Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Wednesday, April 11, 2018

[President] Trump was responding to a Russian warning on Tuesday that any U.S. missiles fired at Syria over the assault on a rebel enclave would be shot down and the launch sites targeted. "Russia vows to shoot down any and all missiles fired at Syria. Get ready Russia, because they will be coming, nice and new and 'smart!'," Trump wrote in a post on Twitter.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Can Trump announce the actual missile strikes in the same tweet he uses to fire Mueller?

#1 | Posted by danni at 2018-04-11 08:12 AM | Reply

#1

He won't do that. More attention on him with two tweets.

#2 | Posted by Zed at 2018-04-11 08:30 AM | Reply


... Get ready Russia, because they will be coming ...

During the campaign, didn't candidate Trump say repeatedly that you do not telegraph your battle plans because you don't want your enemy to know what you plan to do?

#3 | Posted by LampLighter at 2018-04-11 09:08 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 7

"During the campaign, didn't candidate Trump say repeatedly that you do not telegraph your battle plans because you don't want your enemy to know what you plan to do?"

You forget that he also needs to demonstrate that he's not Putin's lapdog. This kind of public display of threatened aggression works out well for both of them.

#4 | Posted by Hagbard_Celine at 2018-04-11 09:24 AM | Reply

it's refreshing to have such a stable hand guiding our ship of state ... nice change from the constant dick swinging that characterized that Kenyan, alien, communist, fraud space-holder. ;) MAGA!

#5 | Posted by b_al at 2018-04-11 10:52 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

I feel so much safer knowing that John Bolton is there to calm things down and avoid an unnecessary war.

#6 | Posted by danni at 2018-04-11 10:56 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

How long until it comes out that he called Putin to tell him where the strikes were heading to give Assad ample time to move his valuable assets?

Before or after the chocolate cake like last time?

#7 | Posted by 726 at 2018-04-11 11:06 AM | Reply

Russia claims they're going to shoot down the missiles and target the launch platforms (planes, ships, subs).
Trump tells them to get ready (even though they obviously know something is coming from us, Israel, France, or the brits).

Loose cannons everywhere.

So, as a side note, it seems everyone has come to accept missiles can be shot down.

#8 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2018-04-11 11:08 AM | Reply

"You shouldn't be partners with a Gas Killing Animal who kills his people and enjoys it! He needs to be subtle about it. Take away their healthcare, cut the old age health insurance and then let businesses poison the air and water like I do. #MAGA!"

#9 | Posted by 726 at 2018-04-11 11:08 AM | Reply

Rocket Man!

Burning out his fuse up there alone ...

All this science he don't understand...

It's just his job 5 hours a week..

And I think it's gonna be a long long time
Till Mueller brings him around to find
He's not the man he said he was
He's a Rocket Man!

#10 | Posted by donnerboy at 2018-04-11 11:30 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

Advertisement

Advertisement

Mr. Trump has our attention. Let us see what he now does. Substantive action? Bluster? Showmanship? Policy? We will see.

#11 | Posted by moder8 at 2018-04-11 11:35 AM | Reply

Slap fights are more fun when it's the other folks doing it.

#12 | Posted by BruceBanner at 2018-04-11 11:38 AM | Reply


Russia deploying troops to site of chemical weapons attack in Syria
www.axios.com

...Russia's military is deploying troops to Douma, Syria, the site of the chemical weapons attack that occurred this weekend, per the AP.

Why it matters: Russia has said it will take retaliatory measures when its troops are attacked. ....

#13 | Posted by LampLighter at 2018-04-11 11:41 AM | Reply

During the campaign, didn't candidate Trump say repeatedly that you do not telegraph your battle plans because you don't want your enemy to know what you plan to do?

#3 | Posted by LampLighter

I think this is more a warning between friends.

Trump just thinks he's being sly and hiding it in plain sight.

#14 | Posted by jpw at 2018-04-11 11:51 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

As usual, Trump jumps -- publicly, at least -- from one extreme position (love you, Vladimir; you are my BFF!) to the opposite (we are going to send missiles, and Vladimir, you'd better not mess with us!) in the time it takes to have a 10-minute conversation with somebody, probably in this case John Bolton.

SOP. In the case of Trump, that can stand for either standard operating procedure or seat of pants, his favored style of governing.

#15 | Posted by cbob at 2018-04-11 12:00 PM | Reply

seems to me there may be something of a Freudian nature unfolding here ... rockets tend to have a certain phallic character. maybe der Trumph is feeling a wee bit wee.

#16 | Posted by b_al at 2018-04-11 12:03 PM | Reply

They're not rockets. They're turbine powered bombs.

#17 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2018-04-11 12:27 PM | Reply

If he doesn't warn them, how will they protect their most valuable weapons and troops? This will be just like last time: a few missiles that basically accomplishes little.

#18 | Posted by Sycophant at 2018-04-11 12:32 PM | Reply

I'm trying to figure out what "smart" missiles implies.
There was talk that many of the tomahawks we sent last time were off target due to jamming. I recall hearing or reading that the tomahawks launched that time were older variants and susceptible to being jammed.

The real pickle as I see it is if we do launch our new versions and they're jammed then our military might persona takes a major hit.

#19 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2018-04-11 12:32 PM | Reply

The only circumstance they can operate the jammer is one where we refuse to attack the jammer itself.

Iraq tried it with Russian hardware. We blew it up.

#20 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2018-04-11 12:35 PM | Reply

From reading the web it appears the Russian stuff is new and our guys are saying we have nothing like it. What "new" looks like I have no idea. I have read from plenty of sources that they're far ahead of the west at electronic warfare.

#21 | Posted by 101Chairborne at 2018-04-11 12:44 PM | Reply

#21, Almost certainly nothing a HARM can't fix.

#22 | Posted by qcp at 2018-04-11 12:58 PM | Reply

They upgraded, but running a jammer is like strapping a spotlight to your face and running through a warzone in the middle of the night.

It works if the other side isn't allowed to shoot at you.

#23 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2018-04-11 01:00 PM | Reply

I have read from plenty of sources that they're far ahead of the west at electronic warfare.

Meanwhile how much money have we wasted developing upgraded versions of equipment required for fighting yesterdays wars?

Likely because we spend most of our time attacking countries still fielding equipment from the 80's.

#24 | Posted by jpw at 2018-04-11 01:51 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump

Replying to @Walaa3ssaf
@walaa_3ssaf No, dopey, I would not go into Syria, but if I did it would be by surprise and not blurted all over the media like fools.
5:09 AM - 29 Aug 2013 from Manhattan, NY

#25 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-04-11 02:06 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Donald J. Trump ‏ @realDonaldTrump

Why do we keep broadcasting when we are going to attack Syria. Why can't we just be quiet and, if we attack at all, catch them by surprise?
9:45 PM - 28 Aug 2013

#26 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-04-11 02:09 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump

In war, the elememt of surprise is sooooo important.What the hell is Obama doing.
7:40 PM - 1 Sep 2013

Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump

What will we get for bombing Syria besides more debt and a possible long term conflict? Obama needs Congressional approval.
11:14 AM - 29 Aug 2013

And there are many more Trump tweets like this on Syria.

#27 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2018-04-11 02:15 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

From reading the web it appears the Russian stuff is new and our guys are saying we have nothing like it. What "new" looks like I have no idea. I have read from plenty of sources that they're far ahead of the west at electronic warfare.

#21 | Posted by 101Chairborne

Russia's economy is the same size as Italy's economy, whereas we spend a trillion dollars a year on the military. I highly doubt they have anything we don't have.

They know they can't beat us militarily which is why they've gone to low budget psy ops like promoting a maniac to the presidency. It's a much more cost effective way to bring america down.

#28 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-04-11 02:26 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I highly doubt they have anything we don't have.

