April 14, 2018
MY CORNER by Boyd Cathey
IS THIS THE BEGINNING OF THE END FOR THE TRUMP PRESIDENCY?
Last night, in conjunction with Great Britain and France, President Donald Trump ordered an attack on Syria. And the unleashed war hawks were elated. Just to cite one example, Sebastian Gorka (who had been in the administration last year during the first Syrian “false flag” operation) literally proclaimed the coming of the Eschaton and America’s “divine role” to set right everything that is wrong in the world. Like an Abolitionist preacher of old, Gorka demanded a “moral cleansing” and, sounding like Osawatomie John Brown, proclaimed America’s destiny to go round the world, impose equality, and stamp out evil.
We must ask: Is this the beginning of the end of the Trump presidency? Is the tiny door ajar, that very small and always endangered opportunity that millions of Americans believed might possibly lead us back as a nation from the precipice of total domination by the Deep State and its panoply of global political, economic and cultural destruction of our Western Christian civilization—is it now closing?
Those feverish and frenzied evangelical partisans, those diehard enemies of everything that Donald Trump professed throughout 2016 campaign, have now apparently triumphed, at least in foreign policy. Despite their scarcely-hidden disdain for “that interloper from Manhattan” and their hatred for—and fear of—his America First agenda, they managed early on to ingratiate themselves into his inner circle.
First came the iniquitous Nikki Haley who had, during 2016, likened our future president to a KKK fellow traveler, a racist and a bigot:
I know what that rhetoric can do. I saw it happen [ and] I will not stop until we fight a man that chooses not to disavow the KKK. That is not a part of our party, that is not who we want as president. We will not allow that in our country. [http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/271177-nikki-haley-knocks-trump-over-kkk]
Yet, largely through the counsel of his Republican advisers Trump named the former Waffle House waitress to be our ambassador to the UN (and the voice not of Trump, but of the unbridled war hawk Neoconservative Lindsey Graham).
Then came the possible selection of ultra-Neocon globalist, Never Trumper Elliott Abrams to be Deputy Secretary of State under Rex Tillerson. Again, the GOP advisers and Establishment types who had immediately surrounded Trump after his election pressed for Abrams to fill the post, and only last minute lobbying and critical information passed to the president about Abrams’ virulent attacks on him prevented his naming.
Here is how The New York Times reported Abrams’ Never Trumpism in February 2017:
“Do not allow the Republican convention to be a coronation wherein Trump and Trumpism are unchallenged,” Abrams wrote in a piece for the conservative Weekly Standard. “The party needs to be reminded that there are deep divisions, and Trump needs to be reminded of how many in the party oppose and even fear his nomination.” [https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/trump-rejects-veteran-gop-foreign-policy-aide-elliott-abrams-for-state-department-job/2017/02/10/52e53ce6-efbd-11e6-9973-c5efb7ccfb0d_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.ed21ba360a71]
Abrams’ selection was knocked down. But the resilient and persistent Neocon foreign policy establishment—which had been so violently anti-Trump, almost to the point of paroxysm during the campaign—now had a toehold, indeed, increasingly a stranglehold within the president’s foreign policy team, and they were not about to give it up—even if it meant swallowing their pride and denying all the critical and malicious things that they had said about the president, all the acerbic and hysterical criticisms they had launched against him, during the previous campaign.
This attitudinal “change” became readily apparent in watching the prominent Neocons on Fox or in reading the pages of The Wall Street Journal, or The Weekly Standard and other mouthpieces of Neocon globalist zealotry.
John Bolton, another fierce globalist opponent of the president’s America First agenda, was the latest conquest by the Establishment internationalists. And once again Donald Trump was convinced that Bolton—whose history of vigorous support for unsuccessful foreign interventions is noteworthy—was the right man for the right job.
There is, needless to say, a lesson here: in 2016 Americans wanted an outsider, a man not stained by the grimy and infectious politics of the Deep State and the contagion that rages continually along the Potomac, to come in and clean house, to, as it were, “drain the swamp,” to restore America to its citizens: in short, to Make America Great Again.
But just as there are major advantages to an outsider, a self-made billionaire not beholden to anyone or any faction, entering the fray, there are also major disadvantages and pitfalls. And perhaps the biggest is not knowing, not fully understanding the philosophical and political intricacies of Washington, and the simple fact that a smile and promise of loyalty and support in our nation’s capital is worth about as much as former Vice-President John Nance Garner’s “bucket of warm spit” (I think ole’ John used another term!).
Promises along the Potomac are made to be broken—allegiances exist to further overall policy aims. And in the case of the Neocon ideologues, to quote King Henry of Navarre, a Protestant who wanted to become king of Catholic France, “Paris is worth a Mass.”
Call it naivete’—call it trust in a man’s word—call it what you may, but Donald Trump’s worst enemies, those who wish to undo his America First agenda enunciated during the 2016 campaign, are now in charge of American foreign policy, and they apparently have convinced the president not only that they are on his side, but that he is actually following through on his promises when in fact he is being used as a stalking horse, a vehicle, for their agenda, which is inimical to his.
