Pat Lang’s Sic Semper Tyrannis has another interesting data point. I think there is more to the story of Bannon and Flynn not wanting a US Middle East war. Like I say, politics becoming Byzantine and byzantine.
Sic Semper Tyrannis: McMaster is pushing for US war in Syria – Cernovich
Harvey and McMaster have been trying to subvert Joint Chiefs Chairman General Joseph Dunford and Secretary of Defense James Mattis. Mattis and Dunford support working with our allies in the fight against ISIS. Harvey and McMaster are advocating for a massive American-only ground force.
Two men were standing in between another U.S.-led war in the Middle East – General Mike Flynn and Steve Bannon.” Cernovich
There are some nuances here, I believe. “US-led war” means “US unilateral war, without the encumbrance of NATO or other allies”. “Another US-led war” means open alliance with Russia and Syria to bring the Syrian civil war to an end; I’m not sure what it means with respect to Iraq and DAESH/ISIS/ISIL; Flynn and Bannon never were quoted much on that or it was more in alignment with conventional wisdom. Whatever is going on, I do not trust Bannon and Flynn to be peaceniks with regard to the Middle East. And Flynn seems to have had it in for either Iran or the de facto Shi’ite Crescent that might occur with a Shi’ite-dominated Iran, Assad continuing in power, and Hizbullah power in Lebanon.
We are getting stories of personal infighting now, but we are getting a clearer picture of the policy banners that each faction is flying.
Needless to say, Mattis and Dunford are closer aligned to where Hillary Clinton’s position would have been, except Dunford might be still working the same strategy Obama set in motion until there is an ISIS endgame in Iraq and Syria. Or at least their positions do not diverge as widely as do McMasters’s and Flynn’s from continuity in national security policy.
this is based on Cernovich as a source?
that doesn’t by itself prove it’s false, but he’s not normally a fan of truth.
I was thinking the same myself. If this is Mike Cernovich we’re talking about as the source, fuggetaboutit.
You’re shocked that this side of the pond loves them some alt right? Links to that group are ubiquitous.
Love this,
“Needless to say, Mattis and Dunford are closer aligned to where Hillary Clinton’s position would have been”
Both sides do it, but the democrats have more neoliberal.
.
.
Shocked? Nah. Hardly. Disappointed? Endlessly.
Pardon. Where are all the Recs and approval comments for this diary from “this side of the aisle?” I’m seeing one critical comment (from “this side of the aisle”) and one tip for that comment (from “this side of the aisle”). Yet, somehow we “on this side of the aisle” are all responsible for a crap diary? So you concoct a false narrative (“this side of the aisle” approving this diary) to state: “Disappointed? Endlessly.”
How many from “your side of the aisle” took Martin to task for approvingly citing Louise Mensch? How many of you have been dumping on Trump for launching cruise missiles in response to an alleged chemical attack before the facts have been ascertained? Or have you been cheering on Trump right along with Hillary?
Maybe:
Thank you. Reporting does not necessarily mean advocacy or more that attention to additional information.
Lang is periodically a helpful source because of his audience of commenters.
I have consistently thought that the notion that we could fight two enemies simultaneously in Syria-Iraq (DAESH/ISIL/ISIS and Assad) was foolish and pleased that Obama put his emphasis against DAESH/ISIL/ISIS while do what was necessary to satisfy the national security warhawks like Graham and McCain.
The game in Syria now seems to be to keep a war going for as long as possible. As if the $6 trillion spent in the GWOT is not enough to send down the rathole.
It’s far more complicated than “two enemies.” There are frenemies in the mix and that includes KSA, Qatar, Turkey, and Israel.
“The game” is as it’s been for a over a hundred years — overthrow and victory for the USA, Inc. with another puppet state. Doesn’t matter if it happens quickly or very slowly because they have as much time and money as needed.
Would that we had more courageous politicians who could put it to the folks as plainly and frankly as that.
Maybe only Tulsi Gabbard among Dems in Congress comes close to such talk. And for her efforts (formerly considered well within traditional Dem antiwar parameters) she gets hammered by the establishment Dems (and anonymous types on Dem blogs) for telling the truth.
What I find so odd about the US support for revolutions and civil war in Libya and Syria is that they were cooperating with the US.
Libya had given up its chemical weapons, traded keeping out refugees for surveillance equipment from the EU and Saif Khaddafi, likely next leader, was buying a PhD in neoliberal economics in England and befriending Blair.
