The next time someone says the New York Times is biased against Trump, show them the past few days’ headlines and articles in the aftermath of the Syria Tomahawk strike. The Times blares – without any sense of caution or reason – that Trump was shocked into action by the chemical attack. I cannot claim to know whether his shock was genuine.
I do know that I have eyes, ears, and a memory: Trump displayed no such revulsion after 2013 Syrian chemical attack on children. Why the sudden “shock” now? Should we simply accept that his “shock” this time is the actual reason for his decision to strike? I don’t think so.
We still have our sense of reason, no matter what media outlet spoon-feeds us this line, no matter what self-interested foreign policy analysts gush that this makes Trump a real president. (John Heilemann and many others)
We are expected to suddenly forget all of the bizarre connections between Trump cronies and Russia, to forget about all of the lies about these connections that persisted until the Trump cronies were forced to admit that they in fact had multiple direct contacts with Russian intelligence, and then finally to pretend that a few Tomahawk missiles falling on asphalt (after warning Russia ahead of time) would not create a public relations distance between Trump and Russia that would be remarkably convenient to Mr. Trump.
To say that some of us are skeptical is an understatement.
with shiny object bravado and faux humanitarianism.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
This strike is an indication that there is less to Russia-gate than many Democrats hope. It doesn’t settle the case, but it is evidence against a strong Trump-Putin connection.
If the Trump administration had ignored the gas attack, or pushed the Russia/Assad line that the the gas was the victims’ own fault–that would have been evidence that Trump was under Putin’s thumb. The fact that he did just the opposite is evidence of just the opposite.
and lead to his impeachment, resignation or prosecution.
Lobsta dinna bet, anyone ? Bueller ? Bueller ?
Fred Rich LaRiccia
. . .where the evidence gathering would precede the all caps announcement of the final verdict.
and just because I don’t trust Trump and his puppet master Putin don’t mean they didn’t conspire to steal our election. Traitor bastards !
Fred Rich LaRiccia
You sound like someone who could be talked into buying anything.
just like he lied about being able to defeat ISIS in 30 days.
Whew, turns out, he DID know more than the generals.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
I hate to be a conspiracy theorist, but there seems to be some indication that Russia is playing it’s required role in this charade brilliantly to mislead us to Trump’s benefit.
. . . but there is every indication that you are playing that role. There is evidence of a Trump Putin connection (mostly that Trump said nice things about Putin during his campaign). And evidence against such a connection, such as a military attack on the government of Syria, an important ally of Putin. There is also a lot of stuff we don’t know, which the FBI is investigating.
It just makes no friggin’ sense to pretend that the events in Syria this week were some kind of hoax to make Trump look independent.
When you get to a point where every new event confirms your preconceived conclusion you are being a conspiracy theorist.
I certainly agree that it is too early make the all-caps claim that this was Russia’s doing.
At the same time, it does fit in rather nicely with Mr. Trump’s long-lasting habit (decades!) of doing whatever is needed to distract attention from the truth in order to sell whatever counterfeit rubbish he is selling at the moment. The Russia investigation is looking more and more real, and more and more devastating.
It is certainly a happy coincidence for Mr. Trump that this little adventure turns the media spotlight away from the Russia investigation days after Mr. Nune’s steps down, allowing the House investigation to get back on track.
I don’t buy your argument that this attack provides any evidence at all of Mr. Trump’s independence from Russia and Mr. Putin. At the moment, the evidence we do have suggests that it is little more than yet another Donald Trump tantrum.
There is certainly ZERO evidence that Mr. Trump has any long-term strategy in mind at all. After all, there can’t be any military advice on long-term implications of this because Mr. Trump’s utter incompetence has left vacant nearly all of the key roles in the NSC that would provide guidance about this incredibly complex situation.
I find it terrifying that Mr. Trump seems to view launching a military attack as pretty much the same thing as clicking off a few twitter broadsides.
If he wanted to defend Trump from these Russia-gate accusations, it would have been easier and cost-free to have him stop praising Putin during the campaign.
It’s unreasonable to assume that Putin thinks so little of Syria, where he has invested troops and money, that he would put his campaign there into jeopardy just for . . . what?
I agree with your assessment of Trump’s action. It’s pure tantrum.
I certainly agree Syria crossed a red line, one that I frankly wish Obama had addressed, but how the parties handled the reaction makes me suspicious. Even Rachel Maddow wondered aloud about it and she’s not one to trade in nonsense, especially when it comes to military matters.
I think Trump reacted emotionally, and so far he’s gotten a lot of praise for it. I don’t think he really considered the Russia angle.
I see it as strong evidence proving the connection. “The lady doth protest too much, methinks” comes to mind here. Trump “attacks” a Syrian base only after giving Putin an advanced notice. The attack takes out a plane or two, maybe a vending machine and a used Toyota pickup…but as the news unfolds shortly after, the same airfield is being used for more attacks on the same city….
Trump just spent $60 million on a Public Relations campaign.
I’m not buying it. Why would anyone?
. . . the hard core birthers took it as proof that they were right all along “Why is Obama trying so hard to prove he was born in Hawaii unless he has something to hide?”
Similarly, the hard core conspiracy theorists on this blog, like Fred, and you, take evidence that the “conspiracy” maybe doesn’t exist, as evidence of a big cover up.
That’s lunacy–there’s no other way to put it.
Had to log back in to yell at somebody. Hello from 11 years ago.
The Democratic/McCain axis on Russia is the cynical one here. The hacking story is a joke than any amateur detective can see through. It was just an effort for Hillary to get war-first Republicans like McCain to endorse her.
Process arguments against Trump are feeble. When is Congress going to vote against war? They would have voted for it. Stop whining.
There is only one group that is truly against adding to confrontation with Russia and further involvement in the Middle East. That group is the American people. For a while Trump was with us. Now he is part of the Borg, which is fine with me.
The right will become the true place for the anti-war voice, the left is pathetically unable to combat war, being so easy to manipulate.
you should probably cite Russia Today.
I’ll cite the 2016 election where Dems who laughed along w John Stewart about the dumb wars voted for a warmonger and lost.
Lizzie Warren, Seth Moulton and Hillary were howling for blood this time too. Your party put up a pathetic opposition in 2003, your media goes along with every war, and I’m reading RT?
How do you know Trump wasn’t upset by gas attacks in 2013? He was not a candidate or political figure. He was a random businessman with a TV show. As a Governor, Senator, or Congressman he might have done so, but other than saying to others that it was a shame, in what public forum could he have expressed such revulsion?
Trump is not a governmental or political lifer like most candidates. He comes from the private sector. It damages the credibility of your speculation to accuse him of not responding only months after Obama’s reelection.
Twitter.
You seem to be becoming a frequent defender of Mr. Trump, even while those defenses are so easily refuted. The media has been chock-full of reports of Mr. Trump’s full-throated opposition to doing ANYTHING in 2013.
Such defenses of the indefensible do more harm to your own credibility than any of these legitimate criticisms.