The Serious Side - part 3

carolhathaway wrote:Sorry, I got confused.
I wanted to refer to Lizzy's post but also agree with Donna's posts.

It's really frightening to me that Trump seems to act totally irrational and spontaneous. Last week he said he wouldn't fight Assad. Now, after this attack happened (and every other leader would have waited until it was confirmed reliably - or he had at least the permission of his government and/or parliament), and suddenly he talks about the poor Syrian Kids. Before they hadn't interested him a bit, but he saw this as an opportunity to set up himself as a strong leader and take the heat off himself.

Ouch ouch ouch CarolH.....how do you know that.....I'm sorry but everyone and everything has a tipping point as POTUS he would have been privy to footage which was not available to him as a candidate.....

So for  maybe THE first time he saw what happens to a child in their last ten minutes of life after a chemical attack....he saw a child scream and quickly go silent, unable to scream....he saw terror in the eyes of that 4 year old looking for his Mother until his eyes no longer moved....He saw the child stripped and hosed and confused and scared.....and dying....no Mothers arms to hold them....no comfort....     a hose of cold water......and agony.....

AND you think that was not enough to motivate THIS MAN...THIS FATHER....You think he is playing the game....YOU THINK IT IS PR.....

Bizarrely Hillary and Barack have seen appalling footage like I described, 4 years ago.....and like a drunk in a bar room brawl said "Hold me back, hold me back" knowing it was all bark, no bite.....or the onlooker to the bar room brawl who holds the coats.....

I'm with the guy who throws the punch....I'm 110% behind him.....

I said before that the only good that could come of a Trump administration was that he was bats enough not to be scared....

Cometh the time cometh the man......THIS CANNOT CONTINUE.....

WWHS - I'm not saying Trump wasn't moved by what he saw. Anyone who could see those children and not be moved is dead. But it sadly isn't the first time photos like these have come out of Syria. We've all seen them, and I'm sure Trump has, too. Yet he still - until he gave orders to attack - considered these victims too dangerous to allow into the US. When he opens our borders to these refugees I will believe he cares. Until then I'll continue to believe that he is a manipulative, opportunistic, power-hungry psychopath.

Confirmation of that here, Lizzy:

https://twitter.com/tgruka/status/850465499389579266

I think the bombing was McMaster and Mattis-advised, and tragically convenient for Trump's reputation and distraction from the Russian connections.

There is photo-evidence that what was dropped was Russian-supplied

LizzyNY wrote:WWHS - I'm not saying Trump wasn't moved by what he saw. Anyone who could see those children and not be moved is dead. But it sadly isn't the first time photos like these have come out of Syria. We've all seen them, and I'm sure Trump has, too. Yet he still - until he gave orders to attack - considered these victims too dangerous to allow into the US. When he opens our borders to these refugees I will believe he cares. Until then I'll continue to believe that he is a manipulative, opportunistic, power-hungry psychopath.

Lizzy.....what I am saying is the pictures or more accurately the film that people see in the media are very different from what is available.....We, Jo Public are cosseted, removed from the reality.....Very few get to see it.....As POTUS he defo does get to see awful terrible film, just like Obama has and, in her position, Hillary.... Many many world leaders have....and remained still....They talked and talked but did nothing.....

Maybe I am wrong to believe in hope....to judge him on his possibility, his future, rather than his past....

But right now...He is the only man doing the right thing.....

As for him closing borders....it's a chicken and egg situation....NOBODY wants to leave their home, these people are forced by unbearable horror to leave.....Do you roll out the red carpet to a society they really don't want to be in....or do you take back home and make it safe.....

This is a sign of action coming from the western world....Action, hope.....

I am not a Trump supporter....but if there is a glimmer of hope....I am.....

party animal - not! wrote:Confirmation of that here, Lizzy:

https://twitter.com/tgruka/status/850465499389579266

I think the bombing was McMaster and Mattis-advised, and tragically convenient for Trump's reputation and distraction from the Russian connections.

There is photo-evidence that what was dropped was Russian-supplied

I think if you look back that was pretty well called within minutes...

But it does not alter the fact, the right thing was done...

It's debatable whether the strike was the "right thing".
It did send a message that the U.S. disapproves of Assad's actions. Does it also say that we won't tolerate future chemical attacks on the Syrian people? No one knows how the U.S. (the Congress in this case) or Trump will respond. And that is more important than this singular attack.

On the face of it Trump knows this makes him "look" like he is tough and decisive. But for many people who know how Trump operates the end result for any action he takes has to benefit him. For instance this is a man who has lied repeatedly about charities he has given to in the past. For supposedly being so wealthy he has shown himself to be one of the least charitable. That to me speaks volumes about the kind of man he is ....

No, I don't think Trump was personally moved enough by whatever horrific images he saw. I think his decision to act was based on his military commanders' advice, the opportunity for good optics and a way to distract from all the negative and bad news of late.

