Mediaboss Marketing

"With respect to Assad, there is a political reality that we have to accept in terms of where we are right now," White House spokesman Sean Spicer said on March 31. "We need to focus on now defeating ISIS." (Reuters)

Conservatives who excoriated President Barack Obama for acquiescence to genocide in Syria should be just as vocal when it comes to the Trump administration. Indeed, the Trump administration seems to have thrown in the towel entirely on seeking to oust Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, thereby consenting to Irans effective domination of the country and to Russias success in defending its allies Iran and Syria.

On Thursday, both Secretary of State Rex Tillerson and Nikki Haley, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations,let it be known that the United States no longer seeks Assads ouster:

The United States diplomatic policy on Syria for now is no longer focused on making the war-torn countrys president, Bashar al-Assad, leave power, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations said on Thursday, in a departure from the Obama administrations initial and public stance on Assads fate.

The view of the Trump administration is also at odds with European powers, who insist Assad must step down. The shift drew a strong rebuke from at least two Republican senators. . . .

In Ankara on Thursday, U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said Assads longer-term status will be decided by the Syrian people.

In a written statement, Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) argued that the statements signaled a shift to a Faustian bargain with Assad and [Russian President Vladimir] Putin sealed with an empty promise of counterterrorism cooperation. He warned: Such a policy would only exacerbate the terrorist threat to our nation. Not only would we make ourselves complicit in Assad and Putins butchery that has led to more than 400,000 Syrians killed and six million refugees, but we would empower ISIS, al-Qaeda and other radical Islamist terrorists as the only alternative to the dictator that the Syrian people have fought for six years to remove. McCain concluded: Trying to fight [the Islamic State] while pretending that we can ignore the Syrian civil war that was its genesis and fuels it to this day is a recipe for more war, more terror, more refugees, and more instability. I hope President Trump will make clear that America will not follow this self-destructive and self-defeating path.

Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) likewise denounced the apparent decision. If the press reports are accurate and the Trump Administration is no longer focusing on removing Assad, I fear it will be the biggest mistake since President Obama failed to act after drawing a red line against Assads use of chemical weapons, Graham said in a written statement. To suggest that Assad is an acceptable leader for the Syrian people is to ignore the wholesale slaughter of the Syrian people by the Assad regime. Leaving him in power is also a great reward for Russia and Iran.

Outside foreign policy experts were puzzled.

Robert Satloff of the Washington Institute for Near East Policy told me: There remain at least two key unknowns: 1) Will the Trump Administration truly counter Irans regional ambitions in Syria, as it has promised to do (and which the Obama administration refused to do lest such a policy threaten the Iran nuclear deal)? 2) Will the Trump administration take the necessary steps post-victory in Raqqa to ensure that Sunni grievances are addressed in such a way that son-of-ISIS does not emerge from the ashes of ISIS? He continued: If the answer to both questions is yes, then the Administration will find itself taking measures that have the effect of driving Assad from power, even without declaring that as a goal, since Assad cannot long survive in a Syria in which Iran is on the defensive and Sunni grievances are addressed. If, however, the answer to either of these questions is no, then Assad could be around for a long, long time. In other words, rather than correcting the horrendous Obama policy, Republicans will have made it their own.

Is this a definitive policy decision?Frankly, its hard to know precisely what the administration intends, because Tillerson declines to interact with the media and the State Department no longer bothers to hold press briefings. Whether it is irreparable or permanent is the question, said Eric Edelman, former U.S. ambassador to Turkey. A good secretary, like George Shultz, understands that there is enormous subject matter expertise at State but little in the way of political judgment. The mark of a good secretary is to co-opt the knowledge and put [it] in the service of policy. So far, I cant tell whether or not that is happening but the initial auguries are not good. Conservatives who blasted Obama for the very same policies have no justification for refusal to do the same when a Republican administration follows his amoral and strategically disastrous policies.

Read the rest here:
Team Trump doubles down on Obama's horrendous betrayal of Syria - Washington Post (blog)

Earlier this week, liberals accused White House press secretary Sean Spicer of being racist and sexist for telling veteran White House reporter April Ryan to stop shaking her head.But newly resurfaced video reveals that Robert Gibbs, former White House press secretary under former President Barack Obama, once said much worse to the American Urban Radio Networksreporter even comparing Ryan to his child.

