MENU

Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

When Trump Loses Alex Jones' and Gains Elizabeth Warren's Support, All Things Are Possible!

The president's controversial, unconstitutional, dumb Syria strikes are insane—and just might mean we can start talking seriously about politics again.

InfoWars, TwitterInfoWars, TwitterLast night President Trump launched military strikes against Syria, as punishment for the Assad regime's apparent use of chemical weapons in its ongoing civil war. The actions were supplemented by leaders of France and Britain, who said the attacks are a protest against the use of chemical weapons, not a call for regime change. Trump, who only weeks ago was calling for the pulling of all U.S. troops from the region, said that the United States will "sustain this response until the Syrian regime stops its use of prohibited chemical agents."

Whatever Trump's argument for intervention, it seems to be an unconstitutional act on its face. The president has broad powers to defend the country as commander in chief but we are neither technically at war nor were we facing an imminent threat, the two conditions that would allow him to act unilaterally without prior authorization. In bombing first and asking permission later, of course, the president is merely following in the footsteps of many, if not all, of his recent predecessors.

As is common in this administration, key officials are at publicly at odds with one another. Defense Secretary James Mattis has announced the missiles and bombs were a "one-time shot" while Trump avers this is part of a sustained action until the right outcome (not exactly clear what that means) is reached.

Trump launched a similar campaign against Syria almost exactly a year ago. Its effects were minimal in terms of casualties and positive outcomes. Given increased tensions now between Russia and the United States over the investigation into Kremlin-led attempts to influence the 2016 election, increasingly serious charges that Trump associates and adminstration members have been playing fast and loose with all sorts of ethics problems, the raid on the offices of Trump's personal lawyer, and more, this bombing run uncomfortably calls to mind the moment when an embattled Bill Clinton deflected attention from domestic quandries by bombing foreign countries. In 1998, he chose the day that Monica Lewinsky testified before a grand jury to conduct bombing runs on terrorist sites in Afghanistan and Sudan. He bombed Iraq the day his impeachment trial started, too, delaying its opening. As a country, we don't want to even acknowledge the possibility that foreign policy can be dictated by the pettiest of domestic difficulties, but there it is.

Whatever is precisely behind Trump's specific timing—the military action came shortly after the White House made a historic pledge to ending the war on pot through administrative and legislative fixes, signed a controversial pardon of Bush-era official Scooter Libby, and started tweeting about James Comey's explosive book about being fired by Trump—he continues to scramble existing categories like no other recent politicians.

For instance, he pulls the ultra-hawkish and former Fox News regular John Bolton into his cabinet, hits Syria in fast fashion, and then gets lambasted on Fox News diehard fans Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham. Read:

Carlson noted that shortly before the attack, President Donald Trump said he would like to see an end to American involvement in Syria.

"How would [gassing civilians] benefit Assad?" Carlson asked, cautioning people not to rush to judgment.

He proceeded to call out some of the critics, who called him "insane" and accused him of disseminating Russian propaganda. Another journalist tweeted that he should "STFU."

Carlson said "shutting the F up" is what those in favor of military action want, arguing they do not seem interested in debate.

Most theatrically, Trump has lost the unconditional positive regard of Alex Jones of InfoWars, who accuses the president of "crapping all over" his supporters by attacking Syria. Jones is as convincingly broken up as the "crisis actors" he insists populate most mass shooting scenes. Jeb Bush was right when he called Trump "the chaos candidate." The billionaire really knows how to scramble more than eggs.

In the other direction, a wide variety of #NeverTrump conservatives and liberal interventionists—including John McCain and Elizabeth Warren—are praising the attacks. Hillary Clinton was calling for them a week ago and there are apologists for unbridled state power such as former Obama State Department official Anne Marie Slaughter, who writes:

It's widely understood across the political spectrum that nothing makes a president—no matter how divisive and polarizing—more "presidential" than taking military action, especially when we're talking about bombs and missiles that hit targets thousands of miles away. That's a sad reality and it's one that libertarians have pushed back again and again, along with the larger concept of an "imperial presidency" in which a powerful individual concentrates power in himself rather than making sure it resides, decentralized, through the organs of government and in the individual choices made by all of us. In the 21st century alone, in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, the financial crisis, and a chronic inability in Congress to find its spine and do its basic duties, the presidency has arrogated more and more power, especially in foreign policy. It's not a surprise, then, that our foreign policy has lurched from one disaster to another. It reflects the flawed impulses of commanders in chief who are not up to running the world. No one is.

