Tulsi: Trump: Stop hiding Saudi role in 911 and protecting Al Qaeda
I mean, just speaking for myself as a we-need-another-regime-change war enthusiast.
DaveSchmidt said:
I mean, just speaking for myself as a we-need-another-regime-change war enthusiast.
Every time you criticize Assad, another soldier dies.
DaveSchmidt said:
nan said:In May, the State Department said $33 million since Obama. From Britain, the White Helmets got about $46 million over the same period. If Ortiz was just trying to demonstrate “lots of money” — facts, I think, are preferable when stating figures — she was off by lots (possibly conflating the actual figure with the “other” $200 million).
But, she was not talking about that $200 million (which was a good move by Trump and protested by Democrats who called him basically a Russian puppet). She was talking about all the money spent by the US and UK on the White Helmets since Obama and she said, "I think it is up to $200 million by now" so she was not trying to state an exact fact but to just demonstrate that lots of money has been wasted on this.
Did you watch the video? Cause if you did you would see that what she said was clear and that the supposed "fact check" was comparing apple's to oranges, either on purpose to smear her, or through incompetence. Either one makes them look bad.
bub said:
nan said:Who needs questionable sources likedie Snopes when a Bolivian actress can tell you all you need to know about Syria.
jamie said:This fact check actually makes her case stronger. They don't rate any of her claims "pants of fire" and the ones they disagree on use questionable sources, such as Newsweek, Snopes, or "anonymous sources."
nan said:A decent fact check
Yet another person who finds Syria on the ground contradicts the mainstream media, including about the White Helmets.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wikitribune.com/article/69708/%3famp=1
Snopes is not reliable for many topic because they cannot directly check things like the White Helmets. They rely on mainstream sources and call those who disagree as false. They are good to check, but no responsible journalist should be using Snopes seriously. The Brazilian actress is actually a good source because she came to Syria without so many preconceived ideas. She wanted to talk to the women. She thought the WH were good. She discovered things by being on the ground. Watch the video.
nan said:
Did you watch the video? Cause if you did you would see that what she said was clear and that the supposed "fact check" was comparing apple's to oranges, either on purpose to smear her, or through incompetence. Either one makes them look bad.
I watched the portion of the video in which she “was talking about all the money spent by the US and UK on the White Helmets since Obama.” That’s what my fact check was talking about, too.
paulsurovell said:
nohero said:I didn't say you denied that the White Helmets are in rebel-held territory. I said that you have never admitted that the rebels are dominated by Al-Qaeda. And you confirmed my point in this response.
paulsurovell said:...
(1) The good thing about this PR job is that the author concedes that the White Helmets operate in Al-Qaeda-controlled areas. That's something I don't think @nohero/@South_Mountaineer or any of the other we-need-another-regime-change-war enthusiasts have stated.
Nobody claimed that the White Helmets weren't in rebel-held territory. That's the whole point of their existence. What you're really complaining about is that I and others don't accept (and are offended by your obsessive slandering) that means they are tied to, colluding with, or even the same as any terrorists among the rebels. You're not going to listen to facts or reason, I get that. But when I disagree with you, I point to what you actually wrote. I don't lie about what you wrote and then use that to criticize.
And, you did it again.
DaveSchmidt said:
nan said:I watched the portion of the video in which she “was talking about all the money spent by the US and UK on the White Helmets since Obama.” That’s what my fact check was talking about, too.
Did you watch the video? Cause if you did you would see that what she said was clear and that the supposed "fact check" was comparing apple's to oranges, either on purpose to smear her, or through incompetence. Either one makes them look bad.
Ok, so if you watched the video, than you should have clearly seen that the "fact checker" was either incompetent or purposely misleading.
Here is what she said:
CO: . . .since the government of Obama and also in Britain. . .they have agreed and they have agreed and basically admitted that we have donated millions. I think up to now it is up to close to $200 million just for the White Helmets alone. So our taxes are being used to for them to create terrorists.
