Donald Trump finally attacks Vladimir Putin by name over Syria gas attack.

Many dead, including women and children, in mindless CHEMICAL attack in Syria. Area of atrocity is in lockdown and encircled by Syrian Army, making it completely inaccessible to outside world. President Putin, Russia and Iran are responsible for backing Animal Assad. Big price...

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 8, 2018

....to pay. Open area immediately for medical help and verification. Another humanitarian disaster for no reason whatsoever. SICK!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 8, 2018

I have been wondering if there was anything that could happen that would cause Trump to pull his lips off Putin's ass and use them to criticize him.

As it turns out dozens of dead and dying Syrian children was simply too much.

Courtesy of the New York Times:

Dozens of Syrians choked to death after a suspected chemical attack struck the rebel-held suburb of Douma, east of Damascus, and aid groups on Sunday blamed President Bashar al-Assad’s government for the assault. 

The attack after dusk on Saturday sent a stream of patients with burning eyes and breathing problems to clinics, medical and rescue groups said. Western governments expressed alarm at the attack, with the British Foreign Office calling for an urgent investigation and saying that if the use of chemical weapons proved to be true, “it is further proof of Assad’s brutality.”

I guess this is to be expected once Trump announced that he was removing American troops.

Assad now has carte blanche to punish his people any way that he sees fit, and Putin will not do a thing to stop him.

Of course Trump could not be counted on to stay on the high road.

If President Obama had crossed his stated Red Line In The Sand, the Syrian disaster would have ended long ago! Animal Assad would have been history!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) April 8, 2018

Yeah, you have to get those digs in on your political enemies.

It should be pointed out that President Obama TRIED to end Assad's attacks on his people, but he made the unfortunate choice of trusting Vlad:

The so-called “red line” episode in September 2013, when, in a last-minute decision, President Barack Obama called off U.S. air strikes in Syria,1 has continued to shape his legacy. Instead of striking the Syrian government in retaliation for a nerve gas attack near Damascus, Obama took Russian President Vladimir Putin up on an offer to peacefully dismantle the Syrian chemical weapons program and craft a United Nations resolution2 to make sure no gas attacks ever occurred in Syria again. 

Alternately described as one of the former president’s greatest successes or as one of his worst failures, what remains of Obama’s red line deal is now under attack. After a UN-appointed panel determined that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s forces are still using poison gas, albeit at a much more limited scale than before, Putin refused to abide by the September 2013 deal, which promised joint U.S.-Russian efforts in the United Nations to punish all violators.

So if Trump wants to blame somebody for this most recent humanitarian crisis he need look no further than his speed dial.

The question is can he bring himself to do anything more than simply tweet his displeasure?

Bashir al-Assad claims that gas attack was "100 percent fabrication."

I'm sorry, what gas attack?

Courtesy of The Independent:  

Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has reiterated that his government had nothing to do with the chemical gas incident in a rebel-held village last week that killed more than 80 people. 

Allegations that his forces had deliberately poisoned civilians were ''100 per cent fabrication'', the president said on Thursday, adding that the Syrian government gave up its chemical weapons stocks as part of a 2013 agreement. 

 "Our impression is that the West, mainly the United States, is hand-in-glove with the terrorists. They fabricated the whole story in order to have a pretext for the attack," he said.

So essentially Assad is taking a page out of the Donald Trump playbook and calling news that he does not like "fake news."

The problem for his of course is that this man's babies were clearly dead, and there is video showing him placing their bodies into a mass grave.

That is not something a father would do simply to frame the Syrian President.

There were of course many other pictures and video, not to mention first hand accounts by doctors, soldiers, and officials.

And now we are learning that the US intercepted communications from the Syrian government planning the actual attack on that rebel held village.

Assad is a liar who murders his own people. And yet he still has the support of the man who helped to put Donald Trump into the White House.

Go figure.

Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad gassed his own people again after Secretary of State Tillerson signaled that the US would not interfere.