Shortly after Trump was elected, there was a brief "oh, shit!" moment among liberals who realized that all the administrative power Barack Obama had amassed was now in the hands of a guy no one ever expected to be president. (Republicans suffered the same terror when Bush left office in 2009). The solution to this is not to vote out the other guy and get your guy in. It's to follow the Constitution, spread the power among the branches of government, and reduce the number of things the government can do just because it wants to.

And now that Trump has lost Alex Jones and gained Elizabeth Warren, we may finally be on the cusp of pulling the current dysfunctional system down. That's about the only way this bombing can be worth anything.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    We have to fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here.

  • Aloysious||

    Carbohydrates?

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Cucks.

  • MargeBouvier||

    You can't possibly still buy this (I hope you're being sarcastic)

  • Michael Hihn||

    That's Crusty Juggler, Marge. The Authoritarian Right.

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    For instance, he pulls the ultra-hawkish and former Fox News regular John Bolton into his cabinet, hits Syria in fast fashion, and then gets lambasted on Fox News diehard fans Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingraham.

    Why is that awful woman still on the air?! You mean to tell me there are some corporate advertisers so depraved they did not honor David Hogg's wishes? Disgusting. Being mean to David Hogg on Twitter should be a career-ending mistake.

  • Don't look at me.||

    He is a national treasure.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    OpenBordersLiberal-tarian is a modern-day Mencken.

  • Flinch||

    Something. Paid, maybe? His arguments seem to indicate he would be happier around the MSNBC crowd than here. I am happy to read anything Mencken, most of which stands athwart the bulk of OBL's comments from what I've seen.

  • OpenBordersLiberal-tarian||

    I don't know what his SAT score was, but he should get into any college he wants based on his activism alone.

  • Vaelyn||

    Clown College.

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Stop, you're really overselling your performance art. Be a little more subtle.

  • Sevo||

    "He is a national treasure."

    Heil!

  • Michael Hihn||

    The David Hogg who kicked her ass all over the universe?
    On THE most immoral station on the planet? At least Laura's not another sexual abuser.
    That we know of.

  • Árboles de la Barranca||

    Murderous neo-cons and blood-lusting war-progressives will call for a Nobel Peace Prize for Trump if he keeps bombing.

  • Crusty Juggler||

    Trump will have earned the Nobel after Assad and Putin surrender.

  • Robert||

    To each other?

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    I can't wait to see what a Kurd- and Al Qaeda-run Syria looks like. And I bet they'll get along well too. They like each other.

  • Flinch||

    No, no CJ. The Nobel prize is awarded to whoever creates the most destabilization/sets the stage for future wars. In other words... which person did the most to set up a need for massive defense contracts by promoting the possibility for war? Trump using force is not the same thing: it's all about the money.

  • Ariki||

    Shouldn't he get one for being the first orange guy to be elected as POTUS?
    If I recall some other guy got one for being black......

  • Michael Hihn||

    For how long are you allowed out of the asylum?

  • DajjaI||

    Alex Jones' meltdown is pretty epic. The funny thing is, it could have been much worse if Trump listened to Bolton instead. During the campaign Trump promised to work with Russia and Assad, who is a secular-islamophobic supremacist. They imagined it as a prototype for Trumpism. And now they are attacking it. But Bolton would have attacked even harder. So Alex should be relieved. But yeah, this is another nail in the coffin of the Trumpocalypse and will hopefully force the nation to get back to more conventional concerns like the national debt. As for Syria, the core problem is actually free press in Russia. Because people can't hold their government accountable. (If you think it's bad here...!)

  • Michael Hihn||

    It wasn't Trump who shit all over the national debt. Bush was worse than Obama and Trump combined .. Medicare Prescriptions, which the goobers do NOT know was "paid for" by looting the income tax ... and nearly half of ALL Medicare is now looted from the income tax, NOT the Trust Fund, which would otherwise be bankrupt. That's more than twice what Prescriptions cost ... but they needed Democrat votes, ad got rolled AGAIN!

    --- That means over $200 billion of the current deficit, and rising, was caused by Dubya and the Relooticans. The theft is limited to 45% of ALL Medicare, which is increasing MUCH faster than income taxes can -- thank you Rand Paul -- so will take an ever increasing share of the personal income tax (prox 20% of the entire income tax, before Rand's tax cut!!)