We will have to wait and see if this military strike will have any positive impact. But on the face of it I don't think this one strategic message sent to Assad is going to change his brutal behavior towards his people.

The pictures of children dying in chemical attacks has never been something secret that only presidents could see, WWHS.  For it to be news to Trump only goes to show how ignorant he is.  

The truth is, he's a reality TV 'celeb' with next to no knowledge of the real world.  The pictures probably did shock him because - unlike just about anyone else in Washington - this probably was the first time he saw the sort of things going on with his good buddy Assad.  

The attack came the day after Trump was quoted that no way would he attack Assad's forces and this was widely understood to be tacit support by the US government of Assad's regime to do whatever he wanted.  So he dropped chemical bombs on his own people.

Trump doesn't give a damn about the Syrian people not event he children. He did this too look good all his followers will praise him. And we all know he needs to be patted on the head like a puppy when he does a good trick.

What Would He Say wrote:

carolhathaway wrote:. Now, after this attack happened (and every other leader would have waited until it was confirmed reliably - or he had at least the permission of his government and/or parliament), and suddenly he talks about the poor Syrian Kids. Before they hadn't interested him a bit, but he saw this as an opportunity to set up himself as a strong leader and take the heat off himself.

Ouch ouch ouch CarolH.....how do you know that.....I'm sorry but everyone and everything has a tipping point as POTUS he would have been privy to footage which was not available to him as a candidate.....

So for  maybe THE first time he saw what happens to a child in their last ten minutes of life after a chemical attack....he saw a child scream and quickly go silent, unable to scream....he saw terror in the eyes of that 4 year old looking for his Mother until his eyes no longer moved....He saw the child stripped and hosed and confused and scared.....and dying....no Mothers arms to hold them....no comfort....     a hose of cold water......and agony.....

AND you think that was not enough to motivate THIS MAN...THIS FATHER....You think he is playing the game....YOU THINK IT IS PR.....

Bizarrely Hillary and Barack have seen appalling footage like I described, 4 years ago.....and like a drunk in a bar room brawl said "Hold me back, hold me back" knowing it was all bark, no bite.....or the onlooker to the bar room brawl who holds the coats.....

I'm with the guy who throws the punch....I'm 110% behind him.....

I said before that the only good that could come of a Trump administration was that he was bats enough not to be scared....

Cometh the time cometh the man......THIS CANNOT CONTINUE.....

WWHS,just last year during his campaign, he was asked if the ban he was talking about at that time would also include five year-old Syrian kids, and he said he wouldn't let them come to the States as well.
I so remember having seen pics of poisened, dieing and dead children after the previous attack with Sarin, and if Trump hadn't seen before the recent attack, he's at least uninformed and desinterested. And somebody who wants to become POTUS and is elected, should be better informed before deciding about the lifes of people in other countries.

It also shows that he decides by leaps and bounds, attacking a country just one week after he'd said he wouldn't​. Just because he saw pics of injured children? He had commanded attacks in that area that killed more people - innocent people who just happened to have been near a place which was bombed, either because it had a strategic meaning or because it was attacked accidently​. And he hadn't even apologized for that. So a changing due to several dead kids - no, I don't believe this.

I also think that it won't work to have one single attack without a military strategy. Assad isn't still president because he's stupid or naive, and he has the support by Russia and Iran, two powerful countries with atomic weapons. Putin knows quite well why he supports Assad and won't get Trump away with that. And Putin is definetely a strategist while Trump seems to act irrational.

The conflicts and wars in the Middle East are a result of the US' military intervention and at least abeted the foundation of ISIS. IMO a hasty action without - again - a strategy PLUS Enlightenment, also from the muslims side won't help the people in Syria and its surrounding countries. I think what Amal said at the UN, speaks volume and is absolutely right.

Carol, you might find this really interesting.  Historically and factually correct, for me it defines the whole situation in Syria.

There are some very very bright sparks on this panel:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZN0C1PT4cA

Very smart interview from CNN. The Syrian people have already lost so much. They have lost their country. The woman panelist said it succinctly. Assad has nowhere to go now. He will fight to the end and take his people with him. The politics of all of this is so damn complicated. And this singular strike on Thursday can hardly put a dent in making an ounce of difference to Assad.

I often wonder what if Obama had proceeded with a strategic military strike back in 2013, without the consent of Congress or physical support from any other country. Then what? Would that singular strike have had any political impact on the Syrian War? In both cases if there is no strong strategy to move forward it just becomes a muddled action that goes nowhere.

PAN,
thanks for posting this very enlightening Video.
I agree with Donna's opinion, and this aspect the female penalist brought up about Assad's future was new to me.

There's always the question 'What if'. What if Obama had decided to fight Assad's regime after the attack in 2013. What if the Iraq wars hadn't happened. What if the US hadn't supported the Shah in Iran. What if...

