Trump’s War Room: Where’s Alan Greenspan?

IMG_20170407_224217The Trump who has Obama running around banging on the walls of his mind with a sledge hammer driving him as close to Bedlam as one can come and still not be in a straitjacket does everything with the idea that if he can do one better than Obama then maybe the incessant pounding will cease or at least let up.

Thus, those of us who have seen the iconic photograph of Obama in the White House war room watching the raid on Osama bin Laden’s home recognize Trump’s photograph, shown above, of his war room in the Mar-a-Lago resort was his attempt to outdo Obama by providing a similar type photograph. Only it is unclear why all (except Jared) are glued to the screen because nothing of significance is being shown. For all we know and what is most likely is the screen was blank and the Trump told those assembled to stare at it so the photographer would have a war room photo. This theory rings true since the expression on Jared ‘s face seems to suggest he is thinking “you may be my father-in-law but there’s only so much foolishness I’m going to go along with.”

To understand the difference in the war room photographs and make it easy for you I am including the one with Obama.

WASHINGTON, DC - MAY 1: (EDITORS NOTE: Please be advised that a classified document visible in this photo was obscured by The White House) In this handout image provided by The White House, President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and members of the national security team receive an update on the mission against Osama bin Laden in the Situation Room of the White House May 1, 2011 in Washington, DC. Obama later announced that the United States had killed Bin Laden in an operation led by U.S. Special Forces at a compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. (Photo by Pete Souza/The White House via Getty Images)

I am sure that is unnecessary since it is fixed in your memory as much as that of the Mona Lisa. Do you notice any difference between the photographs aside one being in the situation room at the White House and one is in a side room off the main ballroom at a resort hotel?  The most obvious one I see is all the people in Obama’s except one are without suit jackets, some without ties, and generally look like they have been around working for while and have concern with what they are viewing. Every male in Trump’s is in suit jacket and tie and looks like he was summoned in from some leisurely pursuit like having dinner and seem to be posing rather than watching.

Here is the list of 13 people by title in the Obama photo from left to right: Vice President, President, Air Force major-general, Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff, National Security Advisor, White House Chief of Staff, Deputy National Security Advisor, VP national security advisor, Secretary of State, Director of Counterterrorism, Homeland Security Advisor, Director of National Intelligence, and Secretary of Defense.

Here is the list of 14 people (excluding the low ranking military guy at the door) by title in the Trump photo. Deputy chief of staff, son-in-law, Treasury Secretary, Commerce Secretary, Press Secretary, President, Secretary of State, White House Chief Strategist to president, Senior Advisor to president, Assistant to the president, Deputy National Security Advisor, director, national economic counsel, National Security Advisor, White House Chief of Staff. 

Obama assembled a team at a location one would expect people to be during a military operation and had people who would be involved in some manner with the operation present; Trump had his team off a hotel ballroom and had people there who would normally not have had any role or input into a decision to launch missiles. Trump’s group although having four persons in similar positions as those with Obama, the decision, most of the suit coats were fillers with some of them being finance guys. This is not the usual way a decision to attack another nation is made.

Which made me wonder why didn’t Trump have Alan Greenspan in the room with him?  If he couldn’t get him, I’m sure Bob Kraft was available.

11 thoughts on “Trump’s War Room: Where’s Alan Greenspan?

  1. You missed the point. Trump was in Florida for a meeting with the Chinese leadership. The main topic was trade and business between the two largest economies in the world. The tv linkup was with the Pentagon leadership ( Pence, Mattis and Dunford). 2. Putin and Syria never admitted that Assad used gas. They came up with the chemical removal strategy to avoid a threatened U S military action. It was later shown that the gas attack in 2013 was probably a rebel attack. If a full investigation s made this latest attack will have emanated from the rebels. Both times they were stunts to seduce a gullible President into action. 3. China, Russia and Iran have denounced the Tomahawk attacks. Iraq has criticized them. Are we going t be pushed out of the Middle East by a combination of the Shia led countries of Iran , Iraq and Syria with the backing of the 2nd and third most powerful military forces in the world, China and Russia? Or are the neocons going to insist we have an unwinnable war with all five? 4. Rubio, McCain and Graham want to blame Tillerson for the chemical use in Syria. They falsely claim he gave Assad a green light by saying it was up to the Syrian people to decide their leadership. The neocons took this as a change of position even though it wasn’t. He didn’t confirm or reject the Obama position of regime change. So the question has to be asked did Rubio, McCain and Graham’s denunciations of Assad embolden ISIS into attacking the Christian churches in Egypt? All Americans should thank God that Assad, Russia and Iran are fighting the jihadists in Syria.

    1. NC:

      1. How did I miss the point. If the link up was with the Pentagon what were the others who hav eno connection with the pentagon doing in the room. It was all nonsense.

      2.Of course they admitted they had the sarin and used it because they removed it. Later reports were bunk.
      See Guardian article https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/22/allegation-false-turkey-chemical-attack-syria If these are stunts to cause a gullible president into action don’t forget that it is your guy Trump who did the attack.