  • Headache||

    Bush added $5 trillion to debt. Obama added $9 trillion. There isn't a trust fund.

  • Michael Hihn||

    You're laughable about the Trust Fund .... to cover the SHAMEFUL looting of the income tax under Bush?

    ONE MORE TIME. You must SUBTRACT from the debt incurred under Obama, caused by Republicans looting the income tax ... and add it to Bush ... and continue increasing Bush's for roughly 30 years, or until the Republican looting is repealed. Because THAT debt is ongoing.

    You even screwed up the debt under each President!

    Bush +6.1 T (11.9 - 5.8)

    Obama + 8.5T (20.4-11,9)

    Left - Right = Zero

  • Flinch||

    I wonder... do we miss Rex Tillerson? (Should we?) I saw him stumble out of the gate on account of 99% of State contributors were Hildebeast supporters, which means he aspired to having zero support [as opposed to being stabbed in the neck every week by holdover employees]. What a job. It seems like the moment he left, the usual template of bad GOP ideas have emerged and we are looking at an uncomfortable thought: did the UK just take our president for a ride [again] like they did Bush in the gulf war? The current silence of dems does not bode well - they may have picked up an ace in the hole for their impeachment aspirations, and are garnering their campaign contributions from BP as we sit here.

  • StackOfCoins||

    And now that Trump has lost Alex Jones and gained Elizabeth Warren, we may finally be on the cusp of pulling the current dysfunctional system down.

    Hahaha. Ha. Oh Nick.

    Say it with me now: "Libertarian moment"

  • Michael Hihn||

    Hahahaha. You know, right, that a libertarian moment is just as crazy as a Trump moment?

    And Left - Right = Zero.

  • Eman||

    Um, an unpopular person being right
    and a politician being hypocritical both sound exactly like the reality ive been living in for thirty odd years. But, full disclosure, that reality has also included me being wrong an awful lot, so, yeah.

  • Echospinner||

    It is difficult to draw conclusions from the missile attack which will be judged based on outcome.

    It is strategic and political more than military. If the goal is limited to prevent the use of chemical weapons in the Syrian civil war we shall find out. There is always the open question of why are some weapons allowed and not others.

    I think Trump did not do so badly here and I am no fan. He did what any mob boss would do. This time with support from Britain and France which is important. He sent a message. It can be argued that the US has no business there to begin with.

    What is a libertarian to do?

    The idea that chemical and biological weapons if not tethered by threat of force could be so horrible that it constitutes a collective response is not unreal.

    I really want to know how effective the strike was and how many missiles or bombs were actually intercepted as the Russian state press is now boasting. Assad takes a walk in his palace with twittering birds in the background. It is a proganda war.

  • Cep Rast||

    None were intercepted, the Syrians fired a bunch of Sam's after the attack at nothing then used the footage to claim they shot down our missiles. Not the first time such blatant lies have been used, See Nasser in the 67 war and Baghdad Bob.

    Funny enough I think they were caught by surprise because their weapon systems should have been able to engage some of our stuff.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    None were intercepted

    How do you know this?

    Furthermore, how do you know that many of them hit their intended targets even if they weren't intercepted? We have limited footage of a very limited amount of damage -- damage to things we don't really know what they are.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    It is strategic and political more than military. If the goal is limited to prevent the use of chemical weapons in the Syrian civil war we shall find out.

    It didn't work last time. Why would it work this time? Even if one were to accept: 1) the US has the responsibility of restricting the use of chemical weapons in other parts of the world; and 2) that Assad used them and isn't abiding by international agreement... It *still* doesn't make sense how this strategy by the US will have a positive impact (even if it IS, as you say, only strategic and political). The "message" that the US sent is fuzzy.

  • patskelley||

    So in retaliation to Asshat's poisoning of a population in a little podunk village did Trump bomb Assyhat's palace or just another population in a little podunk village?

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Neither. Most likely their milItary infrastructure.

  • CMurph||

    Trump's sabre rattling doesn't make sense, except in the context of it being devised to divert attention from some other issue that's troubling him and that issue may very well be the yet-unproved accusations of a Trump-Russia connection. If the true goal of Trump's threats is to compel people to find the Russia "ties" accusations to be wrong, what better action exists than militarily threatening Putin's ally in Syria to provoke Putin?

    Given the consequences of a nuclear war with Russia, at this point I actually hope that a conspiracy between Trump and Putin DOES exist and they have their secret plans and global propaganda theater all setup to achieve their goal with few human casualties and minimal environmental consequences. The Global Propaganda Theater is, however, a very uncertain and dangerous venue!

  • John||

    Looks like someone got their wag the dog talking points. Maybe I am just getting old but trolls seem to get dumber every year

  • Conchfritters||

    It's amatuer night John

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    what better action exists than militarily threatening Putin's ally in Syria to provoke Putin?

    In which case, score one for the democrats -- who managed to convince him to start shit with Putin when he came into the presidency without that goal. They are playing him like a fiddle with all this collusion nonsense.

  • Just Say'n||

    It's disturbing that Tucker Carlson, Tomi Lauren, Ann Coulter, and Alex Jones are the voices of reason and restraint when it comes to Syria. I need to sit down

  • Get lit||

    They aren't the voices of reason. Some of them parrot Russian and Assad propaganda. There are good reasons to question the wisdom and lawfulness of the strikes but if part of your argument is borrowed straight from lala land in Russia then you are not a voice of reason and at best a broken clock.

  • John||

    Go fuck yourself. Russia is not our friend but they do not have to be our enemies. You craven retards would start world war three and destroy humanity to score political points. It is pathetic and dangerous. Just shut the fuck up for a while

  • Jickerson||

    That's just a non sequitur. Whether an argument is correct or not depends on its own merits, not on who makes it. If Russia said that 1 + 1 = 2, that fact doesn't become incorrect just because Russia said it. It's amazing that this even needs to be pointed out, but I suppose warmongering authoritarian retards have no grasp on logic whatsoever.

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    So while there are good reasons to question the wisdom of these strikes, if someone actually does so, they are parroting Russian propaganda. I watched the Tucker interview with Glen Greenwald linked above and found it a very reasonable discussion. Greenwald actually describes your whole talking points strategy in about 30 seconds. My question is, exactly what argument could a person make questioning the wisdom and lawfulness of bombing Syria that could not be tenuously linked to arguments made by Assad and Putin?

  • Vernon Depner||

    I'm sure Trump's people and Putin's people are in touch and working on the script for next weeks shows. This is as believable as professional wrestling.

  • John||

    Do you realize how stupid you sound? Jesus tap dancing Christ get better trolling points

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Yes, they do come off particularly dim witted today, don't they?

  • Nardz||

    Damn near impossible to avoid when one goes with the "Russian conspiracy" angle.

    Also pretty impossible to avoid when one is a Progressive.

  • Get lit||

    Tucker, Ingraham, and Jones are begging to see our military in Mexico and South America fighting drug wars so pardon me if I call bullshit on whatever reason they have for getting their panties twisted over hitting this cuntstain Assad in a restrained targeted manner for using chemical weapons.

  • Nardz||

    Weird - I've never heard any of them advocate for military action in the western hemisphere beyond our own border, and stable borders are kinda necessary for this thing we call a country.

    I do, however, call bullshit on your existence.

  • Last of the Shitlords||

    He's probably getting his talking points from Media Matters. I doubt he's ever watched ny of the people he mentions. That would be typical of his kind.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Nice thread, do far. Three Authoritarians -- one from the left, two from the right

    Because Left - Right = Zero!

  • XM||

    There was no direct threat to the Unite States, but I'm almost certain that there will be a chemical attack on some western soil in the near future. It won't be wide scale as we see in movies, but you only need a handful (educated in American universities) scientists pledging allegiance to ISIS to make it happen.

  • IceTrey||

    Actually all you need is a drum of bleach and a drum of ammonia.

  • XM||

    Don't you need some sort of a delivery system though?

  • Conchfritters||

    You mean a Honda?

  • Elias Fakaname||

    Honda! The AR15 of automobiles!

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    And this has what to do with the Syrian government...?

  • dchang0||

    Re: "at least it draws a line somewhere"

    Why not draw the line right up Slaughter's ass crack, then? That's somewhere, isn't it? Send a few missiles her way, Trump. Maybe she'll let you grab her p afterward too.