Courtesy of the  Daily Beast: 

Days ago, in Ankara, U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson signaled that the U.S. had no quarrel with Syrian dictator Bashar al-Assad, a man Tillerson’s predecessor compared to Adolf Hitler after he slaughtered more than 1,000 people with poison gas in 2013. 

The “longer-term status of President Assad,” Tillerson said, “will be decided by the Syrian people,” a euphemism used by Damascus, Moscow, and Tehran to indicate that he isn’t going anywhere. 

White House press secretary Sean Spicer used almost identical language the next day, saying, “Well, I think with respect to Assad, there is a political reality that we have to accept in terms of where we are right now.” 

But the gas, it appears, is raining down once again on civilians.

Apparently that sent a signal to Assad that he had free rein to do whatever he wanted to the people of Syria with no fear of repercussions coming from America.

Here is more courtesy of Vox:

A suspected poison gas attack by the Syrian regime on the rebel-held town of Khan Sheikhoun has killed at least 65 people — including at least 11 children — and wounded 350, according to the Paris-based Union of Medical Care & Relief Organizations and others. Videos and photos taken by activists and medics on the scene showed victims choking and fainting, some with foam coming out of their mouths. These videos and photos have not been independently verified. 

A few hours later, Syrian warplanes launched another airstrike on one of the medical clinics where victims of the first attack were being treated, the New York Times reports. Let that sink in for a moment: Bashar al-Assad gassed his own people, then bombed those desperately trying to save the lives of those suffering and dying from the chemicals.

Vox is also reporting on the White House's response to this attack which was to blame it on President Obama:  

“These heinous actions by the Bashar Assad regime are a consequence of the past administration’s weakness and irresolution,” press secretary Sean Spicer said. “President Obama said in 2012 that he would establish a ‘red line’ against the use of chemical weapons and then did nothing.”

Seriously?

Of course the problem with this is that the internet lives forever.

AGAIN, TO OUR VERY FOOLISH LEADER, DO NOT ATTACK SYRIA - IF YOU DO MANY VERY BAD THINGS WILL HAPPEN & FROM THAT FIGHT THE U.S. GETS NOTHING!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 5, 2013

Oops!

Of course the reality is that here we are in 2017, Donald Trump is now the president, so besides blaming Obama what exactly will HE do about this humanitarian crisis? 

Actually my money is on "Not a damn thing."

UN releases report that sarin gas attack was delivered by surface to surface missiles. Only Syrian government had that capability.

Courtesy of CNN:

The United Nations team investigating a chemical weapons attack last month in Syria has found that sarin was used. 

"In particular, the environmental, chemical and medical samples we have collected provide clear and convincing evidence that surface-to-surface rockets containing the nerve agent sarin were used in Ein Tarma, Moadamiyah and Amalaka in the Ghouta area of Damascus," a 38-page report says. 

Chemical weapons "were used on a relatively large scale," U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said in a briefing to the U.N. Security Council. 

It's "the most significant confirmed use of chemical weapons against civilians since Saddam Hussein used them in Halabja in 1988," Ban said. 

"This is a war crime and a grave violation of the1925 Protocol and other rules of customary international law. I trust all can join me in condemning this despicable crime. The international community has a responsibility to hold the perpetrators accountable and to ensure that chemical weapons never re-emerge as an instrument of warfare." 

The U.N. team's mandate did not include assigning blame for the attack. Ban would not speculate on who may be responsible.

Gary Quinlan, Australia's U.N. ambassador, who is currently serving as president of the Security Council, said the report bolsters his country's stance. It "confirms, in our view, that there is no remaining doubt that it was the regime that used chemical weapons." 

Samantha Power, the U.S. ambassador to the U.N., also said a preliminary review of the report shows it supports the U.S. position that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad's regime was responsible. 

"The regime possesses sarin, and we have no evidence that the opposition possesses sarin," she said. 

And, Power said, "it defies logic" to think members of the opposition would have infiltrated a regime-controlled area to fire on opposition-controlled areas.

