DebateGate

The cruel hypocrisy of Trump’s sudden concern for Syrian children
Updated by Jessica Goudeau, Vox.Com, Apr 11, 2017, 3:42pm EDT

“No child of God should ever suffer such horror.”

That was the critical line in Donald Trump’s statement explaining his decision to bomb a Syrian airbase in response to the April 4 chemical attackin Khan Sheikhoun, Syria.

I couldn’t agree more with that sentence. In this view, at least, Trump is right: No child should ever endure such horror.

I began working with refugees in Austin, Texas, in 2007, and in a decade of being friends with, supporting, and interviewing refugees from dozens of countries around the world, I have heard countless stories of atrocities. None compare to the horror happening in Syria.

I wept when I saw the latest viral picture of the war in Syria, the one of Abdel Hameed Alyousef holding his twin toddlers. The twins look like the Syrian children who came over to my house for dinner a few weeks ago and played in my daughters’ playroom. No wonder their parents, who are newly resettled refugees in Austin, love them fiercely — all children are precious, but not all children face the horrifying dangers that threaten Syria’s babies.

Reportedly, pictures like that are one of the reasons Trump has suddenly reversed his Syrian policy. If it is genuine, I support Donald Trump’s turn toward the children of Syria.

But I am deeply skeptical. After all, this is the man who said about Syrian refugee children: “I can look in their faces and say ‘You can't come.’ I'll look them in the face.” This is a man who is fighting in court to keep Syrian refugees out of the United States.

If Donald Trump’s sudden reversal in rhetoric and policy is a true change of heart toward Syrian civilians, who are facing one of the greatest humanitarian crises in the history of the world, there will be one clear indicator: whether he reverses his travel ban. Until then, his words of concern for the children of Syria will remain just that: words.

“The war in Syria is a war against children”

No one should suffer nerve agent attacks like the recent one in Khan Sheikhoun, or in 2013 in Ghouta.

As Trump said of the most recent attack, “Assad choked out the lives of helpless men, women, and children. It was a slow and brutal death for so many — even beautiful babies were cruelly murdered in this very barbaric attack.”

There have also been chlorine gas attacks in other Syrian cities like Damascus, Aleppo, and Homs. A report by Syrian American Medical Society stated there were 161 documented chemical attacks and 133 unverified ones against civilians in Syria between 2011 and 2016; more have occurred since that report came out. In all, more than 1,500 Syrian civilians have been killed and more than 15,000 have sustained injuries by chemical weapons attacks.

Chemical weapons are just some of the many ways Syrian president Bashar al-Assad kills children in his country. From my former refugee friends, I have heard of the devious ways the government attacks civilians with no regard for children: In one city, government forces positioned missile launchers in the soccer fields so they could better reach the civilian neighborhoods. In a rural part of the country, one woman had her weeks-old baby in the car with her when her husband ran over a landmine; the baby lived, but has a badly burned body.

Another family tells the story of how, after their home was bombed, they moved to a relative’s house, which was then bombed, and then they went to a third house of friends, which was also bombed. The children barely escaped with their lives each time. And these are just a handful of the atrocities — there are more than 5 million Syrians seeking asylum outside of their country and more than 6 million who are internally displaced.

I worked with a woman who used the pseudonym Nadia Al Moualem to write a first-person piece for Vox. In our interview, she made an offhand comment that haunts me: The war in Syria is a war against children. She and her husband named many ways children had been targeted by the Assad regime: The revolution started in March 2011 when people in Daraa protested the brutal torture of a group of school boys by the military police. A few months later, photos of the tortured body an apple-cheeked boy named Hamza Al-Khatib helped unite anti-government protests to full-on revolution.

And it’s not just Assad’s troops: ISIS has also been documented torturing children in Syria. There are too many instances to recount. Children are often killed in the indiscriminate bombing by government forces; children left alive are so miserable, some beg to die. The Twitter account of Bana Alabed, a 7-year-old Syrian girl living in Aleppo, held the riveted attention of the world while her government bombed her city.

And the stories of displaced Syrian children are just as grim, as witnessed by pictures of the body of Aylan Kurdi the 3-year-old boy who drowned near Turkey while his family desperately tried to find a place where they could be safe. Or Omran Daqneesh, the 5-year-old boy whose shell-shocked expression stunned the world after Syrian forces bombed his home in Aleppo.

If Trump cares so much about Syrian children, will he stop fighting for his refugee ban?

Since he announced his bid for the presidency, I have watched in disbelief and frustration at the rhetoric and policies Donald Trump has championed against refugees. I have wanted to say to Trump and other politicians: Don’t you know who refugees are? Don’t you realize they are the victims, not the perpetrators, of terrorism and war? Don’t you understand that any parent would make the same decisions to protect their children?

