame the Obama Administration, (and that mendicant Susan Rice) for lying to us about the deal to remove "all" of the Sarin gas from Assad's coffers in 2013.

What matters now is what happens next. Does Trump abandon his popular "America First" rallying cry and fall in line with the neo-cons, militarists, and "establishment" in Washington? There were the very policies held by Trump's opponents which were defeated in the nomination campaign. Does he get entangled in regime change and nation building? Does he take up costly nation building like that which we continue to pay for in Iraq and Afghansitan, which we pay for dearly but returns little to the vast majority of our people? If he does, he is toast in 2020,

Wednesday, April 5, 2017

SYRIA GAS ATTACK--FALSE FLAG OPERATION?

MANY UNASWERED QUESTIONS ON SYRIA GAS ATTACK

ONLY INSURGENTS HAD MOTIVE FOR GAS ATTACK!

The recent horrendous attack (Tuesday April 4, 2017) in Idlib Province, Syria where dozens of people were gassed has been quickly and without due course of evaluation been attributed to the Assad Regime and/or the Russians. Both the Assad Regime and the Russians flatly deny they had anything to do with the gas attack. This author beleives that there are many questions outstanding and we should be cautious about claiming who the perpetrator(s) are.

MEANS MOTIVE AND OPPORTUNITY POINT TO INSURGENCY

In US criminal law means, motive and opportunity are aspects of a crime which are carefully probed an assessed before accusations of guilt or criminality can be determined. The terms make reference to the ability or capacity (MEANS) of the group or individual to commit the offense or crime, the reason or purpose (MOTIVE) a group or individual would have for committing the crime,, and the chance or circumstances (OPPORTUNITY) to commit the crime. Though both the Assad Regime and the rebels of Idlib province had the means and opportunity of committing this horrible gas attack on vulnerable citizens including children....it is only the rebel forces whic had the motive.

One must ask, what purpose would such an attack on civilians serve the Assad Regime at this juncture in the war? They are winning. They have driven the rebel forces and ISIS out of Aleppo, the nation's largest city. They are engaged in an offensive operation which appears to be on the verge of success in removing these same forces from Idlib another large city and its province. The. Recent USA elections have brought a new US policy to Syria. The Americans have have just yesterday made clear their intention to back away from the Obama policy of "regime change" as a strategy in Syria, to one in which the "Syrian people will decide" their leadership. In addition, there are plans for peace talks in Brussels within days. Why would the Assad forces throw a monkey wrench into the works right now? They had no motive.

Though the type of gas used has not been determined as yet, it seems clear from the number of casualties (too few for a Sarin gas attack from an aircraft) and other facts gleaned from photos that use of that gas was unlikely. Furthermore, the description of the physiological effects on the victims does not Suggest a Sarin gas attack. It appears to be some toxic agent (perhaps Chlorine a commonly available chemical used by the insurgency). Additionally, the casual way the aid workers and physicians who were aiding and treating victims were depicted, no gloves or protective gear, raises questions about the toxicity of the agent. It seems unlikely to be sarin..which is absorbed through the skin. These aid workers and health professionals were not wearing protective garb necessary when dealing with Sarin gas and its condensate on the victim's clothes and skin.

The Russians have flatly denied that they had any planes in the region. They also claim that the Assad forces are not culpable either. The Syrian government forces were bombing targets in the region which housed an insurgent "munitions-making operation". The Russians claim that these munitions may have been detonated during the attack and this led to the release of gases and the civilian casualties. They further claim that the munitions carried by the Sukoi 22 jet bomber-fighters have no capacity to carry "gas canisters" which would have rquiried helicopters for delivery. The planes in the area at the time were the Sukoi 22s.

There seems to be much uncertainty in the accounts coming out of Syria so far. But it is clear to many that it was only the rebel forces in Idlib Province who would HAVE THE MOTIVE for the gas attack and who would PROFIT politically from the understandable outrage from the civilized world. THE INTENTION of the REBEL FORCES WOULD BE TO CHANGE MR TRUMP'S RECENT USA POLICY AND TO UNDERMINE THE PLANNED PEACE NEGOTIATIONS OR TO WEAKEN THE BARGAINING POSITION OF THE SYRIAN GOVERNMENT IN THESE NEGOTIATIONS. Of course the forces which favor the expansion of the war in Syria in the USA, and the continued death toll of civilians, and the foolhardy policy of overthrowing of the Assad Regime TO CREATE ANOTHER FAILED STATE LIKE IREAQ are all willing to ignore the facts and rush to judgement. We should resist such temptations.

Saturday, April 1, 2017

OBAMA SHOULD COME CLEAN ON SPYING ON TRUMP TEAM



In a block buster piece in the Wall Street Journal, (March 30, 2017) entitled: "What Devin Nunes Knows", Kimberly Strassel seems to support the accusation made by President Trump  some weeks ago--that the was "wiretapped".  Mr. Trump was viciously vilified and called a "liar" and worse.  But we all suspected he was right.  In the above  WSJ piece Ms Stossel flatly states:   "Team Obama was spying broadly on the incoming administration". Perhaps it is now time that those who criticized the President should apologize.  And Nobel Laureate, Constitutional scholar and past-president Obama should come clean and admit that his team was caught undermining the vital process of transition from one administration to the other and in fact breaking the law.


What does Mr. Nunes know?  He knows he has seen proof that the Obama White House broadly spied on the incoming administration.  His proof supports the fact that the spying had nothing to do with Russia. He indicates that the surveillance conducted was politically motivated.  And he is apprised of the fact that the Obama team purposely "unmasked" transition officials (a felonious act) and that this information was widely circulated at the highest levels of the Obama government.


The method used to conduct this politically motivated spying on the incoming White House team Strassel terms: "reverse monitoring" or putative tracking the communications of a wide array of foreign officials with the underlying actual purpose of spying on the Trump team.  This is a sinister misuse of the legal and necessary foreign information gathering conducted by our CIA, NSA, and others.  It undermines confidence in our government.  The perpetrators would need no FISA court approval.  This explains  the apparent lack of knowledge (or will) to reveal it by our official intelligence community spokespersons.


 The facts that Congressman Nunes knows about the Obama team spying Strassel calls "more than a scandal---but a potential crime".

Perhaps Mr. Obama could make amends for the mess he left us with and his team's attempted sabotage of the nation's legitimately elected government. The election made manifest the will of the people. He should at least come clean on his team's perfidy so that the new tin Washington team can get back to working for the betterment of the nation as they were elected to do.