I never really thought there was any doubt after more information came in about the attacks, but I know that the Russians and certain Right Wing "news" outlets were still trying to create confusion about where the attacks originated.

Nice to know that our intelligence was right, which I have to say is a vast improvement over the Bush era intelligence, which seemed to be whatever the hell Dick Cheney wanted it to be.

Hopefully with this report out there the Russians will hold Assad's feet to the fire and move quickly to get control over his chemical weapons program.

Revisiting how Vladimir Putin "outmaneuvered" President Obama.

Courtesy of The People's View:  

Today (actually Saturday), the State Department released the full agreement between the United States and Russia for a full disarmament of Syria as Secretary Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov held a joint press conference. This agreement does things beyond the wildest imaginations of a military campaign that would merely be able to degrade Assad's capabilities but not dismantle them completely. Secretary Kerry outlined the proposal in his remarks.

• Syria must submit a comprehensive list of its stockpiles within a week. 
•  Syria must provide to inspectors from the Organization of Prevention for Chemical Weapons complete and unfettered access to all of its facilities. 
• All of Syria's chemical weapons will be destroyed, as well as production equipment and delivery capacity by the first half of 2014. 
• The international community (the Organization for Prevention of Chemical Weapons) will rapidly assume control of Assad's chemical war-chest. 
• Unprecedented and extraordinary procedures will be used under the Chemical Weapons Convention to ensure rapid and elimination of Syria's stockpiles. 
• The agreement will be enforced by Chapter 7 in the UN Security Council, the chapter that covers, among other things, the use of military force. 

So let's review, shall we? The United States gets a full disarmament of Syria - verifiably, completely, and and transparently. Russia, which until the G-20 refused to even talk about consequences for Syria is suddenly on board. Syria can't act fast enough to show and turn over the chemical weapons that until last week it didn't even admit it had. Chemical weapons? What chemic... here you go! (credit: Stephanie Miller) And to boot, the United States got Russia to agree to govern this agreement under the part of the Security Council documents that covers military action, even if Russia is still putting up a front against it. 

No one should forget that the United States was forced to consider limited military strikes - unilaterally if needed - because of Russia's intransigence in protecting Syria from international consequences no matter its sins. As the president and the Secretary of State consistently said, the goal of the United States with respect to a military strike would be exclusively to degrade Assad's chemical weapons capability and deter its future use. A military strike would certainly achieve those goals, but it wouldn't completely eliminate Assad's chemical weapons. The president has, from day one, preferred a diplomatic solution - but a solution that must be able to reach the goal he was willing to use military strikes to accomplish. 

He got that. He got more than that. Because of his steely resolve, he got full disarmament of Syria, Russian cooperation, international transparency and even Security Council buy-in. 

It was Russia that moved from its earlier position of "no consequences for Assad" to "Okay, we'll do whatever you want, just don't bomb our boy!" John Kerry, President Obama and his team achieved complete victory, because they got everything they wanted and more. 

So I guess Putin did outsmart Obama. By completely surrendering to all of President Obama's demands. Let's all hope Congressional Republicans begin 'outsmarting' the president like this right away!

Like I have been saying all along, the President is ALWAYS several moves ahead of his opposition. 

The Right Wing can continue to smear Obama at every turn, he doesn't seem to care. All he cares about is results, and it looks like that is exactly what he is getting in Syria.

The Daily Show hysterically points out that the deal to have Russia help deal with Syria crisis was not originally John Kerry's OR President Obama's. It was a Roger Ailes idea.

Click image to play video.

Roger Ailes "Putin is angry, he thinks the United States doesn't take him seriously or treat Russia like a major player. Okay, fine, that's how he feels. If I were President, I'd get in a room with him and say, 'Look at the slaughter going on in Syria. You can stop it. Do it, and I'll see to it that you can get all the credit. I'll tell the world that it was you who saved the innocent....'"

Jon shows this right after playing video of Fox News pundit, after Fox News pundit, ripping into the President for being weak and for allowing Putin to "take his lunch money" and "castrate" him.

At this point I just have to sit back in awe at the President's ability to manipulative these idiots. It is like using a laser pointer to trick a house cat into running into a wall.

By the way USA Today got a source who helped lay out the timeline as to HOW this whole negotiation thing came down:

The idea of coming up with a plan to secure Syria's chemical weapons dates back more than a year, when President Obama and Russian President Vladimir Putin first discussed the matter on the sidelines of an economic summit in Los Cabos, Mexico. 

At the time, the two — as they've been for much of the 2½-year Syrian civil war — remained far apart in their views on the conflict. During their talks in Los Cabos, Obama complained to Russia that its arms sale to Syria perpetuated the bloody conflict, while Putin argued that the sales were part of a longstanding relationship with the Bashar Assad regime, according a senior administration official, who was not authorized to discuss the deliberations and spoke on condition of anonymity. 

The administration official, who offered a detailed timeline of U.S.-Russian exchanges on how to best contain the chemical weapons stockpiles, said Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavarov first discussed the concept when Kerry visited Moscow in April and then again the following month over a long dinner at the Russian ministry of foreign policy on the eve of Russia's Victory Day, the anniversary of Nazi Germany's capitulation to the Soviet Union. 

The two spoke of looking at the dissolution of Libya's nuclear program — Moammar Gadhafi dismantled the program under international agreement in 2003 and 2004. 

"At the time, it was more aspirational and less urgent and the regime was not under pressure to cooperate because the world had not yet turned on them," according the official.

But then that latest gas attack happened, the world did turn on Assad, and.....well the rest is soon to be history.

Holy crap!

Okay for the rest of the day I suggest that we only talk positively about the President. I think we may be in the presence of a Jedi master, and I want to make sure we give him the credit he deserves. 

He actually used an idea from Roger Ailes, and then sat back while his minions attacked him for it.

That is fucking awesome!

Rachel Maddow explains how Russia became a player in the possible avoidance of an American strike against Syria. But she just might be missing something.

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Okay so you all KNOW that I think that Rachel Maddow is the best when it comes to covering breaking news stories, however I am not sure if I buy the whole "John Kerry gaffe evolves into unexpected bloodless solution to a possible Syria missile strike."

For one thing even with the internet and Twitter this whole thing came together incredibly fast. I mean when was the last time you saw a problem of this magnitude potentially solved in a day? Yeah, me either.

And the other things is...well first let me link to how this story is being reported on the Maddow blog:

It's too soon to say with confidence whether the diplomatic solution for Syrian crisis will stick, but if it does, we can probably guess the story the White House will be eager to tell. President Obama took the lead in responding to Syria's suspected chemical-weapons attack and threatened to use military force. At the same time, Obama and his team pointed the way to a political resolution that forced an end to Syria's entire program of chemical weapons, and it was the White House's threats that made diplomacy possible. 

That's obviously the most favorable possible spin -- it's also assuming the proposal solution will work, and it may not -- but it's rooted in plausible claims. A longtime Republican strategist told the Huffington Post, "It looks like Obama drew an inside straight here." 

And for the right, the notion that Syria could become a political plus for Obama just won't do. So what's the alternative for U.S. conservatives? Quick, praise Putin! 

"From the claws of defeat and humiliation, Obama is claiming victory.... The way this was handled was a complete embarrassment and near-disaster, saved only by Vladimir Putin. [...] 

Putin comes across as the world leader."

So suddenly Putin, who was being attacked and vilified by just about EVERYBODY over the Snowden affair, is suddenly the new conservative hero? The same conservatives who like to believe that their hero Ronald Reagan arm wrestled the Soviets into knocking down the Berlin wall and whose recent presidential candidate said that Russia was "without question, our number one geopolitical foe?" That Vladimir Putin?

Well that's certainly an unexpected outcome.

Or is it?