#28 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY AT 2018-04-11 02:26 PM | FLAG: | NEWSWORTHY

Our best jamming platform is baked into the F-35. How do you feel about that program? :)

#29 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2018-04-11 02:58 PM | Reply

Our best jamming platform is baked into the F-35. How do you feel about that program? :)

#29 | Posted by sitzkrieg

Like every other massive expensive military toy - giant waste of money for donors who bribe politicians.

#30 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-04-11 03:02 PM | Reply

Forewarning the enemy is one of many broken promises the dotard promised not to do during the campaign.

#31 | Posted by bayviking at 2018-04-11 03:15 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Where is the headline
Trump skulks off to South America to avoid the Mule spoor?
Then flip flops to stay and punch Joe Biden.

#32 | Posted by phesterOBoyle at 2018-04-11 04:07 PM | Reply

Forewarning the enemy is one of many broken promises the dotard promised not to do during the campaign.

#31 | Posted by bayviking

Right along with playing golf, it was one of the ways he promised to be different than obama.

But to his supporters, the only difference they really care about is his skin color. As long as he's white, he can do all the same things obama did and they'll be fine with it.

#33 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-04-11 04:13 PM | Reply

That Trump! He's crafty! He's aware that only an ignoramus would tell the other side, "Hey, get ready now, ya hear? I'm gonna be a-sendin' missiles over atcha!" So, Putin, knowing Trump's NOT an ignoramus, will figure the missiles can't really be coming at all. So now Trump really DOES send the missiles, catching Putin totally by surprise!! Crafty ol' Trump!

Except Trump really is an ignoramus, and Putin knows it. Hell, now everybody knows it.

#34 | Posted by nimbleswitch at 2018-04-11 04:33 PM | Reply

In Europe and America
There's a growing feeling of hysteria
Conditioned to respond to all the threats
In the rhetorical speeches of the Soviets
Mr. Khrushchev said we will bury you
I don't subscribe to this point of view
It would be such an ignorant thing to do
If the Russians love their children too

How can I save my little boy
From Oppenheimer's deadly toy
There is no monopoly of common sense
On either side of the political fence

We share the same biology
Regardless of ideology
Believe me when I say to you
I hope the Russians love their children too

There is no historical precedent
To put the words in the mouth of the president
There's no such thing as a winnable war
It's a lie we don't believe anymore
Mr. Reagan says we will protect you
I don't subscribe to this point of view
Believe me when I say to you
I hope the Russians love their children too

.....................Sting

#35 | Posted by ABlock at 2018-04-11 04:39 PM | Reply

I think people have forgotten that sending missiles into Syria after Putin told us he will shoot back is starting a major war with Russia.

#36 | Posted by danni at 2018-04-11 05:25 PM | Reply

Our best jamming platform is baked into the F-35. How do you feel about that program? :) #29 | POSTED BY SITZKRIEG

Budget overruns aside, it is state of the art tech.

#37 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2018-04-11 05:58 PM | Reply

Budget overruns aside, it is state of the art tech.

#37 | Posted by GOnoles92

That we invested in instead of schools, roads, healthcare, research...

And it will never even be used because you don't need fighter jets when you have nukes.

#38 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-04-11 06:05 PM | Reply

So I take it you don't believe in all of those economic experts that insisted all of that government spending generates massive economic activity at a hugely favorable ratio?

Regardless, you can't have hegemony without fighters and attack aircraft.

#39 | Posted by sitzkrieg at 2018-04-11 06:33 PM | Reply

"all of those economic experts that insisted all of that government spending generates massive economic activity at a hugely favorable ratio?"

The ratio all those economic experts are referring to is when government spends money at the bottom of the scale, not the top.

#40 | Posted by Danforth at 2018-04-11 06:34 PM | Reply

So I take it you don't believe in all of those economic experts that insisted all of that government spending generates massive economic activity at a hugely favorable ratio?

Regardless, you can't have hegemony without fighters and attack aircraft.

#39 | Posted by sitzkrieg

Government spending creates economic activity, but spending 100 billion on infrastructure and schools is far more beneficial than spending it on fighter aircraft that will likely never even be used.

Furthermore, spending on infrastructure is an INVESTMENT which partially or fully pays for itself. Spending on war toys is just money down the toilet.

Furthermore, simply building these aircraft will make warmongers start itching to use them.

#41 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-04-11 06:55 PM | Reply

"So I take it you don't believe in all of those economic experts that insisted all of that government spending generates massive economic activity at a hugely favorable ratio?"

Do you?
Welfare spending comes to mind...

#42 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-04-11 07:12 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"The ratio all those economic experts are referring to is when government spends money at the bottom of the scale, not the top."

Not sure what you mean...the Defense industry provides high paying jobs, many of them union jobs, to workers who would otherwise be under/unemployed.

It's kinda that government "jobs" program that many progressives often demand. They just don't seem to recognize this fact.

#43 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-04-11 08:34 PM | Reply

It's kinda that government "jobs" program that many progressives often demand. They just don't seem to recognize this fact.

#43 | Posted by madbomber

Progressives demand jobs programs where the product is useful to the people and the economy.
1 a trillion spent on infrastructure helps americans and the economy far more than a trillion spent on useless war toys.

#44 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-04-11 08:54 PM | Reply

"1 a trillion spent on infrastructure helps americans and the economy far more than a trillion spent on useless war toys."

Useless war toys...

You mean like the lots full of Abrams tanks the Army neither needs or wants, or the ships the Navy can't do much with?

I don't really disagree with you. There is a lot that can be spent on infrastructure. But the simple fact that infrastructure work is going to be static and limited. You can't just keep rebuilding the same road so that a tractor operator in Possum Pouch Arkansas stays gainfully employed. Regionally there is a limit to the demand. That's not the case for the factories that crank out machinery or the depots charged with repairing and maintaining it.

An additional factor is that the US is one of the handful of repositories of corporate knowledge on how to design and build this equipment. Many of our close allies no longer have organic production capabilities, and rely on the US for it. That was by design to some degree, as it limited the development advanced military technology across a borad range of countries.

#45 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-04-11 09:03 PM | Reply

"It's kinda that government "jobs" program that many progressives often demand."

LOL. The fact that it's a government job is does not make it the kind of government job progressives want to see more of.

"They just don't seem to recognize this fact."

Yeah. I'm sure it's them. It's not you, failing to recognize that construction workers and bomb builders make two very different things.

#46 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-04-11 09:15 PM | Reply

"Not sure what you mean...the Defense industry provides high paying jobs, many of them union jobs, to workers who would otherwise be under/unemployed.
It's kinda that government "jobs" program that many progressives often demand. They just don't seem to recognize this fact."

Utter nonsense. Progressives want jobs that result in economic growth. Defense industry jobs do not create growth, they create wars. Hey, Trump is trying to get one started with Russia right now. If he succeeds, people on both sides will die. I honestly don't think you care about that.

#47 | Posted by danni at 2018-04-11 09:18 PM | Reply

I don't really disagree with you. There is a lot that can be spent on infrastructure. But the simple fact that infrastructure work is going to be static and limited. You can't just keep rebuilding the same road so that a tractor operator in Possum Pouch Arkansas stays gainfully employed. Regionally there is a limit to the demand. That's not the case for the factories that crank out machinery or the depots charged with repairing and maintaining it.

An additional factor is that the US is one of the handful of repositories of corporate knowledge on how to design and build this equipment. Many of our close allies no longer have organic production capabilities, and rely on the US for it. That was by design to some degree, as it limited the development advanced military technology across a borad range of countries.

#45 | Posted by madbomber

Infrastructure needs maintenance just like war toys. That isn't static. And it's not like it would all happen at once and then be done. It would be a long process of investment and jobs.

You're worried about the loss of institutional knowledge of weapons manufacturing, but not the loss of institutional knowledge that has been eliminated from trump's state department - the department which prevents weapons from being needed? A general recently said if you cut the state department budget then you'll need to buy more bullets.

#48 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-04-11 09:18 PM | Reply

#48 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

Military spending is a fraction of what it was when Ike gave his famous "military industrial complex" speech.

