The Democrats keep implicating themselves in fresh scandals whenever they attack those that challenge them.

I think Mann might be a Democrat.

The GWPF are really annoying the Collaborators, on a far lower budget, their science matches reality, and the public understand value for money and common sense. Climate Science advances in the right direction, one failure after another.

Climate Science should have stayed out of politics, and not denied that Climate Science is bad politics. It is costing Politicians their careers.

Tomo

Scott Adams comments on CNN not even mentioning the Rice story:

...CNN apparently decided that the Susan Rice story was not important news. Coincidentally, this particular news also made them look like ridiculous turds for mocking the Trump “wiretapping” claim non-stop as a sign of the president’s character and perhaps his sanity.

We don’t know all the facts yet, but we do know that Trump’s claim of being “wiretapped” by Obama is starting to look dangerously close to something similar to the truth. CNN did not see that coming, and it would be awkward to walk-back all of their mocking. So they just sort of ignored it....

How a Hypnotist Sees a Verbal Slip

Heh, here's a TrumpSpeak translation: 'Many, many lines' means '59 lines'.
==================

Two things about Trump today.

1. The US bombing in Syria. If it was done because he was affected by pictures of "beautiful babies", while that might demonstrate the man's humanity, I'm far from convinced it's a rational basis for making such big policy decisions. And if the stories put out by the Syrians and Russians, (to the effect that the US bombing killed several civilians, including children) turn out to be true, then it makes his action a tad hypocritical at best. I fear the real reason for the bombing was to send an unmissable message to the Chinese about North Korea, given the US-China talks taking place at the moment. If that is the reason, I fear it's just crass. The situation in Syria is an appalling human disaster, but I think foreign intervention is unlikely to solve it, while potentially bringing with it a whole raft of further problems, some possibly foreseen in advance, others possibly not.

2. Today's terrible terrorist attack in Stockholm. It seems probable that it was an Islamic terror attack (certainly the picture of the man the police want to find looks Middle Eastern to me). Maybe this goes some way to vindicate to a modest attack what Trump said about Sweden, only to be howled down by the liberal elites and MSM. On the subject of which, I noticed that on this evening's 6pm news on Radio 4, the BBC managed to run the whole story without even mentioning the possibility that the perpetrator might be an Islamist. The BBC news website story similarly fails to discuss the possibility, though it does include this: " It is important at this stage, though, to keep an open mind about the perpetrator. It's not impossible that it was someone with personal, psychological problems, rather than a political motive."

Perhaps the BBC should just stick to reporting the facts.

Mark. It was noticeable that the BBC did not identify any islamic connection with the Westminster atrocity until many hours after the incident. I think this was caution, until authorities positively made a connection there was not even speculation. I suspect they were doing the same regarding the Stockholm incident.

Thanks, Mark, a Weapon of Crass Destruction.

It's an important signal to both Russia and China that a new sheriff is in town. We needed one.
============

Mark Hodgson, I think Trump's initial response, was to bomb the hell out of the bad guys, just like he said he would, before elected. The use of chemical weapons clearly gave him clear proof, confirmed by the Media, who the bad guys were.

He has been accused by the Media of being too close to Putin, and that was what was stopping him from intervening. (We do not know why Obama had not applied "pressure" on Putin.)

There may have been some questions about the legality of bombing the hell out of the bad guys, under International Law.

He would have been criticised if he was seen to be doing "not a lot".

He was damned what ever he did, or did not do. He reverted to his instinctive response, and bombed the hell out of the bad guys.

As kim points out, the world, including the US, now know there IS a new Sheriff in Town.

As you point out, China can not use US lack of action in Syria, as an excuse for not doing something to halt North Korean insanity. The US could offer suggestions and help to China about North Korea's leadership, and North Korea's Leadership now knows what that mght be. If the US and China agreed on how North Korea could be run by China, the biggest problem of instituting regime change (will the new regime be stable, reliable and compliant) would be solved.

