Trump Is Unmasked: 14 Reasons Why the Syria Airstrikes Were a Really Bad Idea
Let me start by saying that I voted for Donald Trump, and anyone familiar with my website or Twitter feed knows how vigorously I opposed a Hillary Clinton Presidency. However:
1. Trump contradicted himself 100 Percent. His Tweets following the 2013 alleged “sarin gas attack” reveal a different man, the non-interventionist we hoped we were voting for:
I am grateful to Middle East Eye for posting 13 of Trump’s Tweets, five of which I’ve screen shot.
2. Trump skirted the U.S. Constitution, which he swore to uphold in his inaugural oath.
Here’s what Ron Paul’s son, Senator Rand Paul, Tweeted in response to Trump’s missile assault:
Trump cannot plead ignorance about this matter, since he said the same thing as Paul in his first Tweet above.
The Constitution designates the President “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy”; it is somewhat ambiguous about what independent actions he may take. In any event, Article 1, Section 8 clearly vests all war-making power in Congress. While I never thought I’d have anything good to say about Barack Obama, at least he asked Congressional approval for the airstrikes he first sought after the 2013 sarin gas allegations. Trump did not; he behaved as a rogue autocrat.
For those who argue that Trump was acting legally because he didn’t really “make war,” I would ask: If another country rained 59 missiles on America, would we not consider that an act of war?
If anyone truly believes Trump had the right to launch cruise missiles on Syria, without consent of the People or Congress, then by that same logic Trump has the right to launch a nuclear first strike on Russia, start World War III, and incinerate the planet. The Founding Fathers did not intend Presidents to be invested with such power; they consistently emphasized the principle of checks and balances.
3. Trump acted with impetuous haste, not waiting for adjudication of the facts.
If a person is accused of a heinous crime, do we simply lynch him on the spot? Or do we give him a fair trial, so that facts can be weighed, all sides of the story heard, and the accusation’s truthfulness determined?
If Trump was genuinely concerned about the sarin gas allegation, what he should have done: request an investigation by an impartial delegation, composed of members from several foreign countries with no vested interests in Syria. Such a delegation could have interviewed witnesses, examined forensic evidence, and submitted a report.
Instead, Trump received an intelligence briefing and reacted to some victim photos taken by jihadists. I know there are die-hard Trump supporters who will argue this was “good enough.” NO, IT WASN’T. COLIN POWELL HAD FAR MORE INTELLIGENCE BRIEFINGS ON SADDAM HUSSEIN’S “WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION” AND SHOWED PICTURES TO THE UN. WE WERE THEN LIED INTO AN UNNECESSARY WAR THAT COST TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS AND KILLED HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF IRAQIS. POWELL ULTIMATELY ADMITTED HE ACTED ON FAULTY INTELLIGENCE.
To this day, the Trump administration has supplied no proof whatsoever that Assad’s forces released the chemical agents. Syria’s air force did strike an opposition target, but there is no evidence they dropped chemical weapons. Rather, the chemicals evidently belonged to the terrorists on the ground. Peter Ford, former British ambassador to Syria, explains this important distinction:
British journalist Tom Duggan, who lives in Damascus, confirms that view:
Why didn’t Trump wait to get his facts straight before committing an act of war?
4. The United States was not attacked.
The U.S. military’s purpose is to defend America. Its mission is not to go around the planet, “kick ass,” punish people the President doesn’t like, or right other countries’ wrongs, real or imagined. We have enough problems to handle here at home; Trump knows this well—his campaign was largely based on that message.
5. The chemical agents could not have been sarin gas.
Patrick Lang, a former colonel in the Defense Intelligence Agency, says the U.S. missile strikes were “based on a lie.” Among many other points he makes, he observes:
We know it was not sarin. How? Very simple. The so-called “first responders” handled the victims without gloves. If this had been sarin they would have died. Sarin on the skin will kill you. How do I know? I went through “Live Agent” training at Fort McClellan in Alabama.
(meme posted on Twitter by Truther Monkey)
6. Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh had already determined that when Assad was previously accused of using sarin gas, it was a false flag orchestrated by anti-Assad forces to provoke U.S. intervention.
You can read about Hersh’s findings here.
7. In 2013, Britain’s Daily Mail reported:
The full story is archived here.
8. Assad had no motive to use chemical weapons on his people.
The Syrian military, with Russia’s help, had recently won a major victory in Aleppo over the terrorists. This war has been going on for years, and during that time Assad never once deployed chemical weapons on the battlefield. Why, then, on the brink of final victory, would he suddenly decide to wantonly use them against civilians, knowing full well this would invite military intervention from the West? When determining the perpetrator of a crime, a critical question is: Who benefitted? ISIS and Al Qaida benefitted.
(posted on Twitter by Sal the Agorist).
9. Immediately after the U.S. strike on Shayrat Air Base, ISIS launched a new offensive in the neighboring region. Thus, for all practical purposes, Trump launched a flank attack in support of Islamic extremists—the very forces he came to power vowing to oppose.
10. If Syria was really storing chemical weapons at the targeted airbase, then attacking it with missiles made absolutely no sense.
Think about it. Supposedly Trump was reacting to reports that civilians were killed by chemical weapons. Yet if the airbase stockpiled such weapons, then U.S. missiles striking those depots would release the chemicals into the atmosphere, killing more civilians. One does not dismantle WMDs by exploding them. This means one of two things; either: (1) Trump’s military advisors are remarkably inept; or (2) (more likely) his advisors were fully aware the airbase housed no chemical weapons. Shout-out to Daniel Margrain at Global Research for making this point.
11. Trump is now keeping bad company.
Hours before the airstrikes, Hillary Clinton said the U.S should “take out” Syrian airfields. Trump is suddenly sounding like America’s most hated necons, John McCain and Lindsey Graham. Some think it not coincidental that McCain had recently visited Syria. Most of us who voted for Trump hoped he would end the non-stop Middle East wars carried on by Bush and Obama. Instead, he has put his foot on the accelerator.
Furthermore, mainstream media, which had been attacking Trump daily like pit bulls, before and after the election, suddenly transformed. On April 9, I watched CNN’s anchor and commentators speaking with hushed reverence about Trump. I thought: “Do I have the right channel? Is this really CNN?” They declared how Trump’s airstrikes had restored America’s respect throughout the world. I don’t have that specific footage, but this clip is typical:
I don’t know if MSM’s honeymoon with Trump will last, but clearly the Powers that Be flipped a switch. I tentatively conclude that one of the motives for the completely unproven “Russia hacked the election” claims was to pressure Trump until he acted in a way that decisively clashed with Russia.
12. Trump displayed a hypocritical double standard on human rights.
The President said he was motivated to attack because “beautiful babies” had been murdered. Yet for two years, America’s ally, Saudi Arabia, has been bombing the civilian population of its neighbor Yemen. It has even rained down bombs (provided by the U.S. and other Western nations) on hospitals, airports, weddings and funerals.
CLICK HERE TO READ THE REST: