Posted on 04/14/2018 8:11:51 PM PDT by Kaslin
Rachel Maddow sounded as if she was on the verge of tears last night after President Trump's address to the nation on Syria. She was not nervous about another potential war, per se, but because she feared that our allies might think that America was destroying deadly chemical weapons and trying to save lives simply to distract from President Trump's allegedly ongoing scandals.
"Point of personal privilege here just for a second. You know it is, this is not personal. It's not just spectacle. It is not just political as we follow the news and these incredible days that we have been having recently in our country. It is worth considering on a night like tonight that there are there are national security consequences to having a presidency that is as chaotic as Mr. Trump's presidency, a presidency that is as consumed by scandal and criminal intrigue as his presidency is," Maddow said right after President Trump spoke.
To be fair, Maddow makes some good points here. A presidency awash in chaos and scandal does make for dangerous national security consequences. If the alleged ongoing internal struggle in the White House is even somewhat true, one could understand how and why hurried decisions could occur. However, her concern was not about the planning process of this strike.
"When the president orders missile strikes on Syria on a night like tonight, the strategic effect of that strike will be assessed by both our allies and our enemies....It will therefore affect the utility of this military strike if the President of the United States is believed to have issued the order to launch this strike tonight even in part because people think he wanted to distract from a catastrophic domestic scandal that is blowing up at home at the same time," Maddow warned.
"The perception that the president may have ordered these strikes in part because of scandal will affect the impact and the effectiveness of these military strikes. Unavoidably even if the tail is not wagging the dog," she continued, "Even if you give the president every benefit of the doubt even if his calculations about whether to launch this action against Syria tonight was taken with absolutely no regard for for what else is going on in the president's life right now, what else is going on in the president's life right now on the creates a real perception around the globe that that may have been part of the motivation both for what he did for and particularly for when he did it."
Far-left conspiracy theorist Rachel Maddow suggests President Donald Trump launched the strike against Syria to divert attention away from a "catastrophic domestic scandal."pic.twitter.com/sr81UnpryL— Ryan Saavedra ???? (@RealSaavedra) April 14, 2018
Based on her monologue, it seems as if Rachel Maddow actually believes that President Trump attacked Syria to distract from supposed scandals. But, she never actually provided any evidence other countries believe this. Plus, as Twitchy editor Sam Janney noted, it is not as if this was a unilateral strike. French and British forces played a major role. Israel assisted, too. Were they attacking Syria to help Trump distract from catastrophic domestic issues?
Sam poignantly summarized an appropriate response to Maddow's segment - "People watch this crap?"
This is pathetic.
In order to believe this you would have to accept that Trump somehow convinced France, the UK and Israel to ally with the US in order to divert attention from ‘scandal’.
People watch this crap? https://t.co/dk8PzFEIS3— Sam 'The??FOO' Janney (@PolitiBunny) April 14, 2018
Rachel Maddow is nuts.
.
ya ya blah blah blah , Yawn
Does the Madcow rant at the behest of Putin?
Uh, maybe so BUT what did they call ‘US’ when we did point out that WJC bombed an aspirin factory and BO did an extended bombing run to take attention off them?
Of course, that was different circumstances.
Trump is getting pilloried for supposedly spitting on the sidewalk 50 years ago while all the indiscretions of ‘others’ is just youthful high jinxes .
Like Chris Plante is wont to say
If it weren’t for double standards, liberals would have no standards at all
Nuts are useful. She’s plain stupid.
Journalism is committing suicide. Who wants to get “news” from these people?
On this day in 1998, the very same day that Monica Lewinsky was to appear before a grand jury and testify about her affair with President Bill Clinton, the United States military pulverized a pharmaceutical plant in Sudan, announcing that it was in the service of Al Qaeda. This proved untrue. Nation columnist Christopher Hitchens wrote in his column a few weeks later about the homidically cynical strategic thinking behind Clinton’s destruction of the plant...
The scandals won’t go away. The left won’t let them go away.
There aren’t any scandals, but they’re not taking any chances.
Rachel Maddow is an ugly, long-necked, mannish, unhinged biatch and I don’t care what she or her demented viewers think.
And, the allies? The French were playing ‘wag the Poodle
while the Brits were playing ‘wag the Bull Dog’.
Who the hell cares what gaychel mancow says?
It would make more sense for a missile to blow up Rachel Maddow.
What’s wrong with that Maddow fellow?
Uh oh, rational questions.
That’s going to make that dude Maddow mad.
What group of idiots selects Rhodes scholars?
“Rachel Maddow is an ugly, long-necked, mannish, unhinged biatch”
“she” is peyton manning in drag.
And I guess France and the UK Decided to help President Trump in the cover up..so I guess now Trump is colluding with France AND the UK
Gee, who dreamed up and implemented the chaos and scandal? Oh, yeah, the progressives caused that.
But, the good news is that the administration may be awash with false allegations, but it is not adrift.
Id say MadCow looks like a horses ass but that would be an insult to horses asses
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.