"All the geniuses tell us that Assad killed those children, but do they really know that? Of course they don't really know that, they're making it up."
This post first appeared on Russia Insider
This is a big deal and a strong signal aimed at Trump as he mulls an attack on Syria. If he does it, he will face devastating criticism from his base.
Interesting that Carlson doesn't mention the most obvious reason not to attack Syria, - the fact that Russia has said that it will definitely respond, i.e., attack US forces in response, starting a hot war between them that could very likely turn into WW3 very quickly.
Tonight leaders on both sides of the aisle in Congress, in the media, in our intelligence services, and in virtually every over-funded think tank in Washington, have suddenly aligned tonight on a single point of agreement: America must go to war in Syria, immediately! Bashar al Assad cannot continue to lead that country, he must be overthrown!
Assad is an evil man they tell us. His latest crime is a chlorine gas attack carried out over the weekend by his forces against a rebel-held suburb of Damascus. Assad's poison gas suffocated children. Pictures of the aftermath of that are all over the internet and they are horrifying. Assad is a monster - that's the official story. Almost everyone in power claims to believe it.
The push to war in Syria, by the way, has united politicians from both sides. Lindsey Graham and Howard Dean typically agree on very little, but today they are both calling for war in Syria. Graham is demanding massive attacks on the Syrian military. Dean is going even further than that. On Twitter he called the president "a wimp" for merely sending thousands of troops and launching tons of bombs at Syria. That's not enough for Howard Dean, who was you may remember once ran for president as the peace candidate. Tonight he wants total war in Syria.
Television pundits of course strongly agree. This morning the foreign policy team over at MSNBC explained that it's far more important for American troops to fight in Syria than it is to secure our own border here in America. Watch: (Clip of Andrea Mitchell, Mika Brzezinski, and Joe Scarborough calling for war). Trump has to take action in Syria everyone nods sagely.
That ought to make you nervous.
Universal bipartisan agreement on anything is usually the first sign that something deeply unwise is about to happen if only because there is nobody left to ask skeptical questions. And we should be skeptical of this, starting with the poison gas attack itself.
All the geniuses tell us that Assad killed those children, but do they really know that? Of course they don't really know that, they're making it up. They have no real idea what happened.
Actually both sides in the Syrian civil war possess chemical weapons. How would it benefit Assad using chlorine gas last weekend? Well it wouldn't. Assad's forces had been winning the war in Syria. The administration just announced its plans to pull American troops out of Syria having vanquished ISIS. That's good news for Assad. About the only thing he could do to reverse it and to hurt himself would be to use poison gas against children. Well he did it anyway they tell us. He's that evil!
Please keep in mind this is the same story they told us last April. Do you remember that it was almost exactly a year ago that the new administration announced it was no longer seeking to depose Assad from power? Regime change was no longer our policy.
The usual War chorus in Washington started yelping and went berserk and days later Assad supposedly used sarin gas against civilians in Syria! There was video! We bombed a Syrian air base in response.
At the time, this show asked what seemed like the obvious question: are we really sure that Assad did that? It seems weirdly timed and counterproductive to him. - Shut up, they explained, of course we're sure! What an unpatriotic question! But of course they were lying.
Two months ago the Secretary of Defense admitted that actually we still have no proof that Assad used sarin gas last year. The story, it turns out, was propaganda, designed to manipulate Americans, just like so much of what they say. We've seen this movie before and we know how it ends.
Just for the sake of argument let's assume they're not lying this time. Let's assume Assad did just use chlorine gas against kids. He's perfectly capable of that, by the way, I'm not defending his moral character. Let's say he did do it. Would that be worth starting a new war?
Overthrowing Assad's regime in Syria would result in chaos. Many thousands would die. In fact we might likely see the genocide of one of the last remaining Christian communities in the Middle East and we ought to care about that. Some of the dead of course would be American servicemen. A new war would cost us tens of billions of dollars, maybe hundreds of billions.
Would it make America safer? Would it make the region more stable? Let's see, how exactly did regime change work in Iraq and Libya?
That doesn't matter!, say our moral leaders on CNN and everywhere else. Atrocities like this cannot be tolerated!
OK, but let's be real - we do tolerate atrocities like this all the time, for example, there's a devastating famine killing children in Yemen right now. The Saudis are causing that famine. Should we drop tomahawks on Riyadh in response?
Not until it's on YouTube apparently.
When you conduct foreign policy by viral video, pictures are essential, but in real life, Syria is a highly complicated place.
With Assad gone who would run it exactly? Do we have another strongman in place to install or is it our hope that a stable democracy will magically appear in the wake of this protracted civil war?
And who exactly are these moderate rebels you're always hearing about?, the ones that we're supporting with your tax dollars? Well a lot of them turn out to be Islamist crazies. For example the city where the chemical attack just occurred is mostly controlled by the Army of Islam, a radical group that has called for establishing an Islamic state under Sharia law in Syria. That group's founder called for exterminating all Shia Muslims and Alawites from the country but we're supposed to wage a new war on this groups behalf! Why is it that exactly?
Back in 2013 when the Syrian civil war was still in its early days one onlooker weighed-in on Twitter. Here's part of what he wrote:
"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 of dollars?: Zero!"
In another tweet he said this:
"Let the Arab League take care of Syria. Why are these rich Arab countries not paying us for the tremendous cost of such an attack?"
And in yet another tweet he said this:
"What will we get for bombing Syria besides more debt and a possible long-term conflict?!"
Of course you know who wrote that. It was Donald Trump, and he was right, and that's one of the reasons he got elected president.
Now the same people who brought you a dying American middle class, un-defended American borders and endless pointless wars in countries you could not find out a map, are telling the president he's got to depose Assad for reasons that are both unclear and demonstrably dishonest. And by the way - it may happen.
Before it does Congress ought to consider a brand-new constitutional amendment. Let's call it the Lindsey Graham Amendment. Here's what it would say:
"Congress shall topple no government until it finishes re-building the last government it toppled and furthermore talk show generals shall be required to personally visit the battlefield of every war they advocate for."
That would have an immediate and positive effect!
Let's hope it passes.
This post first appeared on Russia Insider
Anyone is free to republish, copy, and redistribute the text in this content (but not the images or videos) in any medium or format, with the right to remix, transform, and build upon it, even commercially, as long as they provide a backlink and credit to Russia Insider. It is not necessary to notify Russia Insider. Licensed Creative Commons