How would our world look like now? We can't prophesy the impacts of our actions, but we can learn from the mistakes we made and base our future actions on them.

There's an interesting book by a lady called Emma Key who was asked to stay on and advise the last US General in Iraq and ended up being the longest serving person in diplomacy or the military over there. It's called The Unraveling: Hugh Hopes and Missed Opportunities.

One of the biggest problems was the fact that the American government  left Iraq with a Shia government in charge of a majority Sunni population. They left in haste. The American population had understandably had enough of policing wars and Obama realised that

And now the world is looking at a Shia government in Iran (with Russia as an ally) opposing a Sunni Iraq, ISIS and Al Nusra etc etc

And in the middle of it all is Syria and the fact that Assad released all imprisoned
jihadists............

carolhathaway wrote:I just googled George's name and found several websites reporting about 'George Clooney's muslim wife defies him, 7 utter words that shock the liberals' / 'George Clooney's muslim wife breaks with Hollywood, 7 words that acknowledge Trump'.

I guess they are talking about the essence of her speech at the UN: "Don't get ISIS away with genozide!"
But that's no opposition to what the Democrats /Hillary Clinton wanted, or am I totally wrong? Because that seems the way to divide the country even more. Apart from the fact that we don't know anything about Amal's religion...

She said that really?.....That's so interesting.....what about Assad....Amal gives him a pass, why?...

I should listen more...too busy looking at the fabulous clothes ......Or listening to people who know that Assad stands shoulder to shoulder in the dock....Without al Assad there would be no ISIS.....

Assad is the MOST evil creature on this earth, make no mistake....Going after ISIS....is really a branch but not root endeavour ......

She looked lovely though....

Regarding the last post ... carol could you clarify your point so I can better understand. I must have missed your original post. Then maybe I could better understand WWHS's statement that Amal is giving Assad a "pass".

Give him a pass!??

Don't think so...........

http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/video-amal-clooney-delighted-prosecute-assad-1937607028

What Would He Say wrote:

carolhathaway wrote:I just googled George's name and found several websites reporting about 'George Clooney's muslim wife defies him, 7 utter words that shock the liberals' / 'George Clooney's muslim wife breaks with Hollywood, 7 words that acknowledge Trump'.

I guess they are talking about the essence of her speech at the UN: "Don't get ISIS away with genozide!"
But that's no opposition to what the Democrats /Hillary Clinton wanted, or am I totally wrong? Because that seems the way to divide the country even more. Apart from the fact that we don't know anything about Amal's religion...

She said that really?.....That's so interesting.....what about Assad....Amal gives him a pass, why?...

I should listen more...too busy looking at the fabulous clothes ......Or listening to people who know that Assad stands shoulder to shoulder in the dock....Without al Assad there would be no ISIS.....

Assad is the MOST evil creature on this earth, make no mistake....Going after ISIS....is really a branch but not root endeavour ......

She looked lovely though....

I had posted this on March 12th, after Amal had spoken at the UN. There was a lot of media coverage about her appearance, some just talked about her 'showing off her baby bump at the UN, others combined reporting about her look and her speech, very few just concentrated on the content of her speech.

Amal hadn't said anything about Assad, and saying you're against ISIS doesn't mean you're pro Assad. That's insane.

In this post I wanted to say how strange it is when people turn an important statement like' Don't let ISIS get away with genozide' into a negative statement to try to divide people.

carolhathaway wrote:
Amal hadn't said anything about Assad, and saying you're against ISIS doesn't mean you're pro Assad. That's insane.

In this post I wanted to say how strange it is when people turn an important statement like' Don't let ISIS get away with genozide' into a negative statement to try to divide people.

I must have missed something because I don't see how Amal's statements were in any way pro-Assad. I don't see how they went against Hollywood's or George's beliefs either. Her remarks weren't in support of Trump's policy because at the time she spoke Trump was still saying that what was happening in Syria was none of our business and not our problem. It wasn't until he saw those "beautiful babies" that he decided to do something.

Thanks carol. Got it! it seemed very clear from Amal's speech her intent and I think generally the civilized world would be in total agreement with her words.

PAN, thanks for the link. I do remember her saying she would love to be involved in Assad's prosecution. Wouldn't it be great if we could get to that point sooner than later. When is the UN going to muscle up and take action against this murderer?

Yes Assad is more to guilt than ISIS but  Amal prosecutors him to? I don't know why not? She did say she would but did not with ISIS together we don't know why?

Assad isn't worse than ISIS!  Although he's a nasty piece of work, his evil is limited to the borders of his country and his impact is felt only on the people of his country.  He isn't forcing his agenda on the rest of the world by terrorist acts.

Don't get me wrong, there's nothing good about him, but ISIS are much worse.

Having said that, ISIS are a grandmother's tea party in terms of long-term threats to the world compared to Putin and his gang.  

JMO of course.

It's all quite messy, actually.

Assad has never attacked ISIS. 