Here is what they said to give her a rating of "mostly false."
WikiTribune: The United States dedicated $200 million to Syrian “recovery efforts,” but on March 30 this aid package was frozen by President Trump before it could be fully distributed, according to The Wall Street Journal. The U.S. State Department told Public Radio International (PRI) that the United States gave the White Helmets $33 million before the Trump administration froze the aid package.
So she is talking about money over time and just giving a loose estimate to prove her point that a large amount of our tax money is being used to fund terrorists. They are saying she is wrong because Trump's recent frozen budget of $200 million (same number but different context) that still manged to unfreeze $33 million for the White Helmets.
They did not prove her "mostly false" or false in anyway or even true with that explanation. They just responded to a statement that had not been made.
nan said:Ok, so if you watched the video, than you should have clearly seen that the "fact checker" was either incompetent or purposely misleading.
Don’t let Wikitribune’s flaws blind you to the fact that Ortiz’s “loose estimate” of $200 million, for spending that totaled $79 million, was indeed “mainly false.”
DaveSchmidt said:
nan said:Don’t let Wikitribune’s flaws blind you to the fact that Ortiz’s “loose estimate” of $200 million, for spending that totaled $79 million, was indeed “mainly false.”
Ok, so if you watched the video, than you should have clearly seen that the "fact checker" was either incompetent or purposely misleading.
They were not fact checking what she said and her point was that the government is spending millions of dollars to fund terrorists which is true. She probably had the 200 number pop in her head while being interviewed because of Trump's budget, and she prefaced her remark with, "I think. ." so it it was not presented as a hard number and does not change the point of what she was trying to say.
nan said:They were not fact checking what she said and her point was that the government is spending millions of dollars to fund terrorists which is true. She probably had the 200 number pop in her head while being interviewed because of Trump's budget, and she prefaced her remark with, "I think. ." so it it was not presented as a hard number and does not change the point of what she was trying to say.
So what you meant here:
$200 million is a LOT of money--we could really use that here, dontcha think?
Is more like:
$200 million, or maybe it’s more like $20 million a year over four years, or whatever, is a LOT of money—we could really use that here, even if half belongs to Britain, dontcha think?
DaveSchmidt said:
nan said:So what you meant here:
They were not fact checking what she said and her point was that the government is spending millions of dollars to fund terrorists which is true. She probably had the 200 number pop in her head while being interviewed because of Trump's budget, and she prefaced her remark with, "I think. ." so it it was not presented as a hard number and does not change the point of what she was trying to say.
$200 million is a LOT of money--we could really use that here, dontcha think?Is more like:
$200 million, or maybe it’s more like $20 million a year over four years, or whatever, is a LOT of money—we could really use that here, even if half belongs to Britain, dontcha think?
No, I mean our tax dollars are going to fund terrorists--like the kind that attacked us on 9/11.
Why does that not bother you?
And speaking of the frozen $200 million--looks like the Democrats wanted it to go through. They were fine with Trump spending $200 million to arm terrorists and do another disastrous regime change. This is what I mean when I say that Democrats attack Trump from the right. They are bigger war hawks than him and his neocons. Not the "Resistance" I had in mind. Not the kind of people I want to vote for either. Here is what they (including NJ Bob Menendez) sent out by Twitter:
House Foreign Affairs Committee Democrats ✔@HFACDemocrats This is astonishingly shortsighted. Lack of US leadership=Undercutting US interests in Syria and around the world. Once again, Donald Trump is helping Vladimir Putin achieve his dream by propping up the Assad regime.
So, Russiagate mania makes Democrats resist Trump by calling for $200 million of tax-funded terrorists.
https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2018/08/ends-syria-stabilisation-plan-worth-200m-180818074142903.html
nan said:
No, I mean our tax dollars are going to fund terrorists--like the kind that attacked us on 9/11.
Why does that not bother you?
I don’t start worrying until it’s more than $40 million.