  • Gaear Grimsrud||

    "this bombing run uncomfortably calls to mind the moment when an embattled Bill Clinton deflected attention from domestic quandries by bombing foreign countries. In 1998, he chose the day that Monica Lewinsky testified before a grand jury to conduct bombing runs on terrorist sites in Afghanistan and Sudan. He bombed Iraq the day his impeachment trial started, too, delaying its opening."
    Yeah this is another boneheaded bombing in a place where we never should have been in the first fucking place. But I gotta point out that Trump has been under investigation since he won the primaries. He's not going to deflect attention under any circumstances and he knows it so the Clinton analogy isn't working for me. And, why are we in Syria? Oh that's right, it was the other Clinton. If the most qualified candidate eva had been elected we'd have been in an air war a year ago. Of course she wouldn't be under investigation so deflecting attention wouldn't be an issue.

  • silver.||

    "The president's controversial, unconstitutional, dumb Syria strikes are insane—and just might mean we can start talking seriously about politics again."

    I admire your optimism, Nick. The sense of vindicated smugness from Trump opponents will just discourage his supporters from discussing why they've changed their opinions. Overcoming ego investment is hard enough even in an environment of healthy, respectful discourse.

    Alex Jones hamming it up, while amusing, gives pundits a perfect punching bag to denounce all Trump supporters as idiots. It seems to me that people viscerally enjoy the tribalism that has risen from the ashes of the dumpster fire that was the 2016 election.

  • IceTrey||

    Trump says we will leave Syria soon so Assad, who is already winning, takes the opportunity to dump a bunch of gas on civilians. That makes sense. /sarc

  • Echospinner||

    Assad won. He controls all of Douma now. This is not a new tactic by Assad regime.

    Of course it makes sense.

  • Occam's Woodchipper||

    Assad is a small-minded dictator backed by a world superpower nearing the end of a seven-year civil war. Of course he's going to spike the football wherever possible- I don't think he's concerned about material repercussions with Russia backing him.

  • Occam's Woodchipper||

    Assad is a small-minded dictator backed by a world superpower nearing the end of a seven-year civil war. Of course he's going to spike the football wherever possible- I don't think he's concerned about material repercussions with Russia backing him.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    So the US couldn't make his life a pain in the ass in, say, the east? Or in Turkey? Or in Iraq? I doubt he's so stupid as to needlessly draw them back into the mess the SAME week they say they're pulling out.

    Someone is playing the US. Trump and his people can't possibly be so stupid not to know this. So the question is: 1) who's playing Trump? and 2) why is he (probably) willingly going along with it? This Reason article offers a number of possibilities to answer the second question. The first question is still up for grabs. Unless we believe Russia's narrative, in which case the answer to #2 is also the answer to #1...

  • The Metonymy||

    I guess Assad will testify at Trump's impeachment hearing now.

  • josh||

    This was perfectly constitutional. You see, we have people in Syria doing something they shouldn't be doing. And they wouldn't be able to do that something if the wind picked up in the wrong direction. Therefore...proportional response!

  • mtrueman||

    "In the other direction, a wide variety of #NeverTrump conservatives and liberal interventionists—including John McCain and Elizabeth Warren—are praising the attacks."

    Aren't there any opinions of African Americans worth noting? I understand stupid white people supporting this nonsense, but I'll be surprised if the brothers and sisters are falling for this. Surprised that Nick hasn't seen fit to report on their opinions.

  • Michael Hihn||

    This White House is like the Three Stooges, running around, crashing into Monty Python, and yelping.
    Will the Bullshitter-In-Chief also stumble into WWIII -- to keep Stormy out of the news -- and keep his frail ego at the center of attention? (shudder)

  • Elias Fakaname||

    You understand that there is no guy named Monty Python, right 'Michael'?

  • Michael Hihn||

    The Three Stooges were also a fictional alias.
    (snort).

  • inoyu||

    As I recall, Jordan and Syria were stable and moderate by regional comparison for many years. So why the war in Syria and Assad's a monster?

  • Michael Hihn||

    Assad took office in 2000. He started getting nasty when an insurgency threatened his rule, and when ape-shit as it escalated to what most now call an all-out civil war (in or about 2012).
    .
    Trump now risks WWIII on TWO fronts (so far), since Russia supports Assad. God only knows what President Wacko will do in the coming weeks (and He and I haven't spoken to each other in several decades))

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    Does it still qualify as WW3 when the far east doesn't appear to be involved?

    I only say that partially tongue in cheek though, because it's noteworthy that this appears to be something mostly between the US and Russia. The UN appears to be giving only lukewarm backing (and technically, not any) and the EU and most other european nations issued only hypothetical support. I could see them turning on a dime here. China's telling everyone to cut the shit.

