Jeb Bush On Syria: ‘Donald Trump Is Bad For Israel… Hopefully Our President Will Reverse His Decision’

By Chris Menahan

Failed presidential candidate Jeb Bush said Wednesday on Twitter that he hopes President Trump will “reverse his decision to abandon Syria” because it’s “bad for Israel.”

Capture

He linked to an article from the New York Times by neocon Bret Stephens which said “that the ultimate long-term threat to Israel is the resurgence of isolationism in the U.S.”

“What Israel most needs from the U.S. today is what it needed at its birth in 1948: an America committed to defending the liberal-international order against totalitarian enemies, as opposed to one that conducts a purely transactional foreign policy based on the needs of the moment or the whims of a president.”

Stephens said the idea “neoconservatives always put Israel first” is an “invidious myth”:

Contrary to the invidious myth that neoconservatives always put Israel first, the reasons for staying in Syria have everything to do with core U.S. interests. Among them: Keeping ISIS beaten, keeping faith with the Kurds, maintaining leverage in Syria and preventing Russia and Iran from consolidating their grip on the Levant.

Capture

President Trump said Wednesday that we give Israel billions of dollars every year and they can defend themselves.

Capture

From the Times of Israel:

Speaking with reporters, Trump was asked about criticism that the move could put Israel in jeopardy by allowing Iran to expand its foothold in Syria.

“Well, I don’t see it. I spoke with Bibi,” he said, referring to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. “I told Bibi. And, you know, we give Israel $4.5 billion a year. And they’re doing very well defending themselves, if you take a look.”

“So that’s the way it is,” Trump said, according to a White House transcript.

“We’re going to take good care of Israel. Israel is going to be good. But we give Israel $4.5 billion a year. And we give them, frankly, a lot more money than that, if you look at the books — a lot more money than that. And they’ve been doing a very good job for themselves,” he added.

Stephens’ column made no mention of the billions in foreign aid America gives Israel every year.

 

Neocons and Media Unite to Attack Trump’s Syria Decision

By Mark Alan

President Trump’s decision to withdraw US troops from Syria has been met with some push back among neoconservatives and the media. Although the move seems consistent with the presidents previous statements about the conflict, that didn’t stop some from expressing shock over the decision. Undoubtedly, the two loudest voices among Republicans were Senators Lindsey Graham and Marco Rubio.

Graham called the move an “Obama-like” mistake. Rubio, apparently trying to establish himself as the leading figure of the neoconservative movement, went as far as calling the president’s decision a “retreat.” Graham and Rubio have both expressed past support for using the US military to topple Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

The response from many in the media hasn’t been too different from that of the neocons. CNN’s Erin Burnett strongly condemned President Trump’s decision. She said the president was giving Vladimir Putin an early Christmas present by withdrawing US soldiers from Syria. However, she failed to articulate why she believes the lives of US soldiers are less valuable than the alleged disruption between the US and Russia.

Burnett wasn’t the only CNN personality to attack the president for his decision. CNN’s Fareed Zakaria also bashed the withdraw of US troops from Syria. He claimed President Trump was making an even bigger mistake than former president George W Bush’s “mission accomplished” fiasco during the Iraq War. It’s worth noting that Zakaria is one of many prominent members of the media who supported the decision to invade Iraq.

Anchors from other networks also condemned the president’s choice to withdraw troops from Syria. Fox News’ Brian Kilmeade called Trump’s decision “stunning and irresponsible.” He also suggested the president was “cutting and running.” MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough expressed similar sentiments on his show this morning.

The reaction of the neoconservatives and like minded members of the media shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone. The two groups have united numerous times in the past, salivating at the idea of a ground war to overthrow Assad in Syria. Thankfully, peace has prevailed.

United States military forces have been in Syria for over four years. The first known instance of American troops fighting on the ground in Syria occurred in July of 2014, as part of a hostage rescue operation. The Global War on Terror has already cost US tax payers nearly 6 trillion dollars. To provide that number some context, the combined value of the entire US housing market is worth about 30 trillion dollars.

Elsewhere, President Trump’s decision has been met with praise. Senators Mike Lee and Rand Paul both applauded the president’s withdraw of troops from Syria. Senator Paul saidthe president’s decision is another example of Trump keeping his campaign promises. Paul further defended the move, saying the president’s decision in Syria illustrates why he won the 2016 election.

All corrupt on the Western front? Der Spiegel latest to fall from media mountaintops

See the source image

By Robert Bridge

Once again, a reporter has been accused of writing fake stories – over a span of years – reinforcing the suspicion that we are living in a post-truth world where words, to paraphrase Kipling, “are the most powerful drug.”