On the contrary he works with them and uses the knowledge they have - in one small example they coordinate mobile phone networks. 

And if he really wanted to do something about it he would have bombed Raqqa ages ago.

And in 2003 he released all jihadi prisoners in an 'amnesty'

He is more concerned with the Free Syrian armies, the Kurds and Al Nusra

PAN...it's not messy at all.....Assad is the target....he has become a bizarre puppet master....ISIS is just a branch, Assad IS the root of this evil....

It beggars belief how he has got IRAN (the big elephant in the room here) and Russia right where he wants them.....

It is not lost on me that King Abdullah of Jordan...a country like Lebanon that has crushing refugee problems... met with Trump only last week.....When it comes to two way dialogue, man to man...no better guy for Trump than King Abdullah....a few words said in the right way can give the clearest picture ....So far Jordan and Lebanon have suffered the refugee crisis but have been thankfully spared the criminal violence of Syria.....

Abdullah knows the cut of Assad's cloth and must be shaking in his boots....Assad targets CHILDREN...they are kidnapped and tortured AND KILLS...his reasoning is give the parents no hope and they will do anything.....

This has always been the plan to go wide in the region....The visit of Abdullah followed by the chemical attack...too much.....Trump the business man would have a "sort it out`' response.....

Two things to keep your eyes on....

IRAN......Sneaky bastards....

THE RED CROSS .....with people on the ground, they have there finger on the pulse more than any news programme....although don't tweet the full story.....obviously....BUT a true rep.....

Sorry if it annoys you all that I support the Trump action....one day I may regret it....but I hope AND PRAY not.....

It is also kinda funny how you all jump up and down saying Trump is the leopard who can't change his spots....HELLO....we are on the GEORGE CLOONEY FORUM....LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL

Or is only brown eyed men allowed to DRAMATICALLY change......You got to see the funny side.....C'MON......X

WWHS - What makes you think Trump has changed? He is doing whatever he thinks will "up his ratings" and distract from the things that can bring him down. Manipulation and distraction, just like before. When he welcomes Syrian refugees into our country I will believe he has changed.

(PS - PLEASE don't compare him to George! There is no comparison that isn't really insulting.)

LizzyNY wrote:WWHS - What makes you think Trump has changed? He is doing whatever he thinks will "up his ratings" and distract from the things that can bring him down. Manipulation and distraction, just like before. When he welcomes Syrian refugees into our country I will believe he has changed.

(PS - PLEASE don't compare him to George! There is no comparison that isn't really insulting.)

I second those thoughts!

Trump is what he is he will not change he only cares about himself and what will make him look good.

Mr Trump is in a tricky position. 

He has been advised by his generals to act this once as a warning to Russia Assad and Iran not to cross 'the red line' again.i e use chemical weapons against his own people. The problem is how long can the world stand by and do nothing?

But if we suspect, as many do, that Mr Putin has rather a lot on Trump, this could look from Mr Putin's point of view a bit like a fly trying to swat a crocodile.

And that's just a minor thing on the sidelines really.

Assad is an Alawite Muslim, which is Shia....different, celebrate Christmas, sometimes. So his allies are Iran, Hezbollah, Kuwait and now Russia.

Saddam Hussein was Sunni and from the Ba'ath party from which ISIS developed. Iraq is mostly Sunni, as is Saudi Arabia - and incidentally so is King Abdullah of Jordan.

And on the outskirts of this are Israel, Lebanon and Turkey etc. The UAE, Bahrain and Kuwait are Shia majority populations run by Sunni governments.



So I think it is messy - or as George has said unbelievably complicated - same difference really.

By the way, King Abdulla of Jordan hosted a conference the other day - and Al Bashir of Sudan, wanted by the ICC, was there!?

Thanks for the background PAN. I can't keep it all straight and understand the sectarian differences even less. How many sane leaders are there in the Middle East? I know King Abdulla is one of them. Let me ask possibly a naive question. Why can't the reasonable leaders in the Middle East come up with a workable plan and then get a coalition of leaders (U.S. and European leaders) to set about putting it in place and work together as a team to get rid of Assad? The Middle East understands the dynamics between Syria, Iran, Iraq better than European or U.S. leaders. This is their bailiwick. I've always wondered why they don't take the lead.

Basically the history of these areas both in war and peace goes back to the start of time..and that's part of the problem.......add lots of oil into the mix which creates lots more wealth and influence.......and religious factions.......

Any peace they may all consider getting round a table about I suspect would be completely influenced along religious lines. The dreadful mess in Kuwait is a good example.....and all these countries are also being supplied by arms from the West

And then there's Africa........



Some believe a Shia Sunni war is long overdue


And that is why diplomacy is so important. Let's hope Rex Tillerson is up to the job

Donnamarie wrote:  Let me ask possibly a naive question.  Why can't the reasonable leaders in the Middle East come up with a workable plan and then get a coalition of leaders (U.S. and European leaders) to set about putting it in place and work together as a team to get rid of AssadThe Middle East understands the dynamics between Syria, Iran, Iraq better than European or U.S. leaders.  This is their bailiwick.  I've always wondered why they don't take the lead.