Ryan asked Gibbs in December 2009 about former Obama social secretary Desiree Rogers seemingly wallowing in the spotlight at the first official state dinner of the Obama administration.Traditionally, the social secretarys responsibility at such functions is to act as a gatekeeper, ensuring that only those who were invited to the event were allowed in, according to the Washington Post.

That evening, Michaele and Tareq Salahi managed to crash the White House event, a security breach that prompted a congressional investigation. Some observers at the time, speculated the Salahis security breach may have been a direct result of Rogers actions.

Weeks after the incident, Ryan asked Gibbs about the stunning breach.

Is there concern in this White House that she came out being, someone might have called her [Rogers] the bell of the ball, overshadowing the first lady, Ryan asked.

Gibbs responded, I havent heard that.

Ryan followed up, saying, Its been bantered around Washington.

Thats not a station I live in, Gibbs replied.

Ryan continued to press, pleading with Gibbs to just answer the question, please.

Are you done speaking so I can? a testy Gibbs shot back.

Oh, yes, Im done, Ryan assured.

Gibbs reiterated that he had not heard that particular criticism.

The President, the first lady, and the entire White House staff are grateful for the job [Rogers] doesand thinks she has done a terrific and wonderful job pulling off a lot of big and important events here at the White House, he said.

Ryan wasnt satisfied with that answer.

[Rogers] came by herself to this state dinner, did the president invite her? Ryan asked, as Gibbs attempted to call on another reporter.

No, thats a real question. Do not fan it off, Ryan said. Did she invite herself when the president asked when her name was going on the list, and social secretaries are the ones that put their names on that list?

Was she at the dinner? April, April, calm down. Take a deep breath. Now see? I do this with my son and thats what happens, Gibbs said.

That comment was followed up with a collective ohhh from the White House press corps.

Dont play with me. Im being serious, Ryan shot back.

Was she at the dinner? Yes, shes the social secretary, Gibbs continued.

Social secretaries are not guests of the dinner, Ryan pointed out.

Gibbs replied, Im going to get back to weightiertopics like 98,000 men and women in Afghanistan.

Original post:
Flashback: Former Obama press secretary once told April Ryan to 'calm down' - TheBlaze.com

Story highlights

On the Senate floor earlier this month, McCain accused Paul of "working for (Russian President) Vladimir Putin" when Paul objected to a resolution on allowing Montenegro to join NATO. Paul later fired back at McCain by saying the 80-year-old senator made "a really strong case for term limits." He added he was "past his prime" and "gotten a little bit unhinged."

Paul did not back down when asked about McCain on the Sean Hannity radio program.

"You know, I thought the old McCarthyism got kind of old," Paul said. "Calling people communists, calling people friends of Russia, I thought that was so 1950s. I really thought we're beyond that. I take it pretty seriously because when somebody in the Senate calls another senator basically a traitor to their country, you think that somebody ought to be rebuked for that?"

A McCain spokeswoman didn't immediately respond to Paul's comment.

Here is the original post:
Sen. Rand Paul accuses John McCain of McCarthyism ...

Sen. Rand Paul speaks in Washington on Feb. 15, 2017. Bill ClarkCQ-Roll Call,Inc.

Paul is the junior U.S. Senator for Kentucky

President Donald Trump said in his inaugural address : Weve defended other nations borders, while refusing to defend our own.

I couldnt agree more.

Today, the question is: Will we add yet another commitment to defend yet another foreign country?

For decades, NATO has been an organization where the U.S. disproportionately spends our blood and treasure. The other NATO countries have largely hitched a ride to the U.S. train that subsidizes their defenses and allows them to direct their revenues to domestic pursuits.

Adding a country with fewer than 2,000 soldiers to NATO is not in our self-interest. There is no national security interest that an alliance with Montenegro will advance. If we invite Montenegro into NATO, it will be a one-way street with the U.S. committing to defend yet another country.

Advocates of allowing Montenegro to join NATO admit as much. The Senate hearing on admitting Montenegro to NATO was really just a Russia-bashing session. Not one word was said of how allowing Montenegro into NATO would advance our national security. Even the citizens of Montenegro are divided on entry into NATO. Fewer than 40% favor joining NATO and approximately the same percentage of Montenegrins oppose joining NATO.