This week, Der Spiegel, the German news weekly, was forced to admit that one of its former star reporters, the award-winning Claas Relotius“falsified his articles on a grand scale.”

Indeed, it seems the disgraced journalist was motivated more by fiction writers John le Carre and Tom Clancy than by any media heavyweights, like Andrew Breitbart and Walter Cronkite.

Relotius, who just this month took home Germany’s Reporterpreis (‘Reporter of the Year’) for his enthralling tale of a Syrian teenager, “made up stories and invented protagonists,” Der Spiegel admitted.

All corrupt on the Western front? Der Spiegel latest to fall from media mountaintops

There is a temptation to rationalize Relotius’s multiple indiscretions, not to mention the failure of his fastidious employer to unearth them for so long, as an unavoidable part of the dog-eat-dog media jungle. After all, journalists are not robots – at least not yet – and we are all humans prone to poor judgment and mistakes, perhaps even highly unethical ones.

That explanation, however, falls short of explaining the internal forces battering away at the foundation of Western media, an institution built on the shifting sand of lies, disinformation and outright propaganda. And what is readily apparent to those outside of the Western media fortress is certainly even more apparent to those inside.

A good example is Russiagate. This elaborate myth, which has been peddled repeatedly and without an ounce of 100-percent real beef since the US election of 2016, goes like this: A group of Russian hackers, buying a few hundred social media memes for just rubles to the dollar, were able to do what all the Republican campaign strategists, and all the special interests groups, with all of their billions of dollars in their massive war chest, simply could not: keep Democratic voters at home on the couch come Election Day – a tactic now known as “voter suppression operations” – thereby handing the White House to Donald Trump on a silver platter. Or shall we say ‘a Putin platter’?

Capture

Don’t believe me? Here’s the opening line of a recent Washington Post article that should be rated ‘R’ for racist: “One difference between Russian and Republican efforts to quash the black vote: The Russians are more sophisticated, insidious and slick,” wailed Joe Davidson, who apparently watched too many Hollywood films where the Russkies play all of the villains. “Unlike the Republican sledgehammers used to suppress votes and thwart electorates’ decisions in various states, the Russians are sneaky, using social media come-ons that ostensibly had little to do with the 2016 vote.”

Meanwhile, Der Spiegel, despite being forced to come clean over the transgressions of Claas Relotius, will most likely never own up to its own factual shortcomings with regards to their dismal reporting on Russia.

For example, in an article published last year entitled ‘Putin’s work, Clinton’s contribution,’ the German weekly lamented that “A superpower intervenes in the election campaign of another superpower: The Russian cyber-attack in the US is a scandal.” Just like their fallen star reporter, Der Spiegel regurgitated fiction masquerading as news.

Capture

However, there is no need to limit ourselves to just media-generated Russian fairytales. The Western media has contrived other sensational stories, with its own cast of dubious characters, and with far greater consequences.

Consider the reporting in the Western media prior to the 2003 Iraq War, when most journalists were behaving as cheerleaders for military invasion as opposed to conscientious objectors, or at least objective observers. In fact, two reporters with the New York Times, Michael Gordon and Judith Miller, arguably gave the Bush administration and a hardcore group of neocons inside Washington, which had been pushing for a war against Saddam Hussein for many years, the barest justification it required for military action.

Just six months before the bombs started dropping on Baghdad, Gordon and Miller penned a front-page article in the Times that opened with this stunning claim: “Iraq has stepped up its quest for nuclear weapons and has embarked on a worldwide hunt for materials to make an atomic bomb, Bush administration officials said today.”

The article in America’s ‘paper of record’ then proceeded to build the case for military action against Iraq by quoting an assortment of anonymous senior administration officials, anonymous Iraqi defectors, and anonymous chemical weapons experts. In fact, much of the story was based on comments provided by one ‘Ahmed al-Shemri,’ a pseudonym for someone purported to have been connected to Hussein’s chemical-weapons program. The authors quoted the mystery man as saying: “All of Iraq is one large storage facility.”

Gordon and Miller also claimed their source had said that “he had been told that Iraq was still storing some 12,500 gallons of anthrax.” Several months later, just weeks before the US invasion of Iraq commenced, US Secretary of State Colin Powell invited the UN General Assembly to imagine what a “teaspoon of dry anthrax” could do if unleashed on the public.

Powell, who later said the testimony would be a permanent “blot” on his record, even shook a tiny faux sample of the deadly biological agent in the Assembly for maximum theatrical effect.