But seriously, nan. I sympathize when you wave off errors like misspelled names and mixed-up gender because of your eyesight or everyday distractions. The problem is, you don’t stop there.
Tulsi Gabbard elaborates on her speech in Congress cited in the OP. This ranks with President Eisenhower's warning of the military-industrial complex as one of the most important patriotic antiwar speeches ever by an American political leader. In 4 parts:
https://www.thenation.com/article/tulsi-gabbard-on-the-administrations-push-for-war-in-syria/
Tulsi Gabbard on the Administration’s Push for War in Syria
By James Carden September 20, 2018
[ Part 1 of 4]
James Carden: In June you and Republican Congressman Walter Jones introduced HR 922, the No More Presidential Wars Resolution, which would both define presidential wars not declared by Congress under Article I, section 8, clause 11 as impeachable “high crimes and misdemeanors” as well as prohibit the president from perpetuating ongoing wars or from supplying, among other things, war materials, military troops, military intelligence, and financial support without first receiving congressional authorization.
While the policy of attacking Syria clearly fails on a moral, legal, and consequentialist grounds, it also will likely backfire on realist grounds. What is your view in terms of who would benefit and who would suffer from a US-led attack on Syria?
Tulsi Gabbard: In the short term, President Trump would benefit the most. The president loves being adored and praised, and despite his rants against them, he especially craves the favor of the media. Trump remembers very well that the only times he has been praised almost universally by the mainstream media, Republicans, and Democrats, was when he has engaged in aggressive military actions. Brian Williams, Fareed Zakaria and others could hardly contain their delight. CNN’s Fareed Zakaria said, “Donald Trump became president of the United States” the moment the bombs started dropping. MSNBC’s Brian Williams praised the launching of US missiles, saying, “I am guided by the beauty of our weapons.” The Washington Post’s David Ignatius said that he thought that by taking this action, Trump “restored the credibility of American power.”
Right now, President Trump’s approval ratings are dropping, and he craves positive reinforcement. He and his team are making a political calculation and looking for any excuse or opportunity to launch another military attack, so that Trump can again be glorified for dropping bombs.
Others who would gain the most are Al Qaeda and all the terrorist organizations who are wanting to keep alive the regime-change war against Assad. Their war to overthrow Assad is about to end. They’re finally facing defeat. A US attack that significantly weakens the Syrian military and would be a gift to these terrorist groups who want to overthrow the government and set up a Sunni Extremist theocracy in Damascus. Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Qatar would be the beneficiaries.
The military-industrial complex and others who profit from the continuation of these regime-change wars will benefit.
Who would suffer the most? The Syrian people, who are pleading to be left alone so they can try to rebuild their country. When I visited Syria, people shared their desperation with me, asking me to share their message with the American people: “We’re not begging for your money or your help. We are simply begging you to stop supporting the terrorists who are destroying our country. Please let us live in peace!”
A US attack will increase the likelihood of more US troop casualties, injuries, and suffering, and billions more dollars of taxpayer money wasted, that could instead be used to improve the lives of the American people.
[ Tulsi Gabbard Interview with James Carden Part 2 of 4 ]
JC: One of the problems with the conflict in Syria is in the language that is used to describe it. The media and many policy-makers tend to use deliberately vague or opaque language when describing what has been going on there for the past six to seven years. So today we hear that Idlib province is “rebel held” that is “holding out” against an imminent attack (possibly with the use of chemical weapons) by Assad. But describing those who control Idlib today merely as “rebels” seems to obscure more than it illuminates: Is it a peaceful, moderate band of rebels who are currently in control of Idlib? What do you suppose would happen to Christians, Druze, Alawites, and the non-practicing if such “rebels” were able, with the help of the US and Turkey (among others) to overthrow Assad and expand their control over Syria?
TG: I believe it would strike most Americans as absolutely insane that the president of the United States, his vice president, UN ambassador, secretary of state, and the mainstream media describe the very terrorist entities that were responsible for the attack on 9/11 as “rebels.”
