by Roger Stone, 2017
Posted on 04/16/2018 10:23:08 AM PDT by WisconsinRep
Unless it’s a full war, I don’t understand why people are more mad about this than Trump signing the budget.
Oh I see..so any conservative who thinks risking WW3 over a highly questionable chemical attack is a simple minded dolt who has to rely on Alex Jones in order to formulate a geopolitical stance.
Why don't you stop reading National Review and the rest of the neo-con drivel and start thinking for yourself? You make us deplorable conservatives sound crazy.
Speaking of Eliot Spitzer, I am pretty sure I saw him walking out of the courthouse on TV footage a few hours ago, the same courthouse where S Daniels and her lawyer were expected to appear.
Give it time, son.
I guess we should have elected Roger Stone as President...
What a drama queen. Dropping a few bombs in Syria isn't going to start WWIII. All it does is make Russia and Assad expend more resources and work harder.
Assuming the attack was staged as as crazy as 9/11 truther nonsense. It's crazy.
I answered that. Assad thought he could get away with it AGAIN with the help of the Russians.
He's committed 50 such attacks and most have gone undetected.
He and Russia want to win faster and easier. Chemical weapons accomplish that goal.
Paranoia blocks out reason. The staged chemical attacks are as crazy as the 9/11 truth nonsense. Everything is a conspiracy.
Flashback:
Award-winning Journalist Says Syria Did Not Use Chemical Weapons
The New American | 27 June 2017
According to Seymour Hersh, a journalist who has won the Pulitzer Prize, President Donald Trump ordered the bombing of Syria in April, despite having no evidence that the Bashar al-Assad government had used chemical weapons in the Syrian Civil War. In fact, Hersh contends that Trump ignored evidence to the contrary when he used 59 Tomahawk missiles to bomb Syria in retaliation against the Assad regime.
“None of this makes any sense,” Hersh reported one U.S. officer saying upon hearing of the planned bombing raid on Syria. “We KNOW that there was no chemical attack.… Claiming we have the real intel and know the truth … I guess it didn’t matter whether we elected Clinton or Trump,” the officer lamented.
...
The ad hominem attack that Trump fired him when he found out he was nuttier than a Payday bar?
Or that the candidate he supported before him before was quite literally a whore?
Sources: Roger Stone quit, wasn’t fired by Trump in campaign shakeup
Trump says he fired his campaign adviser. His adviser says he fired Trump.
https://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/sources-roger-stone-quit-wasnt-fired-by-donald-trump-in-campaign-shakeup-121177
...
Roger Stone > 2016–present: Trump ‘16 and Russia
Stone served as an advisor to the 2016 presidential campaign of Donald Trump. Stone left the campaign on August 8, 2015 amid controversy, with Stone claiming he quit and Trump claiming that Stone was fired. Despite this, Stone still supported Trump. A few days later, Stone wrote an op-ed called “The man who just resigned from Donald Trump’s campaign explains how Trump can still win” for Business Insider.
Despite calling Stone a “stone-cold loser” in a 2008 interview and accusing him of seeking too much publicity in a statement shortly after Stone left the campaign, Donald Trump praised him during an appearance in December 2015 on Alex Jones’ radio show that was orchestrated by Stone. “Roger’s a good guy,” Trump said. “He’s been so loyal and so wonderful.” Stone remained an informal advisor to and media surrogate for Trump throughout the campaign.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Stone#2016%E2%80%93present:_Trump_%2716_and_Russia
You're insane. Playing chicken with the world's second largest nuclear power is every neo cons wet dream. Wake me up when you come back to reality princess.
Blitheringly uninformed or nuts. Or both.
Trump choosing an answer with Alex Jones that would move the discussion to what he really wanted to talk about.
In this raid, Russia blinked.
So Russia has NO capacity to retaliate simply because you present a pic of rusty old submarines? I suppose they don’t have ICBMs any more; nor do they have the ability to hack our power grid.
We can crush Russia anytime we want; what you moronic war hawks don’t seem to comprehend is that the risk/reward ratio over questionable chemical attacks simply is not worth it.
Russia's means of retaliation would be turning off the tap.
And their leftover military equipment from the 90's (and earlier) are toxic waste....except for the ICBM's they never use?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.