One Syrian-American told me: “After Trump’s decision to block Syrian refugees from resettling in the US, many of those refugees, who went through months and sometimes years of vetting after applying to come to the US, have been sent back to danger and death due to his policies. And now he wants to help the Syrian civilians? The same ones who are being denied refuge to the US? It is very hypocritical.”

Maybe Trump is that mercurial in his views on Syrian civilians, many of whom have had to become asylum-seekers and refugees; his foreign policy certainly seems impulsive. The debate about the efficacy of the Trump administration firing Tomahawk missiles into Syria after the chemical weapons attack in Khan Sheikhoun is ongoing.

I spoke with a Syrian-American man who works closely with the refugee community in Texas, and his view summarizes what many in that community are saying: The strike “is yet another example of a slap on the hand whenever Assad massacres Syrians.” While the rest of the world tries to decide what Trump means and what he’s going to do next, he says, “humanity goes to waste and Syrian lives are destroyed.”

Meanwhile, Trump lawyers filed court documents on Friday, the day after his statement in defense of Syrian children, that continued the fight to reinstate the travel ban that keeps Syrian refugees out of our country. Trump’s hypocrisy is just one more example of how the world has failed the children of Syria.

Allowing more Syrian refugees, who have already gone through the extensive vetting process, entry to the United States is one of many solutions to the suffering Syrians are facing; it impacts a very small percentage of the millions of displaced Syrians. But it would indicate a true policy shift by the Trump administration and show that the children of Syria are more than a pawn in Trump’s confusing, capricious foreign policy.

"I don't know what it means to be complicit..."

Seems pretty straightforward to me. Maybe daddy shoulda bought her a degree from a college that took time to teach her a broader vocabulary.

Ivanka Trump: 'I don't know what it means to be complicit.'

Yeah, how long after Oblather's election did we keep hearing Trump and the birthers keep claiming he wasn't an American citizen?

WH: ‘There’s a Double Standard’ in Outrage When Intelligence Leaks Occur
By Melanie Arter | March 8, 2017 | 6:32 PM EST

The White House complained Wednesday of a double standard in the way the media and Democrats respond to reports of intelligence leaks depending on who the target is.

“It’s interesting how there’s a double standard with when the leaks occur, how much outrage there is,” White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said, adding, “I think it’s interesting how different subjects are approached.”

Spicer was asked to confirm whether there was a criminal investigation into the alleged theft of cyber tools from the CIA by Wikileaks, which alleged that the intelligence agency can hack into smart TVs, cell phones, and other devices to spy on Americans.

Spicer said he could not confirm the “authenticity” of the report’s claims.

“For obvious reasons, it is our policy as a government not to confirm the authenticity of any kind of disclosure or hack. That would be highly inappropriate for us, but all of these occurred under the last administration. That is important,” he said.

“All of these alleged issues, and I think it’s interesting to have it asked this way about the damage that could have occurred or what tools could be used in light of what’s been going on recently. I mean we’ve had-- your own network’s correspondent James Rosen had his phones, multiple phones tapped. Was that appropriate back then? I think there’s a lot of concern out there about alleged leaks,” Spicer said.

“There’s two steps to this, and I think what you saw over the last week in terms of-- this should be a major concern to people in terms of the leaks that are coming out and the desire to get to the bottom of them whether or not - not specifically with respect to the disclosure that you’re referring to - but I think the idea that we are having these ongoing disclosures of national security and classified information should be something that everybody is outraged in this country,” he said.

Trump tweeted Sunday that former President Barack Obama had Trump Tower wiretapped during the election. Before that he complained about intelligence leaks regarding former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, who spoke to the Russian ambassador prior to the inauguration.

"The real scandal here is that classified information is illegally given out by 'intelligence' like candy. Very un-American!" Trump tweeted at the time.

Spicer emphasized Wednesday that anyone found leaking classified material will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

“And make no mistake about it, I think the president has talked before that anybody who leaks classified information will be held to the highest degree of law. We will go after people who leak classified information. We will prosecute them to the full extent of the law,” Spicer said.

Spicer said it seems that lately, public outrage depends on the target of the leaks.

“This is the kind of disclosure that undermines our country, our security, and our well-being, and you’ve seen over the last two years, depending on the leak, it depends on the outrage,” he said.

“It’s interesting how whenever-- whether the leak occurred under the last administration, you had member after member talking about disclosures that occurred during the last administration, whether it was members of Congress. Elijah Cummings expressed concern during the last administration in terms of the Americans that were-- when it dealt with Hillary Clinton, there was complete outrage about the leaks that occurred, members calling for investigations into the leaks,” Spicer said.

“It’s interesting how there’s a double standard with when the leaks occur, how much outrage there is, and so I do think it’s important. While I don’t want to get into confirming or denying this particular thing, I think it’s interesting how different subjects are approached. This one, everyone is immediately rushing to, and there should be a lot more coverage of this. This alleged leak should concern every single American in terms of the impact it has on our national security,” he added.

