The only problem I have with being a blogger instead of a reporter for the New York Times is the lack of ability I have to receive answers to my questions directly from the source. I must rely on multiple sources of information, out of which I hope to discover some truth; some fact which I can explore. However, I also have the advantage of thinking ‘outside of the box’ and ask questions about words and actions which may not be what they seem.
Last evening Trump ordered an attack on a Syrian airfield after President Assad attacked rebels with chemical weapons. Reports state that 50 Tomahawk missiles were launched in the attack.
My first question is about the effectiveness of such a strike. It was not an attack against Assad himself, or even the center of his military force. Was this type of attack merely a ruse to convince the American people that Trump is a leader? Trump chose a response which has minimal effect regarding the risk of a Russian response with future consequences.
Now here is when I deny my personal dislike for conspiracy theories.
The most serious attack against the very core of America was executed by Russia, with the encouragement of Donald Trump and his campaign staff, during the 2016 election. During the same exact time period when both houses of congress are conducting investigations regarding this war on our elections, Trump chooses to make a statement by attacking an airfield in Syria, whose biggest and most important ally is Russia. Is this a cover-up in an attempt to redirect the focus of America away from the fact that our nation has an illegitimate president living in the White House? Could this entire situation, including the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime, be a ruse constructed by Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump to deflect the truth?
If this sounds impossible to any of you, take the time to consider the facts, including the strike on Syria. What affect will it have, and what damage did it do to Assad’s ability to murder his own people? Is there any reality that it will deter Assad from additional chemical weapon attacks?
Apparently Trump’s misdirection is working. Some detractors of your illegitimate president are saying today that ‘he had to do something.’ But the truth is, what did he actually do? I sincerely doubt that the laws of physics will apply. ‘For every action, there is a equal and opposite reaction;’ but not in this case. The result of this attack will have absolutely no effect on the future of Syria.
In 2013 Assad ordered a chemical weapons attack on Damascus. 1,400 men, women, and children were killed. President Obama ordered naval vessels to ready themselves off of the coast of Syria. Several military strongholds were targeted. The President informed congress and sought their approval. Both Democrats and Republicans were silent and the attacks never happened.
The aftermath was an intervention by Russia. Putin promised that Assad’s arsenal of chemical weapons would be removed and destroyed; it appears now that that was a lie.
Adam Schiff is the ranking Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee. He views this single strike as ineffective.
“I fully concur that the regime has to go, because as long as Assad is there that fighting is going to go on, that terrible war is going to go on,” Schiff said in comments on Rachel Maddow’s show on MSNBC. “But this is not something that can be accomplished via the air at a standoff location.”
Chuck Schumer, Senate Minority Leader, defined the next step for the United States of America.
“It is incumbent on the Trump administration to come up with a strategy and consult with Congress before implementing it. I salute the professionalism and skill of our Armed Forces who took action today.”
Trump continues to believe that he is an autocrat, and refuses to involve members of congress from both parties before he acts. As the strike against Syria occurred, he was once again in Mar-a-Lago, wasting taxpayer money. Instead of a ‘state dinner’ in the White House, he was ‘playing king’ while entertaining China’s President Xi Jinping.
Trump is completely unfit to lead; he demands and his actions are unilateral. This is not the manner in which a President of the United States takes action; action which affects not only America but the world.
By James Turnage
Follow me on twitter; @jamesturnagenov
My novels are available on Amazon