Shortly after the release of the Times piece, top Bush officials appeared on television and alluded to Miller’s story in support of military action. Meanwhile, UN inspectors on the ground in Iraq never found chemical weapons or the materials needed to build atomic weapons. In other words, the $1-trillion-dollar war against Iraq, which led to the deaths of tens of thousands of innocent civilians, was a completely senseless act of aggression against a sovereign state, which the US media helped perpetrate.

Aside from the question of whether readers really put much faith in these fantastic media stories, complete with pseudonymous characters and impossible to prove claims; there remains another question. Does the Western media itself believe its own stories?  The answer seems to be no, at least not always.

With regards to the Russiagate story, for example, an investigative journalism outfit, Project Veritas, caught a few Western journalists off-guard about their true feelings in relation to the claims against Russia, and their feelings in general about the state of the media.

“I love the news business, but I’m very cynical about it – and at the same time so are most of my colleagues, CNN Supervising Producer John Bonifield admitted, unaware he was being secretly filmed.

When pushed to explain why CNN was beating the anti-Russia drum on a daily basis, things became clearer: “Because it’s ratings,” Bonifield said. “Our ratings are incredible right now.”

In the same media sting operation, Van Jones, a prominent CNN political commentator who has pushed the anti-Russia position numerous times on-air, completely changed his tune when caught off-air and off-guard. “The Russia thing is just a big nothing burger,” he remarked.

This brings us back to the story of the fallen Der Spiegel journalist. It seems that a deep cynicism has taken hold in at least some parts of the Western media establishment. Journalists seem increasingly willing to produce extremely tenuous, fact-challenged stories, many of which are barely held together by a rickety composite of anonymous entities.

And why not? If their own media bosses are permitting gross fabrications on a number of major issues, not least of all related to Russia, and further afield in Syria, why should the journalists be forced to play by the rules?

Under such oppressive conditions, where the media appears to be merely the mouthpiece of the government’s position on a number of issues, those working inside this apparatus will eventually come around to the conclusion that truth is not the main priority. The main priority is hoodwinking the public into believing something even when the facts – or lack of them – point to other conclusions.

Thus, it is no surprise when we find Western reporters imitating the greatest fiction writers, because in reality that is what they have already become.

@Robert_Bridge

Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!

CHUCK SCHUMER SAYS REPUBLICANS MUST ‘ABANDON’ WALL IN ORDER TO REOPEN GOVERNMENT

See the source image

Henry Rodgers | Capitol Hill Reporter

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said Republicans need to “abandon” border wall funding if they want the government to reopen, just less than 24 hours into the partial shutdown.

Schumer, who has strongly opposed funding President Donald Trump’s border wall, saidthis on the Senate floor Saturday afternoon as the federal government is officially in a partial shutdown after Senate Republicans failed to receive enough votes to pass a short-term spending bill Friday that included funding for a border wall.

WATCH:

The New York senator also said Democrats are “open to discussing any proposal as long as they do not include anything for the wall,” showing Democrats are not willing to compromise on border wall funding.

Capture

Before the partial shutdown, Schumer said there was no way the wall was being funded on numerous occasions.

“I want to be crystal clear — there will be no additional appropriations to pay for the border wall,” Schumer said on the Senate floor on Dec. 13. “It’s done.” (RELATED: Chuck Schumer Makes It ‘Crystal Clear’ He Wants No Additional Funding For Border Wall)

The two parties will now have to figure out an agreement, and the senators must be present for a vote on the Senate floor to send a bill to the president to sign and end the partial government shutdown.

See the source image

THE NEW YORK TIMES WAS AGAINST WAR IN SYRIA BEFORE IT WAS FOR IT

See the source image

What a difference a year can make for The New York Times

By Joe Simonson

What a difference a year can make for The New York Times.

As President Donald Trump announced his decision Wednesday to withdraw the nation’s 2,000 troops from Syria, a bipartisan cadre of opinion-havers attacked him as recklessly abandoning allies in the region and jeopardizing America’s influence over foreign affairs.

One newspaper was particularly harsh: The Times.

Quickly after Secretary of Defense James Mattis announced his resignation (in part as a protest against Trump’s decision on Syria) Thursday, America’s paper of record quickly produced a scathing editorial, proclaimingJim Mattis Was Right.”

See the source image

“Who will protect America now?” The Times asked.

The editorial frets about how American troops leaving Syria “hampers morale” of “allied forces like the Kurds.” (RELATED: Trump Explains His Decision To Withdraw From Syria)

“It could also risk getting American soldiers killed or wounded for objectives their commanders had already abandoned,” writes The Times.