There are too many fighting factions in Syria for either Russia or the US to decide on a new regime, and there is too much oil money in support of the various competing and fighting factions of the Moslem world.

Trump wants the US Military to be better equipped to fight, but does not want the long term financial burden of policing the "peace". The US has been policing the North/South Korea border throughout the reign of The Queen.

I have never been clear on Russia's motive for maintaining the status quo in Syria.

I think we should all take a step back on Assad for a minute. First off, it is a little known fact that he is the democratically elected leader of Syria, in UN supervised elections. Secondly the vast majority of the rebels aren't Syrian at all, and brutal beyond belief. Third he runs a secular country, which celebrates the festivals of all faiths. Fourth the Syrian army are winning the war and have been greeted with cheers and exultation in areas they have liberated. Fifth he's winning the war, the stupidest thing he could do was use chemical weapons. Not as clear cut as the MSM would have us believe.

But this is a Trump thread, and the media ridiculed Trump about Sweden some months ago.

We must trust the Progressively Elite Media, apparently.

Well well well geronimo. There's facts, fake news and downright untruths.

"First off, it is a little known fact that he is the democratically elected leader of Syria, in UN supervised elections".
Yeh right! In the 2000 and subsequent 2007 election, he received 99.7% and 97.6% support, respectively. A member of a rather small sect wins that proportion of the vote in a state composed of Sunnis and Shiites. Pull the other one.

"Secondly the vast majority of the rebels aren't Syrian at all, and brutal beyond belief".
I don't know the proportions now (what is your evidence for this?), but gassed children, babies and mothers are not brutal. Furthermore when the conflicts began, the vast majority of the rebels were indeed Syrian.

"Third he runs a secular country, which celebrates the festivals of all faiths."
His treatment of his own people would seem to suggest he and those around him have no faith.

"Fourth the Syrian army are winning the war and have been greeted with cheers and exultation in areas they have liberated".
The first part of this statement is rubbish. The Syrian government were losing the war until Russian intervention. The second part I doubt very much, but have nothing to refute your unsubstantiated claims.

"Fifth he's winning the war, the stupidest thing he could do was use chemical weapons."
But he, and his father, have used them before. He did have them, and it's entirely reasonable to suppose that his regime held some back. Yes it would be stupid to use them, but leaders do stupid things, and he got away with it before when Britain and the USA did nothing except bluster.

tomo. The link you give has the following:
"On April 4, 2017, the commander of No. 677 Squadron — Col. Yusuf Hasuri — received written orders from the Ba’ath Party headquarters in Damascus to arm two of his Sukhois with bombs filled with chemical agents. Syrian intelligence believed that leaders from Syrian jihadist group Hayat Tahrir Ash Sham were planning on meeting in the town of Khan Sheykhoun."
Where do you think this detailed information comes from? How can we be sure it's not fake? How come that site has the information and no other?

Regarding stupidity: with respect, arguing that someone wouldn't do something because it would be stupid to do so, is itself stupid. Stupidity is rampant.

tomo. Might I advise a truckload of NaCl with regard to this whole story. The "information" about "the meeting" presumably comes from the same source (Ouija board?). If the information comes from on the ground assets or from electronic surveillance then it's surely most unlikely that Medium Corporation had access to it, and if, by long chance, they did, they would have been shut down long since. A major part of the value of intelligence (especially of such high quality as this seems to be) is in the fact that those spied upon do not know that they are being.

Supertroll, I share your cynicism about election results. What you state is true in many countries, particularly in the Middle East, where voting with a "show of hands", does not necessarily mean one man, two votes, or one vote.

It now seems the Syrian Air Force is trying to prove they are still capable of flying. Trump may be considering a "Nothing Capable of Flying Zone". If so, the owners of planes not actually "Syrian", may want to fly them away.

"Well well well geronimo. There's facts, fake news and downright untruths."

She's telling lies?

"Well well well geronimo. There's facts, fake news and downright untruths."

She's telling lies?