Spicer was later asked whether Trump still loves Wikileaks as he said during the presidential election when Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton was targeted.

“When it came to the campaign and Hillary Clinton, the president said, ‘I love Wikileaks.’ Does he still feel that way today?” a reporter asked.

“There is a big difference between disclosing John Podesta’s gmail accounts about a back and forth and his undermining of Hillary Clinton and his thoughts on her on a personal nature and the leaking of classified information,” Spicer said.

“There is a massive, massive difference between those two things, and I think it is again, the interest and the outrage that occurred last year by a lot of Democrats when it came to leaks, it’s interesting that we’re hearing not as much outrage now when it comes to some of our issues of national security,” he said.

==========

Uh, yeah...

Oct 10, 2016 - Trump then began reading from sheets of paper some of the details of Clinton's hacked emails. ... “I love WikiLeaks,” he told listeners.

Because its informative.  That's why bother.

Really? I get several dozen news feeds a day, from AP, CNN, Fox, NY Times, Washington Post, WSJ, AFP, BBC, CBC, online editions of papers from around the world, and other websites. Informative, to me, is hearing - well, actually seeing - what folks here think themselves. I figured why not, give it a shot, see if we might get some discussions going. Maybe, just maybe, even attract some new posters, get some fresh blood into the group. Well, apparently the topic attracted readers, but no one stuck around, perhaps as disappointed as I was.

..... So what else would you like to talk about Flynn?

Sorry, old news.

Flynn may have been a "victim", but unlike Sessions, who had a perfectly legal postition, as a senator, to dialog with any Ambassador, including the Russian Ambassador, Flynn was still a private citizen when he was speaking to the Russian Government.  Doesn't matter he was going to be part of a Trump Administration.  He wasn't being up front, and kind of hung Pense out to dry, when he defended Flynn's original position, that he had absolutely no contact.

In whatever effort he felt obligated to faciltate possible actions to lessen the tension between the U.S. & Russia, he messed up, and appropriately tendered his resignation.

The Sessions' molehill is nothing but a molehill, and showcasing Democrats acting utterly desperate. 

The wiretapping tweet was a ridiculous tactic, and diminishes that great joint congress speech he gave last week.

The problem with Sessions isn't that he had contact with the Russian ambassador, or that it was legal to do so. It is that he lied, or at a minimum tried to cover up the fact that he had such contact, under oath. Bubba had every legal right to get a blowjob in the Oval Office, the crime was lying about it under oath.

Cu4, with all due respect....it's an allegation....of a former President, with not a shred of any evidence to support it.  We're appropriately giving substantial grief to the Dems for trying to allege some intimate collusion between Trump & the Russians, with the elections, without a shred of proof.  Why would we not hold ourselves to the same standard?? 

Now, I wouldn't put it past the Democrats and Obama to have pulled such a felonious stunt, but tweeting the accusation was childish.  He won the election, its done with it.  Why bring this up?...in a tweet no less??  Send a memo of concern to the FBI, and if they find something, THEN tweet it,... with fanfare even.

Obama did not begin most of these programs. Some had their beginnings before Bush - in fact, some have been plodding along for decades. But they took off after 9/11 under Bush, when Americans clamored for security at all costs and were willing to trade their freedoms for it. Remember the Patriot Act everyone wanted to 'protect' them? Those of us who tried to warn against it then were shouted down and ignored.

I worked at the National Security Agency in the late 70's and early 80's. I had a pretty good perspective what their monitoring capabilities were then, and with a tech background it wasn't difficult to see what was coming if it wasn't kept in check. It wasn't. As personal computers, cell phones, 'smart' phones and 'smart' technology has grown, so has the government's ability to use our own tech to gather information - on us. And if they can, so can anyone else with the tech skills, and inevitably, if anyone can, someone will.

Now, here's what may be hard for some to swallow - Obama, nor anyone at DOJ, FBI, CIA, whatever, needed to order any kind of taps or monitoring. If telephones, emails, any sort of electronic transmission at all was used, more than likely the recording was automatic. All that was required was someone to dig up the relevant data (from the vast amount collected each day on everyone) and leak it. Anyone with access might have done it, and that number runs into the thousands of NSA, CIA or other government employees or contractors. Remember Snowden? So you, or Trump, can yell 'Obama' all you want, but you are overlooking the much greater possibility - and danger - it was someone else.

Thought I might get some actual comments or discussion of Flynn's resignation, firing, whichever way they want to spin it. All I saw was the same old recycled crap...Obama blah blah blah...Clinton blah blah blah...'S okay, you all keep pissing and moaning the same old line. There's a lot going on out there right NOW, but if you have no interest in discussing it, so be it. I'm guessing now X is gone and it's just the good ol' boys, that's good enough for you.

An old story and nothing but a link...

Same old tired shit.