      3.Those who were expected to denounce our attack did. None of them would stand a chance against us in a fight. As I mentioned the Russians are only doing it as part of a game with Trump to pretend they have differences when the goal of Trump/Putin is to remove sanctions. As Tex Tillerson said why should Americans tax payers care what happens in Ukraine. As if that wasn’t a signal to Putin on the eve of his visit there he can do whatever he wants.

      4. Wrong about Tillerson and Nikki. Both backed away from regime change prior to the chemical attacks. Rubio, McCain and Graham are right. As for thanking God that Assad has slaughtering hundreds of thousands of his people with Russian and Iranian help I think I’ll pass.

  2. Matt, I post this today, because yesterday’s comments went too long. I must respond to your falsehood.

    Matt:

    1. Syria and Russia never admitted using Sarin gas in 2013, as you allege. Syria removed its chemical weapons after the UN, US, and NATO threatened attack if it did not. The US/NATO/UN put a gun to Syria’s head and said “Look at what we did in Libya just 2 years ago (2011), you’re next if you don’t remove the chemicals.” Syria complied. In 2014, UN inspectors and the US confirmed that all chemical weapons had been destroyed. Most were destroyed aboard US ships. Incidentally, Syria began stockpiling chemical weapons in 1970, some say defensively in response to Israel’s acquisition of nuclear bombs in 1966.)

    2. The 2013 Ghouta attack (1,000 killed by Sarin) was proven in an MIT report to have been committed by rebels. Look it up! The rockets carrying Sarin could not have been fired from Syrian Army lines.
    In addition to the Ghouta attack, there were three other attacks in 2013 using Sarin gas by Al Nusra or ISIS forces against Syrian soldiers in 2013. These attacks were confirmed by the U.N. See, e.g., Khan al Assal (March 2013) 20 Syrian soldiers killed, 150 injured from Sarin gas fired by rebels.
    (See M.I.T. report (2014) by United Nations weapons inspector Richard Lloyd and MIT Science, Technology, and National Security Policy Professor Theodore Postol.)
    See also: “When on August 21 2013 the nerve gas Sarin was used in Ghouta, a suburb of Damascus, [Obama] had to make a decision. He ordered to prepare an attack by sea-launched cruise missiles. But the British secret service was in possession of a sampling of the used Sarin. An analysis showed it not to be Sarin from the Syrian regime, but from the inventory of al-Nusra. Obama dropped his plan.”
    See also, “But the evidence showing what really happened was clear. A 2014 MIT report and analysis on that attack the year prior, for example, offered evidence that the Obama administration almost certainly used deception and bogus “intelligence” in its failed bid to more deeply embroil the United States and its military in Syria’s ongoing war. Entitled “Possible Implications of Faulty U.S. Technical Intelligence,” the report found the nerve-agent attack in Syria “could not possibly” have come from the center or even the Eastern edge of regime-controlled territory. Other evidence also showed that the rebels, not the regime, deployed the chemical weapons. “
    “Citing ‘egregious errors in the intelligence,’ the explosive MIT report warned that the process by which those errors were made must be rectified to avoid future tragedy. “If the source of these errors is not identified, the procedures that led to this intelligence failure will go uncorrected, and the chances of a future policy disaster will grow with certainty,” concluded the authors, Lloyd and Postol. It seems likely that the warning went unheeded, and many of the same “Deep State” operatives behind the previous scam remain employed in the federal bureaucracy.”

    “U.S. officials already knew that the jihadist “rebels” had access to chemical weapons at the time of that 2013 attack, too. A classified U.S. military document obtained by WND the month after the attack confirmed that al-Qaeda-led fighters with the “rebel” Jabhat al-Nusra Front in Syria, which top officials admitted was supported and armed by Obama’s “coalition,” were in possession of sarin gas.”

    “And after the previous use of chemical weapons in Syria, which Obama claimed was perpetrated by Assad, even UN investigators concluded “rebels” were responsible. “Our investigators have been in neighboring countries interviewing victims, doctors and field hospitals and, according to their report of last week which I have seen, there are strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof of the use of Sarin gas, from the way the victims were treated,” said Carla Del Ponte, the former attorney general of Switzerland and a member of the UN independent commission of inquiry on Syria. “This was use on the part of the opposition, the rebels, not by the government authorities.”

    “French intelligence said analysis of samples taken from the northern town of Saraqeb and the Damascus suburb of Jobar in April showed that munitions containing sarin had been deployed.”