Since we know that they know Al Qaeda is the primary force in control of Idlib, we can only conclude that they no longer consider Al Qaeda to be a terrorist organization or the enemy.
General Joseph Dunford, as well as the UN, have confirmed that Idlib is controlled by 20,000 to 30,000 Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups. Brett McGurk, the administration’s special envoy to counter ISIS, said that, “Idlib is Al Qaeda’s largest safe haven since 9/11.”
So there is no ambiguity about the situation: The United States is acting as the big brother and protector of Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations in Syria.
The real question is why.
We’ve been waging a regime change war in Syria since 2011. Central to that war to overthrow the Syrian government of Assad, along with our allies Saudi Arabia, Turkey, and Qatar, has been providing direct and indirect support to terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda who are effectively serving as our ground force in that regime-change war, enabling them to grow in numbers and strength in Syria.
Now, President Trump and his cabinet of warhawks are concerned that if Al Qaeda is defeated in Idlib, then our regime-change war to overthrow the Syrian government will be over.
There is no doubt that if the United States and its allies are successful in their war to topple Assad, the most powerful forces on the ground (Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups) would take over, and religious minorities or anyone who disagreed with Al Qaeda’s theology/ideology would be targeted. When I visited Syria, I met with Christian leaders in Aleppo who took me to a few of their historic churches that had been targeted and bombed to rubble by terrorist groups like Al Qaeda and ISIS who adhere to the extreme Wahhabi Salafi ideology, propagated by Saudi Arabia around the world, believing that unless you adhere to their extremist exclusivist ideology, then you must be killed or enslaved.
Just last week, President Trump and Vice President Pence delivered solemn speeches about the attacks on 9/11, honoring the victims of Al Qaeda’s attack on our country. Yet they continue to protect Al Qaeda and other terrorist forces in Syria, and have threatened “dire consequences” and an illegal war against Russia, Syria, and Iran if they dare attack these terrorists—potentially putting our country on a path towards World War III. The Trump administration’s continued protection of Al Qaeda is a betrayal of the American people, especially the victims of 9/11, first-responders, my brothers and sisters in uniform who have been killed or wounded in action, and their families. It’s a betrayal of the American people who have had trillions of dollars taken from their wallets, ostensibly to defeat the terrorists who attacked us on 9/11, only to find Al Qaeda is stronger today than ever before.
This is not a partisan issue. Every American—Democrat, Republican, independent—must condemn this betrayal by our commander in chief. This regime-change war in Syria and US alliance with Al Qaeda and other terrorists must end now.
[ Tulsi Gabbard interview with James Carden Part 3 of 4 ]
JC: One will often hear neocons and liberal interventionists (surely by now a distinction without a difference) warn against over-learning the lessons of Iraq. Which is kind of an odd concern. In your years in Congress have you seen any evidence that those lessons have been actually been learned by the political and media establishments in the first place?
TG: No. Based on our country’s continued counterproductive regime-change war policies, it is clear that leaders on both sides of the aisle have not learned the painful lessons of decades of interventionist regime-change wars, most recently in Iraq, Libya, and now Syria. The result has been costly for the American people, in human lives and taxpayer dollars, and devastating for the people of these countries, where countless lives have been lost, humanitarian crises created, with refugees’ being forced from their homes, and the utter destruction of their way of life.
I recently fought to strip a provision from the 2018 defense-authorization bill that essentially authorizes the secretaries of state and defense to go to war with Iran. Only 60 members of Congress supported my amendment.
While many members of Congress and the Trump administration rail against Iran and are calling for US troops to remain in Syria indefinitely to counter Iran’s influence and presence there, they refuse to acknowledge the fact that the United States regime-change war in Syria has greatly strengthened Iran’s presence and influence in that country. In other words, the Syrian government of Assad has become much more dependent upon and beholden to Iran and Russia, due to our efforts to overthrow their government. This obviously does not serve the national interests of the United States or Israel.
Furthermore, Iran’s presence and influence in Iraq was zero before we overthrew Saddam Hussein. Now Iran is the dominant power in Iraq.
The problem is that our leaders are either extremely shortsighted, or they’re consciously working against the interests of the United States and our allies. The undeniable truth is that the direct result of our overthrowing the regimes of Saddam Hussein, Muammar Gaddafi, and our efforts to overthrow Bashar al-Assad, has greatly increased the presence and influence of Russia and Iran, as well as Al Qaeda and other jihadists, in all three of those countries.
In short, we have spent trillions of taxpayer dollars and thousands of American lives in order to help those we consider to be our enemies or adversaries. Who needs enemies when we have leaders like this?
[ Tulsi Gabbard interview with James Carden Part 4 of 4 ]
JC: President Trump has, over the past year with the addition of John Bolton and the elevation of Mike Pompeo to secretary of state, assembled what might fairly be called a “war cabinet.” Yet, with the notable exceptions of yourself, Representative Ro Khanna, Representative Walter Jones, and Senator Rand Paul, some, but not too may, voices have been raised against the specter of yet another disastrous war in the Greater Middle East. What do you think explains the the silence?
TG: I think there are a number of reasons for this. Some people mean well—they see pictures of children suffering and are moved to want to do something to try to alleviate that suffering. But too often they are shortsighted, waging regime-change wars and dropping bombs, without realizing their actions will likely increase the suffering of the very people they say they want to help.
Others simply do not care that they will cause unnecessary suffering.
Others may be concerned about how speaking out against regime-change wars may impact their political “career” or campaign. They don’t want to be slandered as being “pro-dictator” by the media and on social media. If you were against the regime-change war in Iraq, you’re a Saddam lover. If you were against the regime change war in Libya, you’re a Gaddafi lover. If you ask for evidence before launching a US military attack against a sovereign nation without congressional approval, you will have leaders like Howard Dean saying, “This is a disgrace. This person should not be in Congress!” Our politicians see leading Republicans and Democrats joining hands to smear anyone who stands up against regime-change wars.
Some remain silent because they don’t have the strength to stand up against the corporate lobbyists.
Every politician wants to see themselves as great humanitarians. But sadly, and dangerously, many fail to realize that all too often the path to hell is paved with good intentions.
These well-meaning people make decisions based on emotions, without considering the consequences of their actions. If they see children suffering, and are told by the media that Mr. X is responsible for that suffering, they feel a moral responsibility to get rid of Mr. X.
But they do so without thinking through the consequences of their actions and the likelihood that their decisions will end up causing infinitely greater human suffering.
Just look at the situation in Libya. In order to “save” the Libyan people, we completely destroyed their country. It’s a failed state. They are under the domination of terrorists and slave merchants where women and children are publicly sold in marketplaces. It’s hell on earth. Yet we have not heard a single apology to the Libyan people from any American or European leader who was responsible for this regime-change war. These leaders are not interested in the wasteland that they left behind—they’re too busy planning and promoting new regime-change wars.
The proclamations being made by President Trump, Ambassador Nikki Haley, Secretary Mike Pompeo, and John Bolton about trying to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe and civilian casualties in Idlib, Syria, ring especially hollow. They seem to have completely forgotten our attacks on Mosul and Raqqa—which resulted in many thousands of civilian casualties.
The Trump administration’s proclamations of humanitarianism are just a pretext to protect Al Qaeda and other terrorist forces we have allied with in our quest to overthrow the Syrian government. The bottom line is we don’t want them killed because they work for us. Their interests are our interests, and vice versa.
If the Trump administration and leaders in Congress really cared about preventing civilian casualties, they would end all US support for Saudi Arabia and condemn their genocidal war in Yemen that has killed thousands of civilians with bombs, caused millions to suffer due to forced starvation and cholera, creating the worst humanitarian crisis in the world.
If they were truly concerned about human suffering, they would most certainly not take action to increase the likelihood of direct conflict with Iran or Russia—which could lead to World War III and suffering beyond our imagination.
If they were truly concerned about the suffering of the Syrian people, then they would recognize that intervening to protect the terrorists who are trying to overthrow the Syrian government will simply prolong the war and lead to more suffering for the Syrian people.
DaveSchmidt said:
nan said:I don’t start worrying until it’s more than $40 million.
No, I mean our tax dollars are going to fund terrorists--like the kind that attacked us on 9/11.
Why does that not bother you?
But seriously, nan. I sympathize when you wave off errors like misspelled names and mixed-up gender because of your eyesight or everyday distractions. The problem is, you don’t stop there.
You slam me, but you should be apologizing because that fact check was completely bogus and you tried to defend it. Also, you did not watch the whole video--you just went to one tiny section, which is probably why you missed the context--unless you were deliberately trying to justify BS. And no one should be defending sending even $1 of our tax money to terrorists.
Wow, thanks for posting that Paul. The Tulsi Gabbard article should be required reading for all.
https://www.thenation.com/article/tulsi-gabbard-on-the-administrations-push-for-war-in-syria/
nan said:
You slam me, but you should be apologizing because that fact check was completely bogus and you tried to defend it. Also, you did not watch the whole video--you just went to one tiny section, which is probably why you missed the context--unless you were deliberately trying to justify BS. And no one should be defending sending even $1 of our tax money to terrorists.
There you go again, nan. I wouldn’t call the fact-check completely bogus, but I didn’t defend it and agreed it was flawed. Also, for the record:
They are saying she is wrong because Trump's recent frozen budget of $200 million (same number but different context) that still manged to unfreeze $33 million for the White Helmets.
The $33 million was not unfrozen from the $200 million. It is the total U.S. funding for the White Helmets since their inception during the Obama administration.
I can’t stop you from getting things wrong, but I’ll call it when I see it. If that’s a slam, so be it.
DaveSchmidt said:
nan said:There you go again, nan. I wouldn’t call the fact-check completely bogus, but I didn’t defend it and agreed it was flawed. Also, for the record:
You slam me, but you should be apologizing because that fact check was completely bogus and you tried to defend it. Also, you did not watch the whole video--you just went to one tiny section, which is probably why you missed the context--unless you were deliberately trying to justify BS. And no one should be defending sending even $1 of our tax money to terrorists.
They are saying she is wrong because Trump's recent frozen budget of $200 million (same number but different context) that still manged to unfreeze $33 million for the White Helmets.The $33 million was not unfrozen from the $200 million. It is the total U.S. funding for the White Helmets since their inception during the Obama administration.
I can’t stop you from getting things wrong, but I’ll call it when I see it. If that’s a slam, so be it.
You are creating red herrings to distract from the fact that you defended a bogus survey. Carla Ortiz was not talking about Trump's $200 million funding for Syria. The "Fact Checkers" pretended that was what she said and then responded. Why don't you watch the whole video and talk about what is going on in Syria instead of continuing to do what the bogus fact checkers did.
nan said:
You are creating red herrings to distract from the fact that you defended a bogus survey. Carla Ortiz was not talking about Trump's $200 million funding for Syria. The "Fact Checkers" pretended that was what she said and then responded. Why don't you watch the whole video and talk about what is going on in Syria instead of continuing to do what the bogus fact checkers did.
There is no survey. There was a fact-check, which I did not defend. The fact-check’s flaws are the red herring; they’re keeping you from acknowledging that Ortiz’s “I think” figure, which no one other than you injected into the discussion, was mainly false.
I watched more of the video than that tiny portion. It was enough.
So is this. Time for me to go read the Gabbard interview.
TG: I think there are a number of reasons for this. Some people mean well—they see pictures of children suffering and are moved to want to do something to try to alleviate that suffering. But too often they are shortsighted, waging regime-change wars and dropping bombs, without realizing their actions will likely increase the suffering of the very people they say they want to help.