It seems to me that I remember an incident, barely reported on, from about four days ago at the G20 Summit:  

President Barack Obama met privately with Russian President Vladimir Putin in the midst of their dispute over how to respond to chemical weapons use in Syria. 

Putin told reporters they spoke for 20 or 30 minutes Friday and focused on Syria. 

The Russian president says while they disagreed, the meeting was constructive. 

The White House confirmed the meeting but offered no details. 

But hey I get it. Kerry made a gaffe, and while the President was "dithering," Russian President Putin rode in on a white horse to solve the problem.

Sounds reasonable, right? After all this President was simply a one term Senator and former community organizer, how could HE be expected to solve such a complicated problem?

Right?

Despite evidence to the contrary Fox News is still pushing the idea that the gas attack in Syria was the work of the rebels. To help them sell this opinion they bring in Alex Jones. Seriously?

Courtesy of Mediaite:  

Radio host Alex Jones spoke to Fox News’ Geraldo At Large about the theory that the Syrian rebels were responsible for the recent chemical weapons attack in a ruse to provoke a U.S. intervention. 

“I don’t know who launched the chemical attacks, but all the evidence leans toward the rebels having the motive to do it,” Jones said. “And the Russians have put out a new report saying they have proof the rebels did it back in March of this year.” 

Producer Craig Rivera noted that Jones was a “conspiracy theorist,” but asked if he at least wanted to see some evidence that the rebels had perpetrated the attacks. 

“Come on, Obama is putting out conspiracy theories,” Jones said. “He said I have a red line one year ago, now he said he never said that. Kerry said no boots on the ground, now he said, oh, we need them. Is questioning known liars a conspiracy theory?” 

“Libya, look what happened there,” Jones added. That was clearly a set-up to put al Qaeda in charge.”

WHO...in the hell...would bring Alex Jones in to make the case that the Syrian rebels gassed themselves? 

I mean has Fox News simply decided to completely do away with the idea of pretending to be an actual journalistic endeavor and are now going to start bring in every lunatic and nutjob out there to start making insane accusations and bizarre predictions about the President's policy decisions?

But then again, considering how hard they are attempting to fellate the Benghazi story back to life, perhaps inviting Alex Jones on is the next logical step. 

By the way just in case anybody was thinking of giving any credibility to Jones argument, there was a report released by two weapons experts which described how Assad managed to kill so many people, and that it was highly unlikely that anybody else was to blame for the attacks.

And just in case you are not yet aware of just how completely insane Jones is click here and see lunacy on parade. (Don't worry you don't have to watch long to get the point.)

Syrian Army hacks US Marines website to leave a message.

Courtesy of TPM:

The homepage of www.marines.com, the official Marines recruitment site, was changed to a page signed "delivered by the SEA," according to a screen shot posted by the Independent. The message on the page called for support from the Marines for their “brothers, the Syrian army soldiers." The message read: 

This is a message written by your brothers in the Syrian Army, who have been fighting Al Qaeda for the last 3 years. We understand your patriotism and love for your country so please understand our love for ours. 

Obama is a traitor who wants to put your lives in danger to rescue Al Qaeda insurgents. 

Marines, please take a look at what your comrades think about Obama's alliance with Al Qaeda against Syria. 

Your officer in charge probably has no qualms about sending you to die against soldiers just like you, fighting a vile common enemy. The Syrian army should be your ally not your enemy. 

Refuse your orders and concentrate on the real reason every soldier joins their military, to defend their homeland. 

You're more than welcome to fight alongside our army rather than against it. 

Your brothers, the Syrian army soldiers. A message delivered by the SEA

Whatever side you are on in this debate, you have to admit that this is a pretty inventive way to get your message across.

It will definitely speak to the misgivings that many people have about going into yet another war. 

But did you notice that there was NO declaration of innocence?  They did not say that the Sarin gas was not their doing, they simply asked that the Marines not do anything in response. Kind of an admission of guilt, don't you think?

But ultimately our Marines will do what our Marines do, and that is follow orders.