Syria on the other hand cooperated in US system of outsourced torture and in the years before the civil war introduced economic reforms and reduced subsidies, exactly the economic program pushed by the West.
Promoting civil war in these states serves no imperial purpose I can think of. It is unlikely that the new regime (once one is established after the war) is that much more compliant that it is worth sending the message to the rest of the world’s leaders that it is no use cooperating, once on the US shit-list, you stay there until you and your family are dead. Doing what the US tells you to do only makes you easier to take out.
There has been a denial that two basic principles are in opposition:
Only odd if one neglects to note that getting on the US frenemy list is provisional. If an enemy is needed to fill the maw of the MIC, easier to shift a frenemy with a weak military and political/cultural fissures onto the enemy that must be taken down today list.
Noriega and Saddam were first built up by the US for future use — developments and circumstances define whether that future use is as friend or foe. As foe, they are easier targets because their military capacity is better known because we built it.
Gets better, worth reading at MOA: Trump Enthrones Erdogan – Destroys Trust In U.S. Diplomacy
Probably too strong to say that “He undermined his diplomacy.” He undermined those he put in place to fill diplomatic positions without bothering to fire them.
I give Obama less credit on Syria. I don’t think the US did much against ISIS/AQ — in fact often enabled them deliberately by not attacking them and their supply lines while allowing our local allies to arm them — until the Russians stepped in and began putting the Islamist radicals on the defensive. He had a chance to send a much stronger message to the Pentagon/CIA/neocons about not engaging in another disastrous regime change adventure, but instead mostly gave in to the generals.
ISIS/AQ should have been routed from Syria and Iraq by now — especially if O had accepted Putin’s offer from 18 months ago about a grand alliance — had Obama really been committed to doing it, and the world would be a much safer place.
Obama’s failure to accept a grand alliance had to do with the Congressional backlash he got after successfully eliminating Syria’s chemical weapons and negotiating the agreement with Iran.
The relations with Saudi Arabia, the Gulf states, and Turkey, as Marie3 points out above as the “frenemies”, would have complicated the diplomacy but if they did not have such powerful lobbies in Congress and lobbyists in DC Obama’s policy would have rolled out much faster. Nonetheless the eastern front in Iraq would have moved at about the same speed. ISIS is as death cult enemy. AQ in the west was a complicating factor to the extent that Turkey, KSA, and Jordan were complicit in supporting them.
No question this is a very complicated situation involving numerous parties; and sadly the US, including under Obama, has unnecessarily made it even more complicated.
I fully realize he faced large political obstacles, but Obama didn’t do much publicly to rally people behind a sane policy, but instead largely toed the neocon line with his talking points about Assad, Syria, moderate rebels, and Putin, which gave people no reason for concern about our reckless and stupid and confused policy there.
And what good does it serve to enable these allies when they enable death cults who if they are not eliminated there will next threaten Europe and ultimately us. I would have thought the US still has plenty of leverage against many of those countries. Maybe a heavy lift for the president, but we didn’t elect him, twice, to do the easy stuff.
What was Obama’s agenda?
Seems to me it was closest to not being as militarily belligerent as GWB to achieve a similar objective with less destruction. Not to go way out on a weak limb to make his case for war as GWB had done in 2003. He couldn’t get the Iraq SOFA changes he wanted and his Afghan surge accomplished nothing. His one claimed success (and I don’t buy the official narrative on how that was accomplished) is that “he got him.” Then he got quasi reckless in Libya — no boots on the ground and against Congressional and public support — smashed Ghaddifi with bombs. On Syria, he accepted that Assad could be smashed through covert means. We may never know if his final response on the Ghouta chemical attack was informed by Brennan’s stated assessment that the evidence that Assad had done it was weak (didn’t want to end up looking like GWB) or that using that to take out Assad was legally weak. Still, as Brodie points out, Obama continued to repeat that Assad had released those chemicals in Ghouta.
Once he got through the 2012 election, Obama no longer bothered to hide his contempt for Putin. Part of that may reflect Putin/Russia stating that Obama had burned them over the NATO bombing of Libya bombing. Was Putin supposed to ignore that or was his sin stating a truth in public? Part of that may be that Putin gave Obama a good out over Ghouta. Nobody much likes being rescued by one’s inferior.
My reading is that Obama in national security policy and foreign relations deferred to expertise and then decided on an ad hoc basis which experts fit the situation as he saw it. In this Obama’s point-of-view was focused in the immediate decision and his general strategic view was the effects on the Office of the President. By the end of the second term he had more of an expert view of the issues himself but still relied on Biden, Kerry, Carter, and his JCS. And perhaps more on Brennan than he should have. All orchestrated and filtered through the people in his National Security Council.
His approach to Afghanistan and the proposed surge was a request for a proposal and what the expected results would be. The Pentagon played their PowerPoint game with him and Obama sent it back to them asking for a real plan, something that the DoD folks rarely have to do–being held to results. And being able to say how to get from here to there. They tried again without specifics and Obama apparently set the resource requirements he would allow and told them to get the job done. The job was fundamentally undoable and he should have ordered a rapidly phased withdrawal with a parallel diplomatic offensive to save US face and accomplish the stated goal — preventing Afghanistan from becoming a haven for terrorists. Could not Russia and China and the -stans sign on to that goal for their own reasons?
That would require Hillary Clinton to supervise and negotiate that diplomatic effort under the scathing Congressional scrutiny of Congress and at risk to having national security credibility when she ran for President.
For a lot of reasons any alternative to the phoney surge became untenable. The military tried to punish Obama with McChrystal’s insubordination and appeal to Congress for more troops. But Obama dealt with disloyalty harshly. The military would thenceforward respect him as a commander-in-chief, and he would be more open to the opinions of the uniformed military.
He also would front his foreign policy with Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, and Samantha Powers, taking the stage himself only when there was a commitment of troops, a major agreement, or some media pressure about his policy.
Had there not be serious Congressional pushback from the collaboration with Putin and Lavrov in disarming Syria of its chemical weapons (placing the use of a false flag chemical attack out of reach for sucking in the US), we might have seen a different relationship with Russia and China. That strong Congressional firestorm and the unprecedented Congressional action in inviting Netanyahu to lobby against the Iran agreement shows how close we came to a shift in American foreign policy. The moment passed when the Ukrainian Euromaidan occupation turned violent and resulted in a coup. And US destroyers started pressing major Russian naval bases.
If the principals involved level in their memoirs, the factions within the Obama foreign policy and national security policy advisers will be a fascinating study.
Is there a reason you’re replying to me, beyond to simply scream incoherently? You’re not much for respecting boundaries I take it. Thought as much.
You weren’t adding your two cents as an endorsement of the comment you responded to? If not, then your comment was incoherent.
Exactly what was incoherent in my comment? Or is that just another instance of you making shit up to attack someone that you view as the enemy because they don’t tow the official Dem party line?
What I do see on “this side of the aisle” that I never see on “your side” is evidence of calling out “one of our own” when a bad source, specious dots and connections, and poor logic is used in a diary or comment (AG excepted because his perspective is too quirky to bother criticizing). We don’t tip crap comments and none of us are troll raters like your buddy above. And we’re outspoken and honest about our views and political orientations and don’t allow that to be clouded by political orientation. IOW if it were bad when GWB did it, it was also bad when Obama did it, and Trump.
So when I expressed a few months ago that I really had no intention to communicate further with you, expressed very calmly and clearly why I wished as I did, your choice is to cavalierly disrespect that. Duly noted. As should be duly noted that I have no interest in arguments based on false equivalence as are yours. Goodbye.
Some people’s lives just don’t turn out as expected. It causes disappointment and bitterness. To assuage the loneliness, they spread the bitterness.
It’s why Trump is POTUS.
.
One of my favorite books is Vonnegut’s Cat’s Cradle. The fake religion (well, to me all religions are fake, but that’s another matter that can be dealt with later) Bokononism was certainly entertaining. One of the lines from the Books of Bokonon that I especially liked was “It is never a mistake to say goodbye.” Lately I have been doing more of that, especially when I have experienced interactions that can be fairly characterized as toxic, and have found it simply liberating. Look, I’m cool with disagreements, and different ways of looking at life. It comes down to can we have conversations where we treat each other respectfully as equals, or are we just going to end up screaming past each other? If the latter, why bother? Note that I am not closing myself up to different worldviews (which I would consider unhealthy) but rather to interactions that lead to heartburn and raised blood pressure (which I do consider unhealthy). Life’s too short. I’d rather enjoy what’s left of the rest of mine, even in these somewhat dark and difficult times.