The argument can be made that this country spends more than necessary on its military. De-fang it too much and watch the next World War unfold.

#49 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-04-11 09:25 PM | Reply

"The argument can be made that this country spends more than necessary on its military. De-fang it too much and watch the next World War unfold."

Do health care next!

#50 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-04-11 09:27 PM | Reply

The argument can be made that this country spends more than necessary on its military. De-fang it too much and watch the next World War unfold.

#49 | Posted by JeffJ

Yeah we spend more than the next 7 nations combined and 5 of them are allies. And we have nukes. No one is going to war against us unless it's a nuclear war, in which case it's all over and all the non-nuclear toys wont matter at all.

The wars of the future are cheap and online. China and russia know this. America is getting its ass kicked and our trillion dollar military can't do a thing about it.

#51 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-04-11 09:29 PM | Reply

The wars of the future are cheap and online. China and russia know this. America is getting its ass kicked and our trillion dollar military can't do a thing about it.

#51 | POSTED BY SPEAKSOFTLY

Has it ever occurred to you that our overwhelmingly superior military might created this dynamic?

Would Nagasaki, Hiroshima, Dresden and countless other carpet/nuclear bombing campaigns even be necessary in this modern era of the US being a true, unchallenged super-power?

#52 | Posted by JeffJ at 2018-04-11 09:33 PM | Reply

Has it ever occurred to you that our overwhelmingly superior military might created this dynamic?

Would Nagasaki, Hiroshima, Dresden and countless other carpet/nuclear bombing campaigns even be necessary in this modern era of the US being a true, unchallenged super-power?

#52 | Posted by JeffJ

No. We don't need a bunch of bombers fighters and tanks to defend ourselves when we have nukes.

Those things are only need for wars of AGGRESSION, when we want to extend our power into someone else's country.

#53 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2018-04-11 09:44 PM | Reply

- wars of AGGRESSION

Also liberation, search for WMD's, search for man in cave, knock over statues, spread candy.

#54 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-04-11 09:48 PM | Reply

"Has it ever occurred to you that our overwhelmingly superior military might created this dynamic?"

Oh, so we built such an insurmountable army that they'll never try to attack us militarily...
Instead they used Deep Cyber on us to usurp war-mongering Hillary!

#55 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-04-11 09:51 PM | Reply

PUTIN: "Russia vows to shoot down any and all missiles fired at Syria."

TRUMP: "Get ready Russia, because they will be coming, nice and new and 'smart!'"

This sounds seriously contrived between the two of them to make Trump sound tough. I wonder.

Maybe they'll load their Roy Rogers cap pistols and show up on the playground during recess?

#56 | Posted by Twinpac at 2018-04-12 05:36 AM | Reply

Seriously, though, there is always a 'given' when Trump gets his t*ts in a wringer which is where he is right now after Mueller's search of Michael Cohen files.

Trump needs a distraction ~ desperately and fast. I can see where Putin would protect his investment in Trump's presidency by providing that distraction with these mock threats.

#57 | Posted by Twinpac at 2018-04-12 07:11 AM | Reply

Dotard is literally giving intel to Russia and Syria over Twitter.

If this were Obama, the GOP would already have 100 investigations going on it.

#58 | Posted by 726 at 2018-04-12 08:42 AM | Reply

"Military spending is a fraction of what it was when Ike gave his famous "military industrial complex" speech."

Yet Ike was also able to start building the interstate highway system during that era, amazing what happened when Republicans were still Americans and not just greedy Libertarians.

"But the simple fact that infrastructure work is going to be static and limited."

That's not a fact, it's a Libertarian talking point. Infrastructure investment pays off over the long term, the more you invest the greater the returns. I don't know if there is a limit to the benefits of those investments but we are certainly very far away from that limit if there actually is one.

#59 | Posted by danni at 2018-04-12 08:54 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Get ready" = "Make sure you get everything out of the way. We will try to hit exactly what you said we could (like last time with the abandoned, weed-choked "runways").

No harm to you, but it will get Phester, Sniper, Fishpaw, and my other sycophants chubbied up.

#60 | Posted by mOntecOre at 2018-04-12 02:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Yeah. I'm sure it's them. It's not you, failing to recognize that construction workers and bomb builders make two very different things."

Yes. Bomb makers are producing a consumable. construction workers are not. Which is why it's easier to employ bomb makers than construction workers long term.

"Infrastructure needs maintenance just like war toys."

That's true, but the amount of maintenance required for each mile of road is non-existent when compared to the amount of maintenance an aircraft requires per flight hour. The C-17 requires 20 hours of maintenance for every hour flown. That doesn't happen all at once. And much of that work is conducted by civilian contractors at a depot. And unlike roads, the aircraft come to them for repair.

#61 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-04-12 03:26 PM | Reply

"Utter nonsense. Progressives want jobs that result in economic growth. Defense industry jobs do not create growth, they create wars. Hey, Trump is trying to get one started with Russia right now. If he succeeds, people on both sides will die. I honestly don't think you care about that."

You can't have jobs that result in economic growth when the labor needed costs more than the value of the labor itself. If you believed what you said, you wouldn't support jobs programs that were not market driven.

#62 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-04-12 03:30 PM | Reply

"The wars of the future are cheap and online."

I couldn't agree more. I think that days of dropping bombs on people is coming to an end. The next generation of front-line fighters will conduct warfare from behind a computer. Most likely making people very miserable, but not killing them.

#63 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-04-12 03:31 PM | Reply

"You can't have jobs that result in economic growth when the labor needed costs more than the value of the labor itself."

So then, building the Interstate Highway system was a waste of money. It didn't enable growth. There is no future and there is no reason to build anything which will enable growth in the future, like high speed rail. Do you actually believe that stuff? I, for one, am just so glad that Libertarianism wasn't the philosophy of my parents' generation.

#64 | Posted by danni at 2018-04-12 03:53 PM | Reply

"So then, building the Interstate Highway system was a waste of money. It didn't enable growth."

No, it did. Building a four-lane highway between Twin Falls and Boise definitely enabled growth, but as you add lanes, the value provided will decrease. An 80 lane road between Twin Falls and Boise is unlikely to increase growth at a linear rate. You're just going to wind up with a meaningless slab of concrete that was built for no other purpose but to provide employment.

'member the "bridge to knowwhere?"

#65 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-04-12 07:18 PM | Reply

An 80 lane road between Twin Falls and Boise is unlikely to increase growth at a linear rate.

Six lanes would be viable... there is a crazy amount of freight on that stretch of road, and farther west.

#66 | Posted by REDIAL at 2018-04-12 07:27 PM | Reply

"Six lanes would be viable... there is a crazy amount of freight on that stretch of road, and farther west."

Why not 40 lanes...or more if the intent was simply to provide jobs for the underemployed?

#67 | Posted by madbomber at 2018-04-12 09:52 PM | Reply

Why not 40 lanes...or more if the intent was simply to provide jobs for the underemployed?

I dunno... perhaps because the idea is to improve infrastructure as opposed to just providing jobs for the unemployed?

I'm sure you already know the concept of a 40 lane highway is idiotic.

#68 | Posted by REDIAL at 2018-04-12 10:02 PM | Reply

"You can't have jobs that result in economic growth when the labor needed costs more than the value of the labor itself."

You always say the cost is defined by the value. Like a CEO who makes millions, the cost and value are equal, or perhaps the cost is actually lower than the value and the company is getting a really good deal.

#69 | Posted by snoofy at 2018-04-12 10:12 PM | Reply

Update:

Haley, Mattis divided on evidence of Syria gas attack - nypost.com

"Defense Secretary Jim Mattis on Thursday said the US is still looking for "actual evidence" of a chemical weapons attack in Syria, but United Nations Ambassador Nikki Haley said the United States has "enough" proof."

#70 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2018-04-12 10:52 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2018 World Readable

Drudge Retort