Yet almost a year ago, on Jan. 19, 2018, that same editorial board raked the president over the coals for even daring to continue America’s policy of military adventurism.

The Times expressed concern that more American troops beyond the 2,000 initially deployed could soon be sent overseas in a mission without any clear goals.

“Syria is a complex problem. But this plan seems poorly conceived, too dependent on military action and fueled by wishful thinking,” The Times said.

See the source image

While on Thursday The Times worried that leaving Syria could leave the Kurds vulnerable to Turkey, at the beginning of 2018, the paper also believed that the U.S. would be setting up a clash between the minority group and a NATO ally.

“Turkey, which views the Kurds as an enemy, has threatened a cross-border assault. All of this raises the grim possibility that American troops will clash with Turkey, a NATO ally,” The Times wrote last January.

Nowhere in Thursday’s editorial does The Times ever point to an alternative timeline for withdrawal for American forces in Syria. Such an omission is quite startling, considering last January the paper’s chief criticism of sending forces to the region was setting up just another forever-war in the Middle East.

One thing is clear from these two diametrically opposed editorials: The job of The Times isn’t to provide valid criticisms of Trump, but to simply oppose him at all costs.

Shutdown Averted? Schumer, Corker Strike 11th Hour Deal

Profile picture for user Tyler Durden

Update2: The Senate has voted to proceed with debate on the House-passed spending bill after Vice President Mike Pence broke a 47-47 tie.

Capture
Outgoing Senator Jeff Flake (R-AZ) – who contributed to the Kavanaugh confirmation spectacle – said  “there is no path forward for the House bill.”
Capture

Update: The House has voted to meet tomorrow at Noon, 12 hours into the potential government shutdown.

Capture
McConnell, meanwhile, said that the Senate voted to proceed “in order to maintain maximum flexibility” to cut a later funding deal. That said, there is no agreement on funding, which CNN’s Manu Raju suggests means there is no chance Trump gets his $5 billion in wall funding.
Capture
Senator Bob Corker (R-TN) said Friday that Senate leaders have an “agreement” in place for a House-passed stopgap measure to avert a government shutdown which includes funding for President Trump’s border wall. 

Emerging from a meeting in Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s (R-KY) office, Corker said that Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) and McConnell are expected to enter into an agreement on the Senate floor, according to The Hill.

“This is will be an agreement between McConnell and Schumer about what next happens on the Senate floor. You’ll see them to enter into a little discussion,” said Corker. “It charts the course forward that gives us the best chance of actually coming to a solution.”

Corker suggested that a government shutdown may be averted – citing meetings with White House officials.

“Some of the folks at the White House seem to be optimistic,” he said, adding that President Trump “is very aware of what’s happening.”

The potential breakthrough comes after Schumer met with Vice President Pence, incoming White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and White House advisor Jared Kushner on Friday afternoon. 

The negotiations later moved over to the House, with Pence, Mulvaney and Kushner huddling in Speaker Paul Ryan’s ceremonial office with Majority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La.), Freedom Caucus leaders Mark Meadows (R-N.C.) and Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) and Republican Study Committee Chairman Mark Walker (R-N.C.).

Corker warned that the danger of a partial government shutdown is not completely gone. –The Hill

“It’s just how we’re going to proceed in a manner that we think is best,” said Corker. “The first discussion is not substance, it’s process.”

Meanwhile, looks like Trump may go medieval on illegal border crossers…

Capture

Maddow’s latest crystal ball reading: Putin ‘ordered’ Trump to withdraw from Afghanistan

Capture

Rachel Maddow (R) and a US soldier in Afghanistan © AFP / Theo Wargo; Reuters / Shamil Zhumatov

MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow – a pioneer of Putin-ate-my-homework journalism – has predictably mused that Donald Trump is considering pulling troops out of Afghanistan on the orders of Russia’s president. The evidence speaks for itself.

In a segment on her critically-acclaimed show, “Watch Me Scream ‘Russia’ Until I Dislocate My Jaw”, Maddow made an adroit observation of seismic proportions: Reports that Donald Trump is mulling a partial withdrawal from Afghanistan emerged only hours after Vladimir Putin said that the US keeps promising to leave the country but never does! In layman’s terms: Putin ordered Trump to pull troops out of Afghanistan, during a live broadcast? It seems Maddow believes that she decrypted their top-secret communications channel.

Capture

Apparently she cannot fathom that there may be any non-Putin related motives for leaving Afghanistan after 17 years. But in August, the MSNBC host accused Trump of “flip-flopping” after announcing that more US troops would be deployed to Afghanistan.