She’d be a great contributor to the commentary here if she would drop all the I’m-smarter-and-more-honest-and-ethical-than-you rigamarole.
My “quirky” perspective has been right on the money for well over a year.
Criticize it if you must.
All sides of this hustle are full of shit.
On the evidence.
Deal wid it.
AG
I think of all the modern artist, Taylor Swift is the most deserving of her success.
.
Yes, quirky. Getting one thing right, contrary to the overwhelming alternative position here and which almost everybody here has acknowledged and given you credit for, doesn’t wipe out all the times you have been wrong.
I did listen and hear you about PA. Enough to get that Toomey would win, but not enough to get that Trump would also win which was the only state he needed to add to my scorecard to claim victory. But winning by only 0.72% put the state in a crap shoot range.
Isn’t it time for another Trump is going down and will soon be out diary?
Trump is resilient, Marie. He is trying to compromise with the Permanent Government. That’s what the bombs and missiles were about. That’s what the Bannon downslide is about as well. Trumps wants in. If he proves to be something more than a loose cannon they will leave him in place and let him have his piece of the action. It’s the least risky move. Just like the way the Mob moves. Another family gets some of the action and war…political war, which is sometimes carried out by violent means as the assassination years here well illustrated…is averted.
To tell you the truth…I don’t much care anymore. I don’t care if I am right, wrong or somewhere in the middle…which is where most people end up, of course. Right sometimes, not so right others. Neither do I care whether people here or anywhere else get what I am saying or not. Not you, not the nalbar triplets, not the centrist stuck-in-the-muds…it really makes no difference to me. It is nice to hear from some of the more thoughtful people here, many of whom are basically in agreement with me. But in the last analysis it’s really about 1% or 2% of my day.
I’ll have my say and y’all can consider what I say as deeply as you can, ignore it completely or…as above, reside somewhere in the middle. Shit’s gonna happen anyway and it will all work out as it must, just as it has since time began.
Peace.
It’s what’s for dinner.
Later…
AG
I don’t view Trump as resilient; he just moves faster to greener pastures than professional politicians do. Combined with a shock-jock style. Easier when one doesn’t have any principles and an agenda during the campaign that never moved beyond Un-Obama (that being based more on Obama’s reputation than his actual record).
“Told ya” isn’t quite the style of someone that doesn’t care if anyone reads, listens, comprehends one’s raps. Most of us do care — otherwise, what’s the point in contributing — and some of us struggle to analyze and understand all the factors in the unfolding of history. Often to act like a canary in the coal mine, and to do so, we must get it right. Would the outcome of the Iraq War been different if WMD had been found? Not really, but the absence of WMD (and for which the 2002 information was good enough that they didn’t exist in any volume to pose a threat to Iraqi neighbors much less the US) means that a country was destroyed (at a cost of a few trillion dollars to the US) for no damn reason.
Professional politicians have principles? Who knew!
I didn’t say that they were good or admirable principles which appear to be in very short supply. Only that knowing the operating principles of politicians makes their moves predictable. Not that that seems all that important to the vast majority of the electorate that are getting deeper and deeper into turning “my party” into a principle.
wrt Trump, Andrew Sullivan said it better and more completely than I did (and in this topsy-turvy political environment, I shouldn’t be, but nevertheless am, shocked the Sullivan said something worth citing):
Marie…
Do not delude yourself into thinking that anything any of us say on this little outlier’s blog will make a damned bit of difference in terms of millions killed/ injured/lives ruined and trillions of dollars wasted that could be put to better use improving this country. The war machine allied with other big money/wasted effort forces has a death grip on this society, its economy and its political system, and only total failure will change that position.
You write:
I would edit that a little and say that some of us care. There are many posters here whose lives and livings totally revolve around the neoliberal, Permanent Government establishment (liberal branch thereof), and in the long run it is their own self-interest (consciously or not-so-consciously) that propels their posting and defines their positions. There are also undoubtedly a few paid trolls (very low level, because this ain’t exactly the NY Times), maybe a bot or two or three and several really stupid people who post regularly here.
“Care?”
About what, exactly?
The truth?
Many of us were once “faithful” to the Democratic party. I was until the Chicago Convention of 1968 and the events leading up to it ripped the scales from my own young eyes. Faithfulness has indeed turned into betrayal.