Thanks, PAN, for explaining the situation so clearly. I, too, have wondered why the leaders in the region haven't worked together to settle their problems. I'm not so sure, though, that Western involvement really does anything to improve things (aside from humanitarian aid). It seems that the situation is so convoluted and medieval that no one who wasn't brought up in it could really understand the complexity of the relationships involved. Our Western governments seem to go from crisis to crisis, trying to protect our interests on a day-to-day basis, but having no real lasting influence. I really do believe it is down to the people of the region to find permanent solutions to their problems.

Well, maybe some of the responsibility goes back to the colonies, but our advantage is we have been or still are kingdoms.
We are also the leaders in bringing people together to talk. We have years of experience at it and many younger countries look to us for that.

We also have relatively large and stable economies. So the US takes some that responsibility is simply being the leader of the western world.

An example of a young country could be somewhere like Kuwait which has become an influence becos of oil but historically was a land of several tribes in a desert.

So it's interesting to hear from Boris Johnson tonight talking about upping sanctions on Russia and lowering the temperature. Theresa May has spoken to Trump too. Let's see what happens when Rex goes to Moscow tomorrow with a message from the G7.

Thanks PAN for your wise insight. I'm on the same page as Lizzy but as I suspect your reasoning is why western countries have struggled forever to bring any kind of stability to the Middle East.

I just feel that many in the Middle East resent the U.S. and it's meddling into affairs we don't really understand. But then I sense a contraction when we don't take the lead in major conflicts. The need and greed of oil is certainly a big factor in this equation.

Just one more really important point.

Putin and Russia now have an ocean going fleet based on the Mediterranean sea - courtesy of Assad and Syria.

He will never give that up. 

Apart from a base in Crimea (part of Ukraine) on the Black Sea, this is the first ever warm water port Russia has ever had.

Serious big boy games time now I suspect!

Yep, and to add to Russia insinuating itself around the world I read in the Washington Post yesterday that their government has been sending tanks and weapons to Nicaragua. They are also sending in troops to train Nicaraguan forces to fight drug trafficking. I'm sure that must be a bit worrisome to the U.S. ... electronic espionage on their mind.

Well, Tillerson said yesterday at a G7 summit in Lucca, Italy, that 'the US will hold to account states that commit atrocities'. 

Which, again, is just the opposite of Trump's pledge during his election campaign. And something he'd always accused Hillary Clinton to do if she'd become POTUS.


Live TV 


Tillerson: US will 'hold to account' states that commit atrocities
By Elizabeth Roberts and Ben Westcott, CNN 
Updated 12:54 PM EDT, Mon April 10, 2017

Story highlights

• US, Russia relations deteriorate following missile strike on Syria
  
• Tillerson due to meet Lavrov in Moscow this week
  

[size]
(CNN)The United States will "hold to account" any government that commits atrocities against innocent people, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said Monday, as key US allies met to work out a common stance on Syria.
Tillerson spoke at an Italian war memorial before a meeting of foreign ministers from the G7 industrialized nations, which was dominated by the diplomatic fallout from the unexpected US missile strike on a Syrian airbase last week.
"We rededicate ourselves to holding to account any and all who commit crimes against the innocents anywhere in the world," Tillerson said in a short statement commemorating a 1944 German Nazi massacre in Sant'Anna di Stazzema.



Tillerson went on to meet his G7 counterparts at a summit in the nearby Tuscan city of Lucca -- the first meeting of US allies since President Donald Trump ordered the bombardment on the Shayrat airbase in western Syria last week.
Diplomats were attempting to agree a common line before Tillerson meets Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov in Moscow later this week. British Foreign Secretary Boris Johnson told the BBC that the priority for the G7 summit was to give a "clear mandate" to Tillerson as he headed to Moscow.
But that effort was complicated by mixed signals at the weekend from the Trump administration on the future of Syrian President President Bashar al-Assad.
US ambassador to the UN Nikki Haley suggested regime change in Syria was inevitable in the wake of last week's chemical weapons attack that was widely blamed on the Assad regime.
Haley told CNN's "State of the Union" that removing Assad was now a US priority. "If you look at his actions, if you look at the situation, it's going to be hard to see a government that's peaceful and stable with Assad," she said.
But Tillerson was more equivocal, saying that the priority was the defeat of ISIS. Asked on CBS's "Face the Nation" whether deposing Assad was a priority, he replied: "I think the president has been quite clear. First and foremost, we must defeat ISIS." He went on to say that the Syrian people would determine Assad's future.
Before last week's chemical attack, Haley had said removing Assad was not a priority for the US government.