    “On 30 May 2013, Turkish newspapers reported that Turkish security forces had arrested Al-Nusra Front fighters (near the Syrian border) . . . In September six of those arrested in May were charged with attempting to acquire chemicals which could be used to produce sarin; the indictment said that it was “possible to produce sarin gas by combining the materials in proper conditions.”[13]

    “According to Syria, on 1 June 2013, the Syrian Army seized two cylinders holding the nerve agent sarin in an area controlled by opposition fighters. . . . On 14 June 2014, the Joint OPCW-UN Mission confirmed that the cylinders contained sarin.[14] On 7 July 2014, the U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon informed the U.N. Security Council about the findings.[14]”

    3. Want more. Read the New York Times article which said ISIS used chemical weapons 52 times in Syria and Iraq. (Nov. 21, 2016). Read multiple accounts of rebels attempt to acquire Sarin gas. WE ALL KNOW THAT ISIS DIRECTLY TARGETS CIVILIANS. See, for example, the ISIS slaughter of innocent civilians in Christian churches in Egypt on Palm Sunday, yesterday.

    4. See comments by Rand Paul and Tulsi Gabbard who stated their disbelief in US propaganda. Assad had no reason to use chemical weapons. ISIS and Al Nusra had reason aplenty: to draw the US and other anti-Assad forces deeper into action.

    5. In 2013, Assad invited UN chemical inspectors into Syria to investigate Sarin attacks on his soldiers. While the UN inspectors were there, in fact within days after they arrived, we are supposed to believe Assad openly and notoriously used Sarin gas against civilians in the suburbs of Damascus. Hocum!

    1. Bill:

      As I said you make a good apologist for Assad. Seymour Hersh tried the same thing you do to blame others. At least you admit the Syrians have Sarin which cannot be manufactured by other groups as you suggest. For your information all the stuff about others using Sarin was thoroughly debunked in the Guardian Article “It’s Clear Turkey was not involved in the chemical attack on Syria.” This spells out how it ic conclusively shown that Assad fired the Sarin and had been doing it for a time. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/apr/22/allegation-false-turkey-chemical-attack-syria

      I thought Trump was your man since you’ve gone to all extents justifying his actions and now you are telling us that he attacked Syria wrongly. Who do you believe: Tulsi Gabbard who had a trip to Syria to meet with Assad paid for by a Syrian support group.

      AS for whoever said the: “Obama administration almost certainly used deception and bogus “intelligence” in its failed bid to more deeply embroil the United States and its military in Syria’s ongoing war.” that comment falls on its face because of its absurdity. If the Obama administration went to that extent it surely would have carried through on its plan to attack Syria.

      Keep in mind PRINCETON, NJ — “More than four in 10 Americans continue to believe that God created humans in their present form 10,000 years ago,”

      1. Matt:
        First, a bit of advice: Try arguing without ad hominem attacks. It’s easy to throw mud. For example, I could retort: I’m not a mouthpiece for Assad anymore than you’re a mouthpiece for ISIS. But let’s skip the ad hominems.

        Now to the facts:

        I stick by the 46 page MIT report which exhaustively examined this issue and concluded the Syrian Army did not fire the missiles. Numerous other authoritative reports and studies have questioned the US/UN conclusion. Even when Obama was about to attack in 2013, his generals expressed some “doubt” about who was responsible for the sarin gas attack in the eastern suburbs of Damascus.
        You wrote:
        Sarin gas “cannot be manufactured by other groups?” 1. Ever hear of the Sarin Gas attack in Japan? 2. Sarin gas was used against Syrian soldiers. The UN confirmed that. 3. Turkey reported arresting 6 individuals who had “precursors” to making Sarin gas. (There are Iraqi defectors (experts in chemical weapons manufacturer) working with ISIS and Al-Nusra in Syria.) 4. A Turkish P.M. accused his own government of helping rebels get Sarin into Syria. That P.M. has been accused of “treason” for telling the truth.
        You refer to the Guardian report as if it were the last word. How many authoritative newspapers (NYT, Wash. Post) told us there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq?
        The CIA has been trying to oust Syrian rulers for decades.
        Glad to hear you support the war mongering neo-cons McCain, Graham and Rubio, who took their neo-con messages to the American people in the 2015-2016 primaries and they were rejected.
        I hope Trump does not become a neo-con and perpetuate the slaughter and prolong the wars in Syria, Yemen and elsewhere in the Middle East.

  3. Neither pictures impress me. The Trump one shows men dressed for business and/or for dinner. The Obama one shows sociopaths who informally consider it fun to watch in real time, close up, a man being slaughtered, a man for whom there was likely insufficient evidence to bring to trial for the acts he was being killed for.

    Query: Were you on either of both teams would you find something better to do or would you pose gawking at humans shedding human blood? Neither pictures is edifying. Of the two the Obama one is far worse. Those psychopaths wanted to see gore, gushing blood, not just a distant air show. Slasher movies cater to the most depraved appetites.

    Not one person in those pictures has a temperament desirable in high office. Terrible things are done in war. It is baleful that humans have to endure them. To willfully experience them as armchair entertainment is unnatural. It is evil. More evil than doing.

    Soldiering is necessary and a harsh task, our level of the equivalent of the cup brimming with gall that Jesus begged to be allowed to pass before accepting the burden of all our sins. Both pictures treat it as a pass the popcorn moment, lacking only flagons of Budweiser suds to jolly up the photo op. Two Baskets of Repulsives.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *