{"id":34368,"date":"2017-04-10T16:13:03","date_gmt":"2017-04-10T23:13:03","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.newscorpse.com\/ncWP\/?p=34368"},"modified":"2017-04-10T16:21:31","modified_gmt":"2017-04-10T23:21:31","slug":"john-mccain-says-trump-admins-rhetoric-was-partially-to-blame-for-chemical-attack-in-syria","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newscorpse.com\/ncWP\/?p=34368","title":{"rendered":"John McCain Says Trump Admin’s Rhetoric Was ‘Partially to Blame” for Chemical Attack in Syria"},"content":{"rendered":"

Donald Trump’s demonstration of impotent machismo last week is beginning to get the scrutiny it deserves. The national press initially fawned over his missile attacks on Syria, suggesting that he had finally become “presidential.”<\/em> It was an embarrassing display of the media’s war fetishism.<\/p>\n

\"Donald
\n<\/a><\/p>\n

It didn’t take but a few hours for reality to set in regarding the wisdom (or lack thereof) of Trump’s pointless aggression. The bombed airstrips were back in use the next day, and there was no perceptible impact on Assad’s barbarism.<\/p>\n

On Face the Nation<\/a><\/strong> (video below), host John Dickerson asked Sen. John McCain about the strike. McCain indicated his general support for military action and the “message”<\/em> it would deliver to Assad and other brutal tyrants. However he also noted that the failure to do any sustained damage rendered the mission ineffective. But McCain went on to express an even more startling opinion regarding Trump’s first act as Commander-in-Chief:<\/p>\n

Dickerson:<\/strong> Do you think the administration did anything to encourage this behavior by the Syrians by saying that the Syrian people would determine Assad\u2019s fate? And that removing him is not a priority? Things that were said before the use of chemical weapons?<\/p>\n

McCain:<\/strong> I think it probably was partially to blame. And Secretary Tillerson basically is saying the same thing. After kind of contradicting himself and then saying the same thing, argues vigorously for a plan and a strategy.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

That’s a rather damning assertion coming from a senior Republican and chairman of the Senate Committee on Armed Services. It’s the sort of blame that Republicans usually reserve to malign President Obama. But it isn’t the first time that a Republican has observed the potential harm of weak leadership. Former Vice-President Dick Cheney, seeking to ramp up the fear quotient during George W. Bush’s reelection, said this:<\/p>\n

“Terrorist attacks are not caused by the use of strength; they are invited by the perception of weakness.”<\/strong><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The unintended implication of that is that the 9\/11 terrorists perceived weakness on the part of Bush which invited them to attack. The same could be attributed now to Assad perceiving such weakness in Trump. After all, after Obama forced Assad to relinquish the chemical weapons he had at the time, Assad never tried to use them again during Obama’s tenure. It wasn’t until Trump came into office that he felt he could risk it.<\/p>\n

It’s more than a little curious that both Bush and Trump had a foreign policy crisis early in their terms. In Bush’s case, he was suffering from low poll numbers and much of the nation didn’t consider him legitimate due to the Florida election controversies and the Supreme Court eventually deciding the presidency. His invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq bolstered his public image. Similarly, Trump has the worst poll numbers ever for a new president. And now he has an excuse to start another war. Does this prove anything conclusively? Nope. I’m just sayin. Particularly in light of this tweet by Trump in 2012:<\/p>\n

\n

Now that Obama\u2019s poll numbers are in tailspin \u2013 watch for him to launch a strike in Libya or Iran. He is desperate.<\/p>\n

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 9, 2012<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n