Thought for the Day

There was a time when the President of the USA was a politician backed by a political party, one thinks of FDR and the Democrats, Reagan and the Republicans. Since January 2017 it has become clear that the Presidency is now occupied by a brand management team that has no party affiliation, and whose dedicated cause is Promotion of the Brand for Commercial Gain. It looks like this:

Promotion of the Brand = Increased Brand recognition = increased market share =more paying customers = more profit.

Prior to 2017 the Brand relied on Joe Public and the rich, but particularly the super-rich to maintain its brand success, on the basis of which money could be borrowed from Banks for new investments. Capturing the Presidency gives the Brand its most phenomenal asset -the assets of the US public, and the determination to transfer those assets from the people to the Presidency and its family members. Because this is a Commercial, rather than a Political Presidency, everything is now about the Brand, not least the air strike in Syria, which had the primary intention of maintaining brand recognition. With over 2,500 troops on the ground in Syria, set to rise to over 5,000 over the rest of this year, the lack of any clear military objective other than assisting the Kurds in 'destroying Daesh' in Raqqa underlines the fact that these armed service personnel are in Syria to promote the Presidential brand, as it is against the interests of the USA to be involved in the war in Syria, whereas it would be in the USA's interest to be using diplomacy to bring the warring parties to the negotiating table. But, given that, with the exception of McMaster, the only expertise in the Presidential administration is making money, it is no surprise that on any given day since Janaury 2017 nobody has a clear idea of what policy is on a wide range of issues.

None of this matters, as the key purpose of the commercial Presidency is to make money, not policy. This was made clear when the divided Republican Party in Congress failed to agree on the amendments to health care. The reaction of the Presidency was simple, to walk away. 'Health care? Been there. Done that. Moved on'.

It is no longer surprising, but it is depressing to see intelligent Americans who should know better, crawling on their hands and knees to slurp at the Presidential piss, just because a few Tomahawks hit a runway and some buildings in Syria. If this is what it takes to get bright people on board the commercial express, where will they be when they are asked to pay for their tickets and find the cost is higher than they imagined? One can only hope that this administration falls to pieces before the 4th of July and that people with brains and a commitment to the USA as a respectable country bring the USA back from the brink of what looks like the weak position from which the last Civil War began for those who decided at that time they had nothing left to lose, and who seem to think only another civil war will restore the America of George Washington and his dogs Sweet Lips, Venus and Truelove.

I’ve been out of touch for the last week and got back this weekend to find the toddler in chief has aimed something like sixty cruise missiles at a Syrian air base and destroyed a number of installations there but not the runways. Shocking? Yes. Surprising? No. Donald loves the tough guy act, and it usually goes down really well with his base. This time the response from both right and left (with the exception of the alt-right) is a very Twilight Zonesque, “That’s a good thing you done there.”

The narrative being pushed by the White House is that Donald was overwhelmed (as we all were) by the images of children (“babies....BABIES”, says Donald) suffering and dead from a Syrian gas attack initiated by Assad. The U.S. strike was a punishment for this illegal and immoral behavior.

Did our bumbling idiot in chief actually do the right thing for once?

First of all, I don’t believe the narrative for one minute. Yes, the pictures of the suffering children were to most people graphic and gut wrenching. To Donald, I think, not so much. This was not the first gas attack launched by Assad on his own people and these weren’t the first pictures of dead and dying children. In 2013 Donald said nothing about screaming children or dead babies. When Obama went to Congress for approval to strike against Assad for the sarin gas attacks, Donald emphatically warned against any sort of U.S. interference saying we should step back let Assad and Russia take care of ISIS. Congress, by the way, refused to put Obama’s strike to a vote. So later they could say Obama was weak on Assad (because he followed the law that defers the initiation of violent attacks on foreign nations to the legislative branch). Given the obvious fact that The Donald is unmoved by anybody’s plight but his own, what DID motivate him to strike at Syria. In the eyes of unthinking Americans it puts distance between him and Putin, and it diverts attention from the investigations into Russia’s interference with our election. Wag the dog. “That’s a good thing you done there, Donny.”

Second. To answer the question “Did our bumbling orange haired troll doll actually do the right thing?” we have to narrow down a little on the meaning of “right thing.”

Was it legal? Strictly speaking I’d say no. I would think strict adherence to U.S. law would’ve required Donald to obtain Congressional approval before ordering the strike. But hey, who’s a strict constructionist anymore...right? The Constitution is a living document and Congress has been abdicating it’s right to wage war ever since the Korean conflict. (Speaking of Korea - did I hear Donald rattling his swords?) Did the strike adhere to international law? Who’s going to prosecute the U.S. for war crimes...right?

Was it strategically correct? No action in isolation can be judged to be strategically correct. First there must be a strategy. Before there can be a strategy there must be a set of goals. Regime change? Granted we all want to see the demise of ISIS. But do we want Syria to be a satellite nation of Putin’s envisioned empire? If we oust Assad, who fills in the vacuum if not ISIS? We have to remember that Donald’s goals are distinct from those of the U.S. Donald shares with us an interest in degrading ISIS, but he also has a yet to be delineated interest in keeping Putin happy as well a irrepressible interest in putting on a good show and looking like a tough guy. The strike still allows Assad to fight ISIS (the runways were untouched and planes were flying missions from that base within twenty-four hours of the strike), it doesn’t threaten Assad’s regime which should make Putin happy, but it does give Putin an excuse to excoriate Trump and create some perceptual distance between the two, which benefits Trump. So, “Yes the strike was strategic for Donald, but not necessarily with a aim toward benefiting Syrians nor the region in the long run.

Was our strike moral? This is a more difficult question. Given the praise Donald has been receiving the consensus seems to be, “Yes.” However, we all know he did it for the wrong reasons. This was a case where the Toddler in Chief tripped and fell in a puddle of mud and emerged gold plated. “That’s a good thing you did there.”

The evening after the US cruise missile strike Charlie Rose interviewed two Syrian doctors who have been on the front lines there since the beginning . They confirmed that Syria bombed again less than an hour after the US strike and discussed Syria's strategy of targeting hospitals .
http://charlierose.com/videos/30354?autoplay=true

Sean Spicer is a buffoon and an inarticulate ass, but he's not a Holocaust denier like a few prominent people have said today. He's also not someone with a working knowledge of chemistry, or history, or the English language. I don't know, but I feel annoyed that people, including the Anne Frank Center said that his display of ignorance is Holocaust denial. Holocaust denial is intentional and dishonest; it does not occur because someone does not know that zyklon b, like sarin gas, is a chemical. Just my view...

Edit: I also want to know that I had not heard of the Anne Frank Center until recently. That may sound bizarre since everyone has heard of Anne Frank. But they really are not a well run organization. That's as charitable as I can be.

The focus on the Syrian missile strike has also distracted attention from the fact that the great negotiator Trump got absolutely nothing out of his recent meeting with the Chinese leader, notwithstanding all of his previous rhetoric about getting tough with China. No doubt the Chinese have figured out that Trump is all bluster with no strategy and a limited attention span, so they didn't feel the need to placate him with any concessions. They may also be thinking there is strong chance the US will again get itself bogged down in a messy situation in the Middle East. Whatever you think about the Chinese they are good at playing the long game - Trump probably thinks the long game is something to do with par 5 holes on the golf course.

"Toddler in Chief " (thanks for that Trish) gets to use MOAB" mother of all bombs" just months into his presidency . Why am I not surprised.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GBU-43/...ance_Air_Blast

I can only imagine his sociopathic glee as his 'Armada' steams towards North Korea .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sukumvit boy

I can only imagine his sociopathic glee as his 'Armada' steams towards North Korea .

---

Everyone has been arguing about Bannon or Kushner and asking who has his ear. It could just be that campaign promises aside, he is someone who has been a bully his whole life, and finds himself with the most powerful military arsenal in human history. He wants to see things explode. He wants to shake insolent dictators to their core. I dare anyone to read this piece and not be upset about it. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/u-...m_npd_nn_tw_ma

From yesterday's Guardian:
"Each Moab, or massive ordinance air blast – nicknamed the “mother of all bombs” – costs $16m (£13m) out of a total programme cost of $314m which produced about 20 of the bombs.

Crunched down – and in the most cold-blooded terms – that means the US military has expended some 5% of its stockpile of Moabs to kill three dozen Isis members at a cost of almost $450,000 per individual.
In comparison, a typical, general-purpose 450kg (1,000lb) bomb like the MK-8 used in numerous airstrikes in Syria in Iraq costs about $12,000.

Another point of comparison is the 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles fired a week before at the Shayrat airbase in Syria, which Washington has claimed as the source of the chemical weapons strike on Khan Sheikhun.
Those missiles will cost about $60m to replace, with each costing about $1m and delivering – combined – just over twice the tonnage of explosives of the single Moab.
Until now, the Moab had been something of a very costly white elephant."
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...st-afghanistan

-In addition, delivery-for-detonation of MOAB costs $450,000.

President Cashpoint - when he isn't charging the US taxpayer to visit his own branded properties with 200 security personnel in attendance, he is burning your dollars like fireworks. Why spend $16,450,000 on the poor of the USA when you can blow a hole in the ground in Afghanistan, as the US has been doing for 16 years?
Enjoy the show.

PS. Is it true Camp David has been sold to the Chinese government?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

PS. Is it true Camp David has been sold to the Chinese government?

---

It's just a mortgage. Should be paid off in 2050.

But I wouldn't worry about the cost of expensive fireworks. Trump can easily find other services to cut in order to offset the costs. For instance, for the cost of the moab, we can cut approximately 2.6 million meals for meals on wheels, a program which provides food to home-bound people (elderly, sick, or disabled). In fact, Trump has already proposed a six billion dollar cut to the department of housing and urban development which provides funding to this program. So, he can use a hundred of those bombs to flatten the topography of Afghanistan and still be budget neutral. He's two steps ahead.