Hopefully our President is coming up with a plan to minimize the number of casualties while keeping our people safe.However I am not sure the Syrian Army deserves such consideration.

Could this be why Britain is so conflicted about supporting military action against Assad?

Courtesy of the Daily Record:  

Britain allowed firms to sell chemicals to Syria capable of being used to make nerve gas, the Sunday Mail can reveal today. 

Export licences for potassium fluoride and sodium fluoride were granted months after the bloody civil war in the Middle East began. 

The chemical is capable of being used to make weapons such as sarin, thought to be the nerve gas used in the attack on a rebel-held Damascus suburb which killed nearly 1500 people, including 426 children, 10 days ago. 

President Bashar Assad’s forces have been blamed for the attack, leading to calls for an armed response from the West. 

British MPs voted against joining America in a strike. But last night, President Barack Obama said he will seek the approval of Congress to take military action. 

The chemical export licences were granted by Business Secretary Vince Cable’s Department for Business, Innovation and Skills last January – 10 months after the Syrian uprising began. 

They were only revoked six months later, when the European Union imposed tough sanctions on Assad’s regime. 

Yesterday, politicians and anti-arms trade campaigners urged Prime Minister David Cameron to explain why the licences were granted.

Interesting, no?

Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practise to deceive!

President Obama made his decision to seek Congressional authorization on Syria at the last minute, completely surprising his closest advisers.

Courtesy of The Wall Street Journal: 

After a 45-minute walk Friday night, President Barack Obama made a fateful decision that none of his top national security advisers saw coming: To seek congressional authorization before taking military action in Syria. 

The stunning about-face after a week of U.S. saber rattling risked not only igniting a protracted congressional fight, which could end with a vote against strikes, but a backlash from allies in the Middle East who had warned the White House that inaction would embolden not only Syrian President Bashar al-Assad but his closest allies, Iran and Hezbollah. 

Aides said the decision was made by Mr. Obama and Mr. Obama alone. It shows the primacy the president places on protecting his hoped-for legacy as a commander in chief who did everything in his power to disentangle the U.S. from overseas wars. Until Friday night, Mr. Obama's national-security team didn't even have an option on the table to seek a congressional authorization.

Personally I don't think the President had muhc of a choice but to involve Congress, not considering many of his statements concerning the build up to go into Iraq. 

In many ways this was a brilliant way to get the Congress to put up or shut up. Considering the fact that many of the Republicans are up for reelection, with the possibility of Teabaggers challenging them in  primary, the President has just put them between the proverbial rock and a hard place.

However I think that this illustrates how carefully the President considers his options before making a choice. And it also illustrates just how alone he must feel when it comes time to make those choices.

The President's remarks today on Syria. And so it begins.

Courtesy of NBC News:  

President Barack Obama said Saturday he will seek authorization from Congress before launching any military action against the Syrian regime for allegedly using chemical weapons in a "crime against conscience" that killed 1,429 people. 

Obama stressed that American warships in the Mediterranean Sea still stood poised to strike at any time, despite the move that would place a hold on any imminent military action. 

"Over the last several days, we have heard from members of Congress who want their voices to be heard," Obama said. "I absolutely agree." 

Just minutes after Obama's statement, the Syrian army recommenced its shelling of rebel-held Damascus suburbs, which had halted for several hours. 

In his statement, Obama condemned Assad's regime, describing the alleged chemical attack as "an assault on human dignity" that "presents a serious danger to our national security." He had previously characterized the use of chemical weapons as a "red line" Assad should not be permitted to cross. 

Obama pledged that any military involvement would be of "limited duration and scope." 

"This would not be an open-ended intervention," he said. "We would not put boots on the ground."

While I am glad that the Preisdent will seek the authorization of Congress, I remain unsure of what we can actually do to stop Assad and to protect the people of Syria.

Add to that the rumors that Al Qaeda has hijacked the revolution and all I can say is that I am glad I am not in the President's shoes.  

What do all of you think?