UK: Russia should ditch 'toxic' Assad

Syria overshadowed the two-day G7 meeting in Italy. Representatives from key regional powers including Turkey, Jordan and Saudi Arabia were invited to take part in a hastily arranged discussion.
Johnson and Tillerson held bilateral talks, at which the main topic was Russia's backing for Assad, Johnson said.
Moscow should end its "toxic" support for Assad, Johnson said in a statement quoted by AFP. "We need to make it clear to Putin that the time to back Assad has gone. He must understand that Assad is now toxic in every sense."
At the weekend, Tillerson said Russia's support of the Syrian regime made it complicit in the Assad's actions.
"I hope Russia is thinking carefully about its continued alliance with Bashar al-Assad, because every time one of these horrific attacks occurs, it draws Russia closer into some level of responsibility," Tillerson said on ABC's "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" on Sunday.

Warning from Iran

International reaction has been intense since the US fired 59 Tomahawk missiles at the Shayrat Airfield in Syria Friday, which housed the warplanes the US believes were used in last week's chemical weapons attack on civilians.
On Monday, Rouhani warned the US not to carry out any more strikes against Syria. "Repeating this action can be very dangerous for the region," he said.
Russian President Vladimir Putin discussed the strike on the phone with Iranian President Hassan Rouhani Sunday. Both leaders agreed on the "inadmissibility" of US action against a sovereign state.
In a statement issued by the Kremlin, Russia and Iran both called for an "objective, unbiased" investigation into the chemical attack that provoked the strikes.
Tillerson said Russia should do more to meet commitments it made in 2013 to guarantee the destruction of Syria's chemical weapons. "That will part of the discussions when I visit Moscow next week is to call upon Foreign Minister Lavrov and the Russian government to fulfill the obligation it made to the international community when it agreed to be the guarantor of the elimination of the chemical weapons," he told ABC on Sunday.
"And why Russia has not been able to achieve that is unclear to me. I don't draw conclusions of complicity at all, but clearly they've been incompetent and perhaps they've just simply been out-maneuvered by the Syrians."
CNN's Radina Gigova and Darya Tarasova in Moscow, Hamdi Alkhshali and Merieme Arif in Atlanta, Nic Robertson and Antonia Mortensen in Lucca and Bijan Hosseini in Abu Dhabi all contributed to this report.
[/size]

---

[size]
© 2017 Cable News Network. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | AdChoices[/size]

Donnamarie wrote: How many sane leaders are there in the Middle East?

About as many as there are in the rest of the world - not many!

Donnamarie wrote:Why can't the reasonable leaders in the Middle East come up with a workable plan and then get a coalition of leaders (U.S. and European leaders) to set about putting it in place and work together as a team to get rid of Assad?  The Middle East understands the dynamics between Syria, Iran, Iraq better than European or U.S. leaders.  This is their bailiwick.  I've always wondered why they don't take the lead.  

Because that's a misunderstanding of the problem.  "Let's forgive and forget and move on as friends" said no human being ever, whether it's neighbours talking about a boundary fence or countries with similar but slightly different religions. Too many humans prefer to feel insulted and hold that grudge: it gives them a reason for feeling righteous.

Leaders - in the Middle East as much as elsewhere (and I'm currently including the US in this statement) - have absolutely no interest in the health, happiness, peace or survival of the people they rule.  None whatsoever.  And no, the whole 'a happy people make a good country which makes a rich president' argument doesn't work because the rulers of any given country are already doing very well for themselves regardless of how many of their own people they're currently torturing, jailing, executing or gassing.

Leaders are in it for themselves, and therefore also for their cronies who'll support them and keep them in power.  As we can see from much of history, to control a country it helps to have a common enemy to unite your own people against so they don't spend so much time questioning what's happening inside their own country.  The worse the ruler, the worse the enmity has to be.  It doesn't matter what reason you choose your enemy (it could be communists, it could be muslims), you just need an enemy.

Throw a generous amount of paranoia into the mix (these rulers are aware that the higher your rise, the further you have to fall and there are many who would happily usurp their position) and you see how it's very difficult for just two countries to work together even when it's to their own benefit.

In theory, there need be no conflict or war anywhere in the world because every single flashpoint can be negotiated and resolved, but that goes against human nature.

Thanks Katie for your thoughts and sobering perspective. As I said it was a naive question ... almost hopeful in a way. Even though realistically when I look at our world, its history and it's current state it's pretty easy to be nothing more than cynical. Oh well ...

It's not that messy...or complicated.....

How do you eat an elephant? one bite at a time....

First you take out Assad....that gets rid of the elephants tail....

Then you start on the elephant....IRAN....

Make no mistake Iran considers themselves (not being  an Arab nation)....they think they are way above that....They think their neighbours are stupid.....

The poor Arabs are lumped in with the Rest of The Western World....As dumb and stupid.....The whole lot of us.....

Iran believes IT is the real thing.....

The way they have played this out, only confirms it.....