Those who want to allow Montenegro into NATO believe that unless the whole world joins NATO, Russia will conquer the world. The truth is, as always, more complicated.

During the Cold War , the myth of Russian might was endlessly circulated here at home and the effect was the production of endless munitions and ever-expanding debt. The Cold War ended and the Soviet Union failed, not because our military might overcame them but because their economic system was fundamentally flawed and our economic system outlasted them.

Now, we are told we must fear the Russian Bear once again. But if you look closely you will see that Russian aggression around the world, particularly among the former Soviet satellites, is an attempt to mask a weak economy that runs the same risk of over-extension. Without question, Russia is an adversary, a country that ignores international norms and does not respect the territorial integrity of its neighbors. But Russia is weak because of corruption, oligarchy and human rights abuses. If Russia continues on this path, they may well encounter the same cataclysm that brought down the Soviet empire.

This debate today is not just about Montenegro but about NATO expansion in general. The same cheerleaders for admitting Montenegro also recklessly pushed to admit Ukraine and Georgia; if they were still members, we could right now be at war with Russia.

From the very beginning, our republic was founded with a deep suspicion of entangling alliances. Our founders wanted to do everything possible to avoid the chronic wars of Europe, where, for centuries, kings from one nation fought their brothers or cousins in other nations. The endless, meaningless wars of fratricide continued even into the 20th century.

Washington wrote that our true policy is to steer clear of permanent alliance with any portion of the foreign world. Jefferson famously wrote, peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling alliances with none.

In modern times, such military heroes as President Eisenhower opposed intervention in Hungary, even when the naked aggression of the Soviets was appalling. Eisenhower likely had no real opportunity to militarily intervene before 200,000 Soviet troops with 4000 tanks rolled into Hungary. But at least part of the decision was a realpolitick decision that risking a nuclear confrontation with Russia did not justify war.

Fast forward to today. For 16 years the US has been at war in the Middle East. Our justified response to the attacks of 9/11 has dragged on and on. The vote Congress made to authorize military force against the planners and attackers of the World Trade Centers is now used to justify all military action anywhere around the world.

That vote is now used to justify war around the globe in dozens of countries. It is a lie and a disservice to our young men and women in uniform to have them fight under false pretenses. No active war involving the U.S. anywhere around the globe has been approved by Congress.

Our unrestricted, un-voted upon involvement in war everywhere informs my opposition to expanding NATO. Everyone likes to talk of NATOs Article 5 obligation to come to the defense of any NATO ally that is attacked. Many in Congress believe that Article 5 of the NATO alliance farms out the power to declare war to an international body.

David Fromkin put it this way: If it is now agreed by treaty that an attack on a... NATO ally is deemed an attack on the United states, then it can be argued that the President is empowered without Congressional authorization to send us war.

This is the crux of the debate: Congress abdicating its role in declaring war.

So, NATO. Should we expand it? Perhaps what we should do is make it clear that the NATO treaty is not a blind, open-ended promise to go to war anywhere and everywhere.

I continue to believe and will advocate for always having an official vote in Congress before we declare war.

More here:
Sen. Rand Paul: Montenegro Joining NATO Is Against US Interests - TIME

5564150

Conservative news giant Matt Drudge had high praise for Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul after meeting him for an intriguing lunch this week.

Intriguing lunch in hill office of Americas best senator, Rand Paul, Drudge wrote on Twitter. Hes bold, brave and has somehow kept his heart in such a corrupt city. (RELATED: Should Be Sued For Fraud Matt Drudge Unloads On Republicans)

Rand Paul (Getty Images)

Matt Drudge has a phenomenal take on the news and is a leader who others in the business can only hope to emulate, Sergio Gor, a spokesman for Paul, told Business Insider. We enjoyed visiting with him, and we share a strong mutual admiration!

Drudge is known for living a rather secretive lifestyle and rarely gives interviews or attends public events.

His website, the influential Drudge Report, was one of the early promoters of Donald Trumps presidential campaign.

Follow Hasson on Twitter @PeterJHasson

Visit link:
'America's Best Senator' -- Drudge Praises Rand Paul After 'Intriguing Lunch' - Daily Caller