The latest version of that ongoing betrayal?
Our recent “peace” president.
And of course LadyHawk Clinton.
Betrayal into trust?
I ain’t there yet.
Let me see the Sanders/Warren wing of the dem party take over. And even then I’ll be skeptical.
Once burned, twice shy.
More times burned?
Stupid Butch II pinned it.
Sometimes it’s the fools who speak the most truth.
Later…
AG
If a butterfly flaps its wings …
Granted all monarch butterflies would be no match for a single MOAB dropped on their winter retreat, but still…
The real “MOAB?”
The whole of the PermaGov media and educational trance systems.
The Mother Of All Bullshit.
Nothing like it has ever been seen.
It makes the Roman Catholic Church at its peak of power look like child’s play. Ditto any other control system ever invented and implemented to control populations.
Unlike any other that has ever existed, it can turn on a dime and almost none of its subjects even notice. They just swallow the contradictory bullshit and go on about their obedient lives.
Brilliant!!!
The latest example?
Sure.
The ongoing rebranding of Trump now that he has signalled that he will kowtow to the centrist Defense/Armament powers.
All of those Google News Top Stories headlines screaming about how he had been bought-and-sold by the Russians?
You remember, right? About two weeks ago at its height? It went on for months!!!
Gone.
Vanished.
Disappeared.
Not a negative word about Trump or any of his…accomplices.
In its place?
Trump the Statesman.
Any uproar from the populace?
Hell no!!!
Like the good little sheeple that they are, they’re doing what they have been told to do. And the capper? They don’t even know how they are being led!!!
They have been advertised into total credulity.
So it goes in the United State(
s) of Omertica.Gotta hand it to the controllers.
They’re good at their job.
AG
Now a standalone post:
Trump Redux. Trump Redefined. Trump the STATESMAN!!!
If you wish to comment, please do so there.
Thank you…
AG
I am not sure of that, Marie. I believe that the PermaGov media could sell just about anything that they want to sell to a majority of Americans…unless of course they find an opponent as deft in the use of media as are they, like Trump. They sell “less war” during campaigns and then turn right around and sell “more war” as soon as the fix has been fulfilled.
It’s an old advertising trick.
There has been a standoff between Trump and the PermaMedia ever since he announced his candidacy during the primaries. They have thrown everything they had at him from that moment until this last couple of weeks, and he has survived every attack.
Maybe they are giving up…making peace. He’s proffered the olive branch…if of course that’s what you want to call the massive use of military firepower. But when you have a Department of Offense that is called the Department of Defense, even the olive branches must be booby-trapped or they won’t pay attention.
So it goes…
ASG
Your belief isn’t evident in recent (100 years) history.
1916 — Wilson, US wouldn’t enter the European war.
1940 — FDR, US won’t willingly enter the European/Asian wars.
1949 — Truman, Marshall plan and peace.
1952 — Ike, I’ll get us out of the Korean War.
1960 — Nixon and JFK, need more “defensive” nukes.
1964 (somewhat unique) LBJ would deal with N. Vietnam and Goldwater would nuke N. Vietnam.
1968 — Nixon, a secret plan to end the Vietnamese war.
1972 — Nixon, peace plan near completion.
2000 — GWB, “a humble foreign policy with no nation building.”
2008 — Obama, no more dumb wars.
2016 — Trump, I can make peace with Russia.
Why do you care about ratings? Serious question. If you have something meritorious to write, it will shine through “downrates”, or whatever the term is.
I’ll let you in on a tip that will help,
Excessive congratulatory self referrals are a sign of poor potty training.
.
I must have missed that one. Wow. That woman has NUTJOB written clearly on her forehead. No special decoding ring necessary.
It’s all been rather obvious from the outset months ago that the Russiagate nonsense was Deep State driven in order to “encourage” Donald to reconsider playing nice with Putin. What was not so obvious months ago was that liberal Dems, on Dem blogs like this and in the MSM, would mostly fall in line and carry the water for the neocons and war party types.
I thought Dems were supposed to be about preventing war? When did Dems decide it was a good idea to prod and provoke Russia endlessly until we’re now virtually on the brink of WW3?
Rachel Maddow, frinstance, formerly a progressive in appearance, now sounds like she’s ready for a little rumble with Russia. And her ratings are way up.
It’s just insane.