Capture

Capture

So Rachel Maddow opposes sending more troops to Afghanistan – but anyone who wants to withdraw US forces from the country is a Putin stooge. A daunting pickle, indeed.

As Vox pointed out at the time, Trump “spent years railing against the war in Afghanistan and calling for a US withdrawal from the country.” Before moving into the White House, he made it clear to lawmakers that his administration would not send US troops to fight abroad unless “absolutely necessary.”

ALSO ON RT.COMPutin: ‘US right to leave Syria, but no signs of pullout – remember Afghanistan’

Maddow’s other celebrated Russiagate hits include having a stroke – live on television – after discovering that Russia shares a border with North Korea. She also famously revealed that Rex Tillerson was hand-picked by Putin to serve as Secretary of State – you know, the guy who allegedly called Trump a “f*cking moron”.

Imagine Maddow’s on-air meltdown if Trump really does withdraw troops from Afghanistan.

Like this story? Share it with a friend!

Psyop which saw Democrats pose as Russians ahead of Alabama poll swept under carpet (VIDEO)

Psyop which saw Democrats pose as Russians ahead of Alabama poll swept under carpet (VIDEO)

A $100,000 Democrat psyop to fake Russian interference in an Alabama election was brushed aside by the US media as nonconsequential. But the alleged Russian operation of similar cost is treated as a Pearl Harbor-like attack.

The controversial social media operation, launched to undermine Republican candidate for Senate Roy Moore, was exposed by the New York Times this week.

The newspaper said it was an experiment which had little if any consequence on the outcome of the 2017 vote, which Democrat Doug Jones won by a less than 2-percent margin.

ALSO ON RT.COMTwitterstorm as bombshell Russiagate report suggests SEX TOYS penetrate US democracy

 

RT’s Murad Gazdiev wonders why a false flag operation involving Russia is not a bigger scandal for the US media. After all, they eagerly reported Russia’s alleged interference in the 2016 presidential election, which is claimed to have a similar budget, as a major crime or even an act of war on par with Pearl Harbor.

Watch the video and take a guess.

 

Neocons and Media Unite to Attack Trump’s Syria Decision

By

President Trump’s decision to withdraw US troops from Syria has been met with some push back among neoconservatives and the media. Although the move seems consistent with the presidents previous statements about the conflict, that didn’t stop some from expressing shock over the decision. Undoubtedly, the two loudest voices among Republicans were Senators Lindsey Graham and Marco Rubio.

Graham called the move an “Obama-like” mistake. Rubio, apparently trying to establish himself as the leading figure of the neoconservative movement, went as far as calling the president’s decision a “retreat.” Graham and Rubio have both expressed past support for using the US military to topple Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

The response from many in the media hasn’t been too different from that of the neocons. CNN’s Erin Burnett strongly condemned President Trump’s decision. She said the president was giving Vladimir Putin an early Christmas present by withdrawing US soldiers from Syria. However, she failed to articulate why she believes the lives of US soldiers are less valuable than the alleged disruption between the US and Russia.

Burnett wasn’t the only CNN personality to attack the president for his decision. CNN’s Fareed Zakaria also bashed the withdraw of US troops from Syria. He claimed President Trump was making an even bigger mistake than former president George W Bush’s “mission accomplished” fiasco during the Iraq War. It’s worth noting that Zakaria is one of many prominent members of the media who supported the decision to invade Iraq.

Anchors from other networks also condemned the president’s choice to withdraw troops from Syria. Fox News’ Brian Kilmeade called Trump’s decision “stunning and irresponsible.” He also suggested the president was “cutting and running.” MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough expressed similar sentiments on his show this morning.

The reaction of the neoconservatives and like minded members of the media shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone. The two groups have united numerous times in the past, salivating at the idea of a ground war to overthrow Assad in Syria. Thankfully, peace has prevailed.

United States military forces have been in Syria for over four years. The first known instance of American troops fighting on the ground in Syria occurred in July of 2014, as part of a hostage rescue operation. The Global War on Terror has already cost US tax payers nearly 6 trillion dollars. To provide that number some context, the combined value of the entire US housing market is worth about 30 trillion dollars.

Elsewhere, President Trump’s decision has been met with praise. Senators Mike Lee and Rand Paul both applauded the president’s withdraw of troops from Syria. Senator Paul saidthe president’s decision is another example of Trump keeping his campaign promises. Paul further defended the move, saying the president’s decision in Syria illustrates why he won the 2016 election.

This article contains the personal opinions of the author. The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the position of Mess of Media. This disclaimer appears on all articles that feature the personal opinions of the author, as Mess of Media is an unbiased and nonpartisan source of information.

 

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