This is one of two instances in the interview where Gabbard hints at the possibility that life in Syria (or Iraq or Libya) wasn’t so rosy for everyone before the conflagration. Given even a tepid acknowledgment that there was suffering, and given that regime-change wars are shortsighted and worse, what is a well-meaning bystander to do? (I think nan’s solution has been akin to: Stay at home and mind its own business.)
In the case of Saudi Arabia, Gabbard calls for an end to all U.S. aid. How farsighted is that?
And Al Qaeda is “stronger than ever,” and Hussein was OK (can’t beat those U.S.-supported dictators) because he kept Iran at bay.
It’s all so simple, isn’t it.
From the beginning of the Syria conflict I have thought and said that it is like the Spanish Civil War.
So was Fascist Franco preferable to the Communist infiltrated Loyalists-Republicans?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_involvement_in_the_Spanish_Civil_War
nan said:
sbenois said:That's disputable on the face of it,
The previous post has been brought to you from the comfort of a NJ living room, where the author does not worry about being gassed or murdered because of her ethnicity.
I do not know you IRL but I believe sbenois does. So I conclude that you are not Muslim or Hispanic.
DaveSchmidt said:
TG: I think there are a number of reasons for this. Some people mean well—they see pictures of children suffering and are moved to want to do something to try to alleviate that suffering. But too often they are shortsighted, waging regime-change wars and dropping bombs, without realizing their actions will likely increase the suffering of the very people they say they want to help.This is one of two instances in the interview where Gabbard hints at the possibility that life in Syria (or Iraq or Libya) wasn’t so rosy for everyone before the conflagration. Given even a tepid acknowledgment that there was suffering, and given that regime-change wars are shortsighted and worse, what is a well-meaning bystander to do? (I think nan’s solution has been akin to: Stay at home and mind its own business.)
In the case of Saudi Arabia, Gabbard calls for an end to all U.S. aid. How farsighted is that?
And Al Qaeda is “stronger than ever,” and Hussein was OK (can’t beat those U.S.-supported dictators) because he kept Iran at bay.
It’s all so simple, isn’t it.
Can we agree that it's simple that the US invasions of Iraq unleashed epic death, suffering, destruction and waste of resources?
And that it's simple that the results of US support for regime-change in Libya had similar results on a smaller scale?
And in Syria, while it may not be as simple, can we agree that without US-Saudi-Qatar-Turkish support for the "rebels," the war would have ended long ago?
And can we agree that the US should join Russia, Turkey, Iran and Syria in the recent agreement to remove the "rebels" by peaceful means?
Or should we encourage the fighting to continue?
Related matter: Trump's Secretary of State opposes end to US assistance for Saudi Arabia's bombing of Yemen because it would jeopardize billions of dollars of military sales to Saudi Arabia.
DaveSchmidt said:
nan said:There is no survey. There was a fact-check, which I did not defend. The fact-check’s flaws are the red herring; they’re keeping you from acknowledging that Ortiz’s “I think” figure, which no one other than you injected into the discussion, was mainly false.
You are creating red herrings to distract from the fact that you defended a bogus survey. Carla Ortiz was not talking about Trump's $200 million funding for Syria. The "Fact Checkers" pretended that was what she said and then responded. Why don't you watch the whole video and talk about what is going on in Syria instead of continuing to do what the bogus fact checkers did.
I watched more of the video than that tiny portion. It was enough.
So is this. Time for me to go read the Gabbard interview.
They did not fact check what she said. End of story. Go read Gabbard. You need it.
Featured Events
-
Stephen Whitty Presents - Hometown Movie Stars: The Celebrated Actors Of CHS
May 6, 2024 at 7:00pm
Sponsored Business
Promote your business here - Businesses get highlighted throughout the site and you can add a deal.
What we all fail to understand, as Paul helpfully points out, is that by using the term “rebel-held,” we were delibrately dodging the fact that these areas are “Qaeda-controlled.”