A fear many Trump supporters had before Trump was even elected was the so-called swamp actually being drained should he win the presidency. And although he made some progress in this endeavor by placing a few key people in influential positions such as Jeff Sessions as the Attorney General and Steve Bannon as his chief strategist, much of this progress has been thwarted or undone in recent days.
From Sessions recusing himself from inquiries into any matters related to investigations into Trump and Russia connections, a seemingly never ending conspiracy theory concocted by the left and Never Trumpers like John McCain, to Steve Bannon being removed from his position as chief strategist, the swamp seems to be filling up rather than being drained. And all this comes on the heels of Trump’s military action against Syria on April 6th.
The claim, once again, was made that Syria’s president Bashar Assad attached his own people with chemical weapons.
This same exact claim was made back in 2013!
But what is interesting back then was that it was never proven that Assad was the one who launched the attacks; a point to which even the New York Times omitted when they compiled a list of Assad’s alleged atrocities. Many people, including Carla del Ponte, a member of the U.N. Independent International Commission of Inquiry on Syria, said the 2013 gas attack in Syria appeared to have been launched by “Syrian rebels” and not the Assad government.
Additionally, The Daily Mail reported on leaked emails from a defense contractor getting approval from Washington D.C. to have U.S. controlled rebel groups launch the attacks and blame it on Assad who the U.S. has been eyeing for years to force out in a regime change. Fast-forward to 2017 and we’re witnessing deja vu. If at first you don’t succeed, try again?
However, this time before an investigation could even be launched, missiles were launched from what appears to be a trigger happy Trump. Just before the attack many anti-war figureheads and lawmakers were cautioning Trump not attack Syria, to conduct a proper investigation, and to, at the very least, bring all evidence before Congress and ask for permission for a proper declaration should the evidence be convincing enough. But Trump ignored everyone and conducted the strike anyway. Following the strike it was harder to determine if Trump did more damage the targeted air base in Syria or to his own support base.
Paul Joseph Watson of Infowars took to Twitter to declare, “I’m officially OFF the Trump train.” He later clarified that he wasn’t disavowing Trump but that he wasn’t about to be a Trump-bot and support everything Trump does, especially when it goes against what Trump said he would do prior to being elected. However, that didn’t stop mainstream media from having a field day with Paul’s comments. But Paul has not changed his opinion in general; he’s merely holding Trump’s feet to the fire, as everyone else should. In a tweet from March Paul said:
“If there’s one area Trump will f#@k up, it will be in foreign policy. Half of his advisors are CFR globalists. That swamp was not drained.”
That doesn’t sound like a Trump sycophant to me; it sounds like someone who demands a politician do what they say they will do. This principle is something that partisan political followers don’t seem to understand. Their mantra is ‘support your party no matter what they do, or what they fail to do.’ This is everything that is wrong with politics.
Much like the 2013 chemical weapon attacks; this attack has all the hallmarks of a false flag. That was Ron Paul’s assessment as well. Ron Paul said that there was “zero chance” Assad conducted these attacks by asking what possible benefit would launching such an attack bring to Assad. Why would Assad gas his own people; an action that would only please ISIS, the same group he’s been busy fighting against? It only makes sense if you don’t know what’s actually happening in Syria.
In a recent interview an Independent Canadian Journalist, Eva Bartlett, exposed the general media narrative as completely agenda driven and inaccurate.
Additionally, Tulsi Gabbard, a Congresswoman from Hawaii happened to meet with Assad in January. She got to see first hand what was actually happening in Syria. She was interviewed after she returned by CNN’s Jake Tapper who quickly tried to illicit a negative comment from her about Assad and reinforce the media’s narrative that he is a monster who killed thousands of his own people.
Gabbard responded by iterating that Assad was elected by the Syrian people in a fair election and she recounted her experience talking with people on the street who expressed admiration for their president and more notably asked her why the U.S. and their allies were giving weapons and aid to rebel groups like Al Nusra, Al Qaeda, and ISIS.
Tapper immediately tried to deny that the U.S. has been aiding ISIS and other terrorist groups but as we learned from Wikileaks email releases, the U.S. indeed has been involved in protecting and arming such groups. Gabbard then reiterated that everyone she spoke to on the ground in Syria said that there are no so-called ‘moderate’ rebel groups, further illustrating the lies the main stream media keeps pushing about what’s going on in Syria.
Following her visit to Syria in January Tulsi Gabbard and Rand Paul co-sponsored a bill called the Stop Arming Terrorists Act; an attempt to prevent the U.S. from sending any form of aid to known or suspected terrorist groups abroad. Following Trump’s Syria strike Gabbard criticized Trump’s actions on the Tucker Carlson Show, calling the action “counter productive” and “reckless.”
So who exactly has been cheering Trump’s Syria strike?
Jihadist’s, something Ron Paul also pointed out as a qui bono factor, neo-con’s and globalists like John McCain and Lindsay Graham, and war loving lap dog media and their counterparts, as Glenn Greenwald points out. And who has been criticizing him? The bulk of his biggest supporters and base. Apart from Paul Joseph Watson’s comments on the Syrian strike, Former UKIP leader Nigel Farage expressed concern saying that he was “very surprised” about the attacks and believed a lot of his base are likely ‘scratching their heads’ in disbelief over the attack.
Michael Savage, a man of whom Trump said “I wouldn’t be president without this man,” is now asking the questions, “Do you want war with Russia?” and “Who got to you, Mr. President?” Savage then asked “Who is whispering in your ear and could have made you make this dramatic change towards Russia in just three days?” This is a very good question. And some are speculating the answer are those closest to him. Not his top advisors, no; but none other than his own daughter and son–in-law.
This is not the first time his daughter has swayed her father.
During the first presidential debate Trump looked oddly lethargic as Hillary pounded him like a slab of meat, while Trump fans were waiting for that sudden Rocky comeback moment that never happened. It was later learned that Chelsea Clinton, long time friend of Ivanka Trump convinced her to ask her father to ‘play nice’ during the first debate, for which Trump clearly agreed to do with the understood promise that Hillary would play nice as well. Clearly that’s not what happened as we all witnessed, and thus Trump learned a valuable lesson, which is: never trust a Clinton.
However, the other lesson he didn’t seem to learn was that he couldn’t trust his own daughter either seeing as how she was the one ‘whispering’ in his ear in the first place to forego his better judgment. Then juxtapose that with Ivank’s husband Jared Kushner, a democrat whose father gave money to the Clinton’s. Kushner has also been accused of feeding talking points to MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough. Kushner and Bannon have been at odds ever since Trump brought his into the White House and the more influence Kushner and Ivanka seem to have over Trump the further from his base he gets.
As the Independent noted, Trump may face ‘open war’ from Breitbart News if Bannon is removed from the White House. After all, it was news outlets like Breitbart, Infowars, and Drudge who got Trump elected in the first place. If he completely betrays his base, they will turn on him. Time will tell how this all plays out but one of the best analyses I’ve heard of what is actually happening to Trump as we speak was laid out by, author and political commentator Joel Skousen in a recent interview on the Alex Jones Show.
The question now remains: will Trump turn course and not fully abandon his base or allow the Neo-Cons that he’s allowed himself to be surrounded by completely take over?