    But as far as confrontations go, the US and Russia are walking on eggshells around each other. I think Trump is making the relationship out to be worse than it is (for obvious reasons), and Russia is using this as a good opportunity to paint the United States as a bunch of major assholes.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Does it still qualify as WW3 when the far east doesn't appear to be involved?

    Are you confused with the MIDDLE East>

    EITHER US vs Russia, (partly far east)
    or US vs North Korea (or maybe China) (far east)

    The Far East is a geographical term in English that usually refers to East Asia (including Northeast Asia), the Russian Far East (part of North Asia), and Southeast Asia. ...

    Google it.

    Anything else?

  • Michael Hihn||

    P.S. Do you realize we are on opposing sides (vs Russia) in Syria?
    And Trump fired missiles -- after saying we'd be out soon ... after announcing it in advance, when he had said it was "stupid" to announce military action in advance..

  • JuanQPublic||

    There is literally so much to unpack regarding the Syria strikes, such as so many double standards, obvious unconstitutionality, and staggering dishonesty, it's almost unmanageable without writing a long essay that at least touches on the major points that encompass the President, Congress and the commercial media.

    This sort of bipartisan foreign policy really encapsulates the worst aspects of national US politics and its media coverage. The fact that bombing Syria is the event that brings the politicians together should be a glaringly clear indicator of the current state of things, from the poorly informed public to Washington.

  • JunkScienceIsJunk||

    Yeah, this is really the worst part. I've barely looked at western media since it happened.

  • TrickyVic (old school)||

    ""Whatever Trump's argument for intervention, it seems to be an unconstitutional act on its face.""

    It's not Trump's intervention. That belongs to the previous guy in the Whitehouse who has a Nobel Peace Prize. He is the one who decided to get us involved.

    It's a shitshow handed to him by his predecessor. But now it's Trump's shitshow and his responsibility. The question of unconstitutional intervention had more relevance a few year ago.

  • Michael Hihn||

    It's not Trump's intervention. That belongs to the previous guy in the Whitehouse who has a Nobel Peace Prize

    Truly shameful. Even if Bush2 had not signed 2003 legislation placing economic and political sanctions on Syria, for terrorism. And it seems properly debatable that his ill-conceived actions in Irag and Afghanistan tied us into the region.

    Not to deny that Obama was born in Kenya (in fairness, never said we are not a Christian nation.)

  • Headache||

    But, but, Obama and Kerry got 100% of the chemical weapons out of Syria.

  • Michael Hihn||

    Do you mean the internationally supervised destruction of chemical weapons in Syria, the deal brokered with Russia? How do you know they didn't and Assad acquired more?. It was 4 years ago, eh?

    Did you believe Iraq's WMD?

  • L. W. Paton||

    It's a Mad, Mad, Mad, Mad World

  • Michael Hihn||

    But great as a movie!

  • ||

    Another question that everyone is afraid to address, what constitutes due process in these situations? One British General had his speech cut off because he questioned whether it made any sense at all for Assad to use chemical weapons against his own people at this time. He is doing just fine with conventional weapons. It makes more sense that certain Countries and individuals benefit when Assad is accused, his military facilities are bombed, etc. I have not seen nearly enough evidence that, beyond a reasonable doubt, he ordered a chemical weapons attack in this instance.

  • pemaintoto||

    Sesuatu. Dibayar, mungkin? Argumennya tampaknya menunjukkan dia akan lebih bahagia di kerumunan MSNBC daripada di sini. Saya senang membaca apa pun Mencken, yang sebagian besar merupakan sebagian besar komentar OBL dari apa yang saya lihat

  • prediksi hongkong||

    Kenapa wanita mengerikan itu masih mengudara ?! Maksud Anda untuk memberi tahu saya bahwa ada beberapa pengiklan korporat yang bejat sekali sehingga mereka tidak menghormati keinginan David Hogg? Menjijikkan. Berarti untuk David Hogg di Twitter harus menjadi kesalahan karir akhir.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Pay no attention to those income taxes behind the curtain. Look! Over There... Syria! Jumping Jack Flash!

  • prediksi hk||

    hahaha.....great for movies

  • jaastark||

    great post thanks for sharing this wonderful post
    tutuapp apk
    tutuapp for mac

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online