And the result may well mean the beginning of the end of the Trump presidency, or, at the very least, the fact that the Washington elites, the managerial state, those globalists who have always opposed the program announced by the president, have regained the momentum. And it may also mean that the slight door ajar, the small opportunity that millions of Americans hoped and prayed for back in November 2016, has now closed.
Donald J. Trump ✔@realDonaldTrump We should stay the hell out of Syria, the "rebels" are just as bad as the current regime. WHAT WILL WE GET FOR OUR LIVES AND $ BILLIONS? ZERO 8:33 PM - Jun 15, 2013
Donald J. Trump ✔@realDonaldTrump Remember, all these ‘freedom fighters’ in Syria want to fly planes into our buildings. 2:57 PM - Aug 28, 2013
Donald J. Trump ✔@realDonaldTrump Many of the Syrian rebels are radical jihadi Islamists who are murdering Christians. Why would we ever fight with them? 2:44 PM - Sep 6, 2013
=================================================================== NOW MATTIS ADMITS THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE ASSAD USED POISON GAS ON HIS PEOPLE
Lost in the hyper-politicized hullabaloo surrounding the Nunes Memorandum and the Steele Dossier was that the Syrian government used the banned nerve agent Sarin against its own people last year. This assertion flies in the face of the White House (NSC) Memorandum which was rapidly produced and declassified to justify an American Tomahawk missile strike against the Shayrat airbase in Syria.
Mattis offered no temporal qualifications, which means that both the 2017 event in Khan Sheikhoun and the 2013 tragedy in Ghouta are unsolved cases in the eyes of the Defense Department and Defense Intelligence Agency. Mattis went on to acknowledge that “aid groups and others” had provided evidence and reports but stopped short of naming President Assad as the culprit.
There were casualties from organophosphate poisoning in both cases; that much is certain. But America has accused Assad of direct responsibility for Sarin attacks and even blamed Russia for culpability in the Khan Sheikhoun tragedy.
Now its own military boss has said on the record that we have no evidence to support this conclusion. In so doing, Mattis tacitly impugned the interventionists who were responsible for pushing the “Assad is guilty” narrative twice without sufficient supporting evidence, at least in the eyes of the Pentagon.
This dissonance between the White House and the Department of Defense is especially troubling when viewed against the chorus of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) experts who have been questioning the (Obama and Trump) White House narratives concerning chemical weapons in Syria since practically the moment these “Assad-ordered events” occurred.
Serious, experienced chemical weapons experts and investigators such as Hans Blix, Scott Ritter, Gareth Porter and Theodore Postol have all cast doubt on “official” American narratives regarding President Assad employing Sarin.
These analysts have all focused on the technical aspects of the two attacks and found them not to be consistent with the use of nation-state quality Sarin munitions.
The 2013 Ghouta event, for example, employed home-made rockets of the type favored by insurgents. The White House Memorandum on Khan Sheikhoun seemed to rely heavily on testimony from the Syrian White Helmets who were filmed at the scene having contact with supposed Sarin-tainted casualties and not suffering any ill effects.
Likewise, these same actors were filmed wearing chemical weapons training suits around the supposed “point of impact” in Khan Sheikhoun, something which makes their testimony (and samples) highly suspect. A training suit offers no protection at all, and these people would all be dead if they had come into contact with real military-grade Sarin.
Chemical weapons are abhorrent and illegal, and no one knows this more than Carla Del Ponte. She, however, was unable to fulfill her U.N. Joint Investigative Mechanism mandate in Syria and withdrew in protest over the United States refusing to fully investigate allegations of chemical weapons use by “rebels” (jihadis) allied with the American effort to oust President Assad (including the use of Sarin by anti-Assad rebels).
The fact that U.N. investigators were in Syria when the chemical weapon event in Khan Sheikhoun occurred in April 2017 makes it highly dubious that Assad would have given the order to use Sarin at that time. Common sense suggests that Assad would have chosen any other time than that to use a banned weapon that he had agreed to destroy and never employ.
Furthermore, he would be placing at risk his patronage from Russia if they turned on him as a war criminal and withdrew their support for him.
Tactically, as a former soldier, it makes no sense to me that anyone would intentionally target civilians and children as the White Helmet reports suggest he did.
There is compelling analysis from Gareth Porter suggesting that phosphine could have been released by an airborne munition striking a chemical depot, since the clouds and casualties (while organophosphate-appearing in some respects) do not appear to be similar to MilSpec Sarin, particularly the high-test Russian bomb-carried Sarin which independent groups like “bellingcat” insist was deployed.
America’s credibility was damaged by Colin Powell at the United Nations in 2003 falsely accusing Saddam Hussein of having mobile anthrax laboratories. Fast forward to 2017 and we encounter Nikki Haley in an uncomfortably similar situation at the U.N. Security Council calling for action against yet another non-Western head-of-state based on weak, unsubstantiated evidence.
Now Secretary Mattis has added fuel to the WMD propaganda doubters’ fire by retroactively calling into question the rationale for an American cruise missile strike.
While in no way detracting from the horror of what took place against innocent civilians in Syria, it is time for America to stop shooting first and asking questions later.