Iran is laughing all the way to their chemical and nuclear hide outs...WHILE....

The rest of the world bitches and fights.....

Except if you take out Assad and start working or Iran other bad actors come in to fill the vacuum that Assad has left behind. It's like Wack-A-Mole.

A new verbal highlight by Sean Spicer:

http://www.firstcoastnews.com/mb/news/local/sean-spicer-hitler-didnt-even-sink-to-using-chemical-weapons/430478631

Sorry, 'copy and paste' didn't work with this article.

Just another example of ignorance and stupidity from team Trump. I can't imagine the contortions his son-in-law has to put his conscience through to be part of that family.

They all just get dumber by the minute. 

I don't think the son in law has any problem with his conscience his family are going to make money from this Presidency.

Rachel Maddow spent time tonight highlighting a number of Sean Spicer's misspoken words to date. There are MANY! It is embarrassing. When he's not mispronouncing names (PM Turnbull and Bashar al-Assad) and invoking Hitler to make a point he is nothing more than an enabler for Trump and defends his lies! The man should be fired but look who hired him.

The White House is a total mess. There are still almost 500 appointments that have not been filled that the White House is responsible for. Their Syrian policy is all over the place. Trump Jr. is saying that Ivanka had a role in persuading Trump to go ahead with the attack in Syria. Tillerson is totally inept at his job.
And he doesn't even have a proper staff to work with him! They haven't been hired. Read an article a month ago about how he didn't even want this job. His wife pushed him to take it. Trump and Tillerson had never met until he was considered for the job. It's like the guy is working in a vacuum. Then there is Jared who is taking on every role you could possibly think of and is no more qualified for any of those jobs than Trump is for being President.

All the while Trump's businesses are making loads of money ... courtesy of his cushy job.

All the while the Russian connection investigation moves along at a snail's pace.

I'm ranting tonight but this just sucks.

Last night Borussia Dortmund, a German football (soccer for Americans) team left its hotel in a coach for a match at the Champions League vs. the French champion.
Three explosions happened when the coach passed. Since the coach had bulletproof glass, the attack wasn't as bad as expected, but one of the players was badly injured and needed a surgery on his hand. 
The match was delayed to tonight.

The police tries to find out who was responsible for this attack...

The news reports say that there's been a letter claiming responsibility but they didn't yet mention who claimed responsibility.

Here's Rachel Maddox' last nights' show. She's so good at that!

Katiedot wrote:The news reports say that there's been a letter claiming responsibility but they didn't yet mention who claimed responsibility.

Katie,
there are actually TWO letters claiming responsibility, one is from a very left-wing extremistic group, the other one from an islamistic group. Now the police has to find out who's just a copycat.
It's also possible that the attack was part of blackmailing the club or a revenge from fans of another German club which was offended by Dormund fans in February.
So we'll have to wait, I guess.
But if I were an ISIS terrorist, I would blow myself up near the stadium in a crowd of hundreds of fans to cause as much damage as possible. And if somebody really wanted to kill or at least injure the players, he could have used a much more powerful bomb which had overbalanced the coach.
But maybe I think too rational...

http://people.com/politics/how-difficult-would-it-be-to-impeach-president-trump/

• SHARE
  
• TWEET
  
• EMAIL
  

[url=https://pinterest.com/pin/create/button/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fpeople.com%2Fpolitics%2Fhow-difficult-would-it-be-to-impeach-president-trump%2F&media=https%3A%2F%2Fpeopledotcom.files.wordpress.com%2F2017%2F03%2Fdonald-trump8.jpg%3Fw%3D1024&description=How Difficult Would It Be to Impeach President%C2%A0Trump?][/url]
GETTY
The article originally appeared on Time.
Among his critics, talk of impeachment began long before President Donald Trump even took office.
In September, a law professor argued that lawsuits against Trump University had already laid the groundwork for an impeachment case. A history professor who has accurately predicted every presidential election since 1984 has saidTrump’s impeachment is imminent.
It’s not just academics, either.
In February, Democratic Rep. Keith Ellison of Minnesota said Trump’s actions “legitimately raise the question of impeachment.” In March, Democratic Rep. Maxine Waters of California issued an even more direct warning: “Get ready for impeachment.”
But the process of impeaching an American president, much less removing them from office, is quite challenging, as can be seen from the impeachment of President Bill Clinton and the idle chatter of impeaching Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama.
Here’s a closer look at how hard the process actually is.