How many from “your side of the aisle” took Martin to task for approvingly citing Louise Mensch?
Done the work once gain …
○ ‘So God bless America, and God Save the Queen’ was signed Louise Mensch, stakeholder Rupert Murdoch/Bibi Netanyahu
Interesting that Hillary Clinton felt compelled to offer up the conventional story and advocate what Trump actually did (in a half-assed way). Mattis and Dunford are not exactly the alt-right representatives in the administration; they are closer to traditional US national security policy.
This side pays attention to what the various factions in the Trump administration are doing and saying instead of taking the talking points of anyone.
That might be confusing to someone who deals consistently from talking points and seeks to defend them at all cost.
Not exactly clear about your point of view because you’ve never explicitly outlined it. Most people at Booman Tribune at least know my general point of view and where I’m coming from.
The Washington consensus, which still prevails, has become in the past decade a neoliberal (economic), neo-conservative (national security policy) consensus. I don’t see a workable opposition party to that. The so-called Alt-Right certainly is no more than warmed over KKK nationalism with a less harsh face.
I’ll certainly let you know when a see a consistent opposition position and party emerging. So far, there isn’t one despite many local movements at the grassroots trying to put one together including North Carolina’s Moral Monday Movement.
I think it is based on John Hudson’s Foreign Policy article but references Cernovich’s quote and then talks about Derek Harvey.
Lang’s most direct comments concern his past experience with Derek Harvey.
We are beyond understanding truth of what goes on withing the White House; we observe the claims of the various courtiers. Those claims don’t get published and analyzed in the sanitized conventional sources.
My analysis is that there are three factions that are vying for control of US national security policy and that Lang’s post outlines who they most align with.
My analysis is that Clinton most aligns with Mattis and Dunford although a Clinton Presidency would have had different players in those positions.
I think it’s clear that McMaster would prefer US unilateral action despite Trump having involved Japan in his gunboat diplomacy with North Korea.
I don’t buy the notion of Bannon and Flynn as pacifists, never have, but in Syria they might have tilted toward accommodation with Russia, which was what the whole “Putin loves Trump” nonsense sought to prevent.
When you have an emperor-mindset who decides based on what his courtiers do to his vanity, it is important to pay attention to who the courtiers of the moment are.
I don’t think the Sic Semper Tyrannis group considers any of those sources as completely reliable.
Needed to be fleshed out in the diary before posting.
A lot of the attempts on the left to sort out the various agendas of those in the IC community, Trump’s current and former team, elites Democrats, and the MSM reminds me of the early naughts when those on the left came of with “the reason” for the invasion/occupation of Iraq. But there were too many of “the reason” for any one “the reason” to become “the reason” because “the reason” didn’t exist; only consensus that invading/occupying Iraq was “the proper course” to achieve whatever the hell the various players wanted. They’re all greedy, narcissistic, authoritarians in love with war, and such people cannot be understood by normal, rational people. And we’re not yet at the point where normal, rational people collectively resist the crazies.
Figuring out the various players on foreign policy in any administration most nearly resembles Kremlinology in the days of the Soviet Union.
The polling on the airstrikes wasn’t all that great it must be said. There was, IIRC, opposition to ground troops. Presidents past have of course been more than able to invent pretexts to build initial support for War – but that support doesn’t last unless you win quickly.
As you note, the Clinton position would have had us more involved in Syria than we are at this point, though Clinton was far more predisposed to international coalitions that Trump will be.
On Syria, I miss Obama.
On Syria, my preference would be Obama and Kerry without the distractions of McCain and Graham dogging and second-guessing Obama.
Why are “the Clintons” being used as bogeymen in this thread? Last I checked, they’re not in office.
I think it is appropriate to point out that Hillary Clinton put her two-cents worth in about the gas attacks and the Mattis-Dunford bunch convinced Trump that that action was worth undertaking, either independently or in response to Clinton’s statement.
To those who are on the fantasy of “what coulda been”, that is an important data point.
Whether that makes the Clintons bogeymen depends on your point of view about foreign policy.
My own is that Trump was flim-flammed by forces wanting him to fight Assad for them.
Flim-flammers flim-flamminmg other flim-flammers.
This whole presidency is beginning to remind me of film The Sting.
May the best flim-flammer win.
I guess…
AG
That is the most hopeful thing that you have ever written here, JDW.
Yer slippin’.
AG