Impeachment talk would need to be taken seriously
Trump’s unconventional political ascent and business background have raised a unique set of ethics questions, but talk of impeachment has been a common part of partisan rhetoric in the past.
Bush and Obama both faced idle impeachment threats that never amounted to anything. People who now believe there’s a serious case for impeaching Trump will have to overcome the reputation established by those who raise the specter of impeachment merely to demonstrate political opposition.
“That makes it harder to separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak, to figure out what’s really the substantive conduct and the substantive problem,” said Michael Gerhardt, a constitutional law professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. “We can’t rely on political rhetoric to guide us because political rhetoric is so overheated.”
Critics would need to settle on one argument
The Constitution states that a president can be impeached if convicted of “treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” Those looking to impeach Trump would need to show he has done something that falls into one of those categories — which requires more evidence.
While treason and bribery are defined by the Constitution and by federal law, “high crimes and misdemeanors” is a less specific charge. Gerhardt said the framers intended it to refer to “political crimes,” including abuses of power or other offenses against the United States. “They don’t have to be technically criminal things — things for which someone could go to prison — but they do have to reach a certain level of seriousness,” he said.
Some of Trump’s critics have argued that his business dealings are in violation of the Constitution’s Emoluments Clause, which prohibits the President from accepting gifts from foreign leaders or governments. Others, including Waters, have argued that the ties between Russia and Trump’s team are signs of wrongdoing. Christopher Peterson, a University of Utah law professor, maintains that theTrump University lawsuits provide grounds for impeachment and thinks there’s already a “fairly solid” case to be made.
But for Trump’s opponents to realistically pursue impeachment, they would likely need to focus on investigating one offense and making a specific, formal accusation of wrongdoing.



There would need to be more evidence
Right now, arguments for impeachment are resting on potentially flimsy claims. “The critical thing that those congressmen will have to show is that he’s done something that will qualify as treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors,” Gerhardt said. “That’s the threshold.”
While there are mounting questions about potential coordination between Trump’s campaign and Russian interests, no concrete conclusions have been reached.
“So far there hasn’t been a clear smoking gun,” Peterson said.
“I do think there are certain ways in which he’s conducting himself in office that will come under scrutiny,” said Gerhardt, who served on the transition team for Clinton’s Justice Department and later testified before the House Judiciary Committee on Clinton’s impeachment as a shared witness. “To what end does that scrutiny end up producing any evidence or concern about how he’s exercising power?” He said it’s too early in Trump’s presidency to know.

The House would need to decide there are grounds for impeachment
Impeachment proceedings begin in the House of Representatives, where lawmakers can introduce an impeachment resolution or a resolution authorizing an investigation into whether grounds for impeachment exist. If a House committee determines that there are grounds for impeachment, a resolution with a formal accusation of misconduct is presented to the full House for a vote.
In order to impeach a president, that resolution must pass the House by a simple majority. When the President’s own party has control of Congress — as Republicans do now — that’s a difficult bar to clear. If a vote were to take place today, when there are five vacancies in the House, all 193 Democrats and 23 Republicans would need to vote for impeachment in order for it to pass.
“Impeachment is always difficult. It’s designed to be difficult,” Gerhardt said. “That’s the nature of the process, the nature of the constitutional design.”



Only two presidents in U.S. history have been impeached: Clinton in 1998 on charges of lying under oath to a federal grand jury, and Andrew Johnson in 1868 on charges of violating the Tenure of Office Act by firing the Secretary of War. Both Clinton and Johnson were Democrats who faced a Republican-controlled Congress, and both were still acquitted in the Senate because opponents failed to gather enough votes in the upper chamber. (Richard Nixon resigned before he could be impeached.)
“The key committee chairs in the House of Representatives are reluctant to take on the President of their own party,” Peterson said of Trump’s situation. “Whether or not they will act depends on how much political pressure is brought to bear on them.”
FROM COINAGE: This Is How Much It Would Cost to Paint the White House (And More Crazy Facts)



The Senate would need to find the President guilty
In order to actually be removed from office, the President must then be convicted by a two-thirds vote in the Senate.
When the President’s own party controls the chamber, that’s unlikely to happen unless there is evidence of serious misconduct. Based on the current party makeup in the Senate, 19 Republicans would have to side with all 46 Democrats and two independents in order to remove Trump.



Even Clinton and Johnson, who faced chambers controlled by the opposing party, didn’t provoke a consensus that strong. Both served out the remainder of their terms.
There would need to be public support for impeachment
Impeachment would probably need to be popular in order for Congress to act on it. Trump’s approval ratings continue to be historically low for a new president, but it’s not yet clear how Americans would feel about impeachment. A recent survey by the left-leaning Public Policy Polling found that voters were split: 44% support impeachment of Trump, while 45% oppose it.
An impeachment trial could backfire. During Clinton’s impeachment proceedings, public opinion of Republicans fell, while Democrats and Clinton experienced a surge. When asked whether they wanted Clinton or the GOP “to have more influence over the nation,” Americans were evenly split between the two in September 1998, according to a CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll. But by the time Clinton was impeached in December of that year, the gap had widened significantly. While 60% said they wanted Clinton to have more influence, just 31% said the same for the GOP.
The proceedings also had the unintended effect of sending Clinton’s approval ratings to an all-time high.

Now I'm really depressed. Our reputation is going to go down the tubes if this guy survives four years.