Day: April 6, 2017

Hillary Clinton (White Feminist, White Freemason, Zionist) calls for destruction of Syrian Air Force

BEIRUT, LEBANON (3:03 A.M.) – Hillary Clinton, despite losing the 2016 US Presidential Election, has continued on her war monger, calling for her country to destroy Syria’s air force, days after a chemical attack killed over 50 people, in which the US has blamed the Syrian government without providing sufficient evidence.

“Assad has an air force, and that air force is the cause of most of these civilian deaths as we have seen over the years and as we saw again in the last few days,” Clinton said in a speech at the “Women in the World” summit in New York City. “And I really believe that we should have and still should take out his air fields and prevent him from being able to use them to bomb innocent people and drop sarin gas on them.”

“I still believe we should have done a no-fly zone,” she said, in a slight knock against former President Barack Obama, whose Cabinet she served in. “We should have been more willing to confront Assad.”
Clinton, was a n open supporter of the US conducting direct action in Syria. despite Obama’s position on taking no military action in the country.

“I wish, obviously I wish that the international community writ large had been able to rein this in,” Clinton said, while acknowledging that the decision was not an easy one.

Clinton then also took the opportunity to attack Russian President Vladimir Putin.

“He is absolutely a prisoner of his family’s expectations, his dead father’s looming presence and his delusion, that I believe he now probably could pass a lie detector about, that everyone who opposes him is a terrorist,” Clinton said of Assad, before adding, “That is how Putin thinks.”

ALSO READ  Deir Ezzor Airport siege nears its end as Syrian Army troops liberate several points

Clinton said that if she were in power, she would have told the Russians they were “either with us or against us on this no-fly zone.”

“The Russians were afraid of us because we were going to stand up for the rights, the human rights, the dignity and the future of the Syrian people,” Clinton deluded.


The Dirty War on Syria: Professor Anderson Reveals the “Unspoken Truth”


The following texts are excerpts from the Preface of  Professor Tim Anderson’s timely and important book entitled The Dirty War on Syria. The book is available for pre-order from Global Research, place your order here now! Orders will ship late June 2016.

Although every war makes ample use of lies and deception, the dirty war on Syria has relied on a level of mass disinformation not seen in living memory. The British-Australian journalist Philip Knightley pointed out that war propaganda typically involves ‘a depressingly predictable pattern’ of demonising the enemy leader, then demonising the enemy people through atrocity stories, real or imagined (Knightley 2001). Accordingly, a mild-mannered eye doctor called Bashar al Assad became the new evil in the world and, according to consistent western media reports, the Syrian Army did nothing but kill civilians for more than four years. To this day, many imagine the Syrian conflict is a ‘civil war’, a ‘popular revolt’ or some sort of internal sectarian conflict. These myths are, in many respects, a substantial achievement for the big powers which have driven a series of ‘regime change’ operations in the Middle East region, all on false pretexts, over the past 15 years.

This book is a careful academic work, but also a strong defence of the right of the Syrian people to determine their own society and political system. That position is consistent with international law and human rights principles, but may irritate western sensibilities, accustomed as we are to an assumed prerogative to intervene. At times I have to be blunt, to cut through the double-speak. In Syria the big powers have sought to hide their hand, using proxy armies while demonising the Syrian Government and Army, accusing them of constant atrocities; then pretending to rescue the Syrian people from their own government. Far fewer western people opposed the war on Syria than opposed the invasion of Iraq, because they were deceived about its true nature.

Dirty wars are not new. Cuban national hero Jose Martí predicted to a friend that Washington would try to intervene in Cuba’s independence struggle against the Spanish. ‘They want to provoke a war’, he wrote in 1889 ‘to have a pretext to intervene and, with the authority of being mediator and guarantor, to seize the country … There is no more cowardly thing in the annals of free people; nor such cold blooded evil’ (Martí 1975: 53). Nine years later, during the third independence war, an explosion in Havana Harbour destroyed the USS Maine, killing 258 US sailors and serving as a pretext for a US invasion.

The US launched dozens of interventions in Latin America over the subsequent century. A notable dirty war was led by CIA-backed, ‘freedom fighter’ mercenaries based in Honduras, who attacked the Sandinista Government and the people of Nicaragua in the 1980s. That conflict, in its modus operandi, was not so different to the war on Syria. In Nicaragua more than 30,000 people were killed. The International Court of Justice found the US guilty of a range of terrorist-style attacks on the little Central American country, and found that the US owed Nicaragua compensation (ICJ 1986). Washington ignored these rulings.

With the ‘Arab Spring’ of 2011 the big powers took advantage of a political foment by seizing the initiative to impose an ‘Islamist winter’, attacking the few remaining independent states of the region. Very quickly we saw the destruction of Libya, a small country with the highest standard of living in Africa. NATO bombing and a Special Forces campaign helped the al Qaeda groups on the ground. The basis for NATO’s intervention was lies told about actual and impending massacres, supposedly carried out or planned by the government of President Muammar Gaddafi. These claims led rapidly to a UN Security Council resolution said to protect civilians through a ‘no fly zone’. We know now that trust was betrayed, and that the NATO powers abused the limited UN authorisation to overthrow the Libyan Government (McKinney 2012).

Subsequently, no evidence emerged to prove that Gaddafi intended, carried out or threatened wholesale massacres, as was widely suggested (Forte 2012). Genevieve Garrigos of Amnesty International (France) admitted there was ‘no evidence’ to back her group’s earlier claims that Gaddafi had used ‘black mercenaries’ to commit massacres (Forte 2012; Edwards 2013).

… Two days before NATO bombed Libya another armed Islamist insurrection broke out in Daraa, Syria’s southernmost city. Yet because this insurrection was linked to the demonstrations of a political reform movement, its nature was disguised. Many did not see that those who were providing the guns – Qatar and Saudi Arabia – were also running fake news stories in their respective media channels, Al Jazeera and Al Arabiya. There were other reasons for the durable myths of this war. Many western audiences, liberals and leftists as well as the more conservative, seemed to like the idea of their own role as the saviours of a foreign people, speaking out strongly about a country of which they knew little, but joining what seemed to be a ‘good fight’ against this new ‘dictator’. With a mission and their proud self-image western audiences apparently forgot the lies of previous wars, and of their own colonial legacies.

I would go so far as to say that, in the Dirty War on Syria, western culture in general abandoned its better traditions: of reason, the maintenance of ethical principle and the search for independent evidence at times of conflict; in favour of its worst traditions: the ‘imperial prerogative’ for intervention, backed by deep racial prejudice and poor reflection on the histories of their own cultures. That weakness was reinforced by a ferocious campaign of war propaganda. After the demonisation of Syrian leader Bashar al Assad began, a virtual information blockade was constructed against anything which might undermine the wartime storyline. Very few sensible western perspectives on Syria emerged after 2011, as critical voices were effectively blacklisted.

The Dirty War on Syria

by Professor Tim Anderson

click to purchase, directly from Global Research Publishers

In that context I came to write this book. It is a defence of Syria, not primarily addressed to those who are immersed the western myths but to others who engage with them. This is therefore a resource book and a contribution to the history of the Syrian conflict. The western stories have become self-indulgent and I believe it is wasteful to indulge them too much. Best, I think, to speak of current events as they are, then address the smokescreens later. I do not ignore the western myths, in fact this book documents many of them. But I lead with the reality of the war.

Western mythology relies on the idea of imperial prerogatives, asking what must ‘we’ do about the problems of another people; an approach which has no basis in international law or human rights. The next steps involve a series of fabrications about the pretexts, character and events of the war. The first pretext over Syria was that the NATO states and the Gulf monarchies were supporting a secular and democratic revolution. When that seemed implausible the second story was that they were saving the oppressed majority ‘Sunni Muslim’ population from a sectarian ‘Alawite regime’. Then, when sectarian atrocities by anti-government forces attracted greater public attention, the pretext became a claim that there was a shadow war: ‘moderate rebels’ were said to be actually fighting the extremist groups. Western intervention was therefore needed to bolster these ‘moderate rebels’ against the ‘new’ extremist group that had mysteriously arisen and posed a threat to the world.

That was the ‘B’ story. No doubt Hollywood will make movies based on this meta-script, for years to come. However this book leads with the ‘A’ story. Proxy armies of Islamists, armed by US regional allies (mainly Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey), infiltrate a political reform movement and snipe at police and civilians. They blame this on the government and spark an insurrection, seeking the overthrow of the Syrian government and its secular-pluralist state. This follows the openly declared ambition of the US to create a ‘New Middle East’, subordinating every country of the region, by reform, unilateral disarmament or direct overthrow. Syria was next in line, after Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya. In Syria, the proxy armies would come from the combined forces of the Muslim Brotherhood and Saudi Arabia’s Wahhabi fanatics. Despite occasional power struggles between these groups and their sponsors, they share much the same Salafist ideology, opposing secular or nationalist regimes and seeking the establishment of a religious state.

However in Syria Washington’s Islamists confronted a disciplined national army which did not disintegrate along religious lines, despite many provocations. The Syrian state also had strong allies in Russia and Iran. Syria was not to be Libya Take Two. In this prolonged war the violence, from the western side, was said to consist of the Syrian Army targeting and killing civilians. From the Syrian side people saw daily terrorist attacks on towns and cities, schools and hospitals and massacres of ordinary people by NATO’s ‘freedom fighters’, then the counter attacks by the Army. Foreign terrorists were recruited in dozens of countries by the Saudis and Qatar, bolstering the local mercenaries.

Though the terrorist groups were often called ‘opposition, ‘militants’ and ‘Sunni groups’ outside Syria, inside the country the actual political opposition abandoned the Islamists back in early 2011. Protest was driven off the streets by the violence, and most of the opposition (minus the Muslim Brotherhood and some exiles) sided with the state and the Army, if not with the ruling Ba’ath Party. The Syrian Army has been brutal with terrorists but, contrary to western propaganda, protective of civilians. The Islamists have been brutal with all, and openly so. Millions of internally displaced people have sought refuge with the Government and Army, while others fled the country.

In a hoped-for ‘end game’ the big powers sought overthrow of the Syrian state or, failing that, the creation of a dysfunctional state or dismembering into sectarian statelets, thus breaking the axis of independent regional states. That axis comprises Hezbollah in south Lebanon and the Palestinian resistance, alongside Syria and Iran, the only states in the region without US military bases. More recently Iraq – still traumatised from western invasion, massacres and occupation – has begun to align itself with this axis. Russia too has begun to play an important counter-weight role. Recent history and conduct demonstrate that neither Russia nor Iran harbour any imperial ambitions remotely approaching those of Washington and its allies, several of which (Britain, France and Turkey) were former colonial warlords in the region. From the point of view of the ‘Axis of Resistance’, defeat of the dirty war on Syria means that the region can begin closing ranks against the big powers. Syria’s successful resistance would mean the beginning of the end for Washington’s ‘New Middle East’.

That is basically the big picture. This book sets out to document the A story and expose the B story. It does so by rescuing some of the better western traditions: the use of reason, the maintenance of ethical principle and the search for independent evidence in case of conflict. I hope it might prove a useful resource. Here is a brief overview of the chapters.

ISBN Number: 978-0-9737147-8-4

Year: 2016

Pages: 240

Author: Tim Anderson

List Price: $23.95

Special Price: $15.00

Pre-orders will be shipped end of June 2016

The Dirty War on Syria 

by Professor Tim Anderson

click to purchase, directly from Global Research Publishers

Chapter 1, ‘Syria and Washington’s ‘New Middle East’’ puts Syria in context of the US plans for a ‘New Middle East’, the latest chapter in a longer history of US attempts to dominate the region.

Chapter 2, ‘Barrel Bombs, Partisan Sources and War Propaganda’ addresses the problem of reporting and reading the Syrian crisis. Media channels have shown a hyper-reliance on partisan sources, committed to the war and denigrating the Syrian Army. This is the key barrier to understanding the controversies around chemical weapons, civilian massacres and the levels of support for or opposition to President Assad.

Chapter 3, ‘Daraa 2011: Another Islamist Insurrection’ reconstructs, from a range of sources, the Saudi-backed Islamist insurrection in Daraa in March 2011. Those armed attacks were quite distinct from the political reform rallies, which the Islamists soon drove off the streets.

Chapter 4, ‘Bashar al Assad and Political Reform’ explains the political reform movement from the time Bashar assumed the presidency in the year 2000 to the beginning of the crisis in 2011. From this we can see that most opposition groups were committed to reform within a Syrian context, with virtually all opposing attacks on the Syrian state. The chapter then reviews the role of Bashar as a reformer, and the evidence on his popularity.

Chapter 5, ‘The Empire’s Jihadis’ looks at the collaboration between Salafist political Islam and the imperial powers in the Middle East. Distinct from the anti-imperial Islamic currents in Iran and south Lebanon, Salafist political Islam has become a sectarian force competing with Arab nationalism across Egypt, Palestine and Syria, and drawing on long standing collaborative relations with the big powers. This history provides important background to the character of Syria’s Islamist ‘revolution’, and its various slogans.

Chapter 6, ‘Embedded Media, Embedded Watchdogs’ identifies the propaganda techniques of media channels and the network of ‘human rights’ bodies (Human Rights Watch, Avaaz, etc) which function as megaphones and ‘moderators’ for the Washington agenda. Many have become fierce advocates for ‘humanitarian war’. A number of newer western NGOs (e.g. The Syria Campaign, The White Helmets) have been created by Wall Street agencies specifically for the dirty war on Syria. A number of their fabrications are documented here.

Chapter 7, ‘The Houla Massacre Revisited’ considers in detail the evidence from the first major massacre designed (following success of the technique over Libya) to influence UN Security Council consideration of military intervention. While the first UN inquiry group, actually in Syria, found contradictory evidence on this massacre, a second UN group outside Syria and co-chaired by a US diplomat, tried to blame the Syrian Government. Yet more than a dozen witnesses blamed Farouq FSA Islamists, who killed pro-government villagers and took over the area, holding it for some months. Several other ‘false flag’ massacres are noted.

Chapter 8, ‘Chemical Fabrications: the East Ghouta Incident’ details the second major ‘false flag’ incident of international significance. This incident in August 2013, which nearly sparked a major escalation involving US missile attacks on Syria, was used to accuse the Syrian Government of killing hundreds of civilians, including children, with chemical weapons. Within a fairly short time multiple sources of independent evidence (including North American evidence) disproved these accusations. Nevertheless, Syria’s opponents have repeated the false accusations, to this day, as though they were fact.

Chapter 9, ‘The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) and the Double Game’ addresses a recent political doctrine, a subset of ‘humanitarian intervention’ popularised to add to the imperial toolkit. The application of this doctrine in Libya was disastrous for that little country. Fortunately the attempts to use it in Syria failed.

Chapter 10, ‘Health and Sanctions’ documents the NATO-backed Islamist attacks on Syria’s health system, linked to the impact of western economic sanctions. These twin currents have caused great damage to Syrian public health. Such attacks carry no plausible motive of seeking local popular support, so we must interpret them as part of an overall strategy to degrade the Syrian state, rendering it more vulnerable to outside intervention.

Chapter 11 ‘Washington, Terrorism and the Islamic State (ISIS)’, documents the links between the big powers and the latest peak terrorist group they claim to be fighting. Only evidence can help develop informed opinion on this contentious matter, but the evidence is overwhelming. There is little ideological difference between the various Salafi-Islamist groups, and Washington and its allies have financed and armed every one of them.

Chapter 12, ‘Western Intervention and the Colonial Mind’ discusses the western cultural mindset that underlies persistent violations of the rights of other peoples.

Chapter 13 ‘Towards an Independent Middle East’, considers the end-game in the Syrian crisis, and its implications for the Middle East region. At tremendous cost the Syrian Arab Republic, its army and its people, have successfully resisted aggression from a variety of powerful enemies. Syria’s survival is due to its resilience and internal unity, bolstered by support from some strong allies. The introduction of Russian air power in late September 2015 was important. So too were the coordinated ground forces from Iran, Iraq and Lebanon, in support of an independent Syria.

When the attacks on Syria abate the Middle East seems set to be transformed, with greater political will and military preparedness on the part of an expanded Axis of Resistance. That will signal the beginning of the end for Washington’s 15 year spree of bloodshed and ‘regime change’ across the entire region.

Also available in PDF version, click here to purchase


Tim Anderson  has written the best systematic critique of western fabrications justifying the war against the Assad government. 

No other text brings together all the major accusations and their effective refutation.

This text is essential reading for all peace and justice activists.  -James Petras, Author and Bartle Professor (Emeritus) of Sociology at Binghamton University, New York, Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.

Tim Anderson’s important new book, titled “The Dirty War on Syria” discusses US naked aggression – “rely(ing) on a level of mass disinformation not seen in living memory,” he explains.

ISIS is the pretext for endless war without mercy, Assad the target, regime change the objective, wanting pro-Western puppet governance replacing Syrian sovereign independence.

There’s nothing civil about war in Syria, raped by US imperialism, partnered with rogue allies. Anderson’s book is essential reading to understand what’s going on. Stephen Lendman, Distinguished Author and Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG), Host of the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.

Professor Anderson demonstrates unequivocally through carefully documented research that America’s “Moderate Opposition” are bona fide Al Qaeda affiliated terrorists created and protected by the US and its allies, recruited  and trained by Saudi Arabia, Turkey, in liaison with Washington and Brussels.

Through careful analysis, professor Anderson reveals the “unspoken truth”: the “war on terrorism” is fake, the United States is a “State sponsor of terrorism” involved in a criminal undertaking. Michel Chossudovsky, Director of the Centre for Research on Globalization, Professor of Economics (Emeritus), University of Ottawa.

Click here to pre-order Tim Anderson’s Book

Dr Tim Anderson is a Senior Lecturer in Political Economy at the University of Sydney. He researches and writes on development, rights and self-determination in Latin America, the Asia-Pacific and the Middle East. He has published many dozens of chapters and articles in a range of academic books and journals. His last book was Land and Livelihoods in Papua New Guinea (Australian Scholarly Publishing, Melbourne, 2015).


Edwards, Dave (2013) ‘Limited But Persuasive’ Evidence – Syria, Sarin, Libya, Lies’, Media Lens, 13 June, online:

Forte, Maximilian (2012) Slouching Towards Sirte: NATO’s War on Libya and Africa, Baraka Books, Quebec

ICJ (1986) Case concerning the military and paramilitary activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America) Merits’, International Court of Justice, Judgement of 27 June 1986, online:

Knightley, Phillip (2001) ‘The disinformation campaign’, The Guardian, 4 October, online:

Kuperman, Alan J. (2015) Obama’s Libya Debacle’, Foreign Affairs, 16 April, online:

Martí, Jose (1975) Obras Completas, Vol. 6, Editorial de Ciencias Sociales, La Habana

McKinney, Cynthia (Ed) (2012) The Illegal War on Libya, Clarity Press, Atlanta

Putin, Vladimir (2015) ‘Violence instead of democracy: Putin slams ‘policies of exceptionalism and impunity’ in UN speech’, RT, 28 September, online:

Richter, Larry (1998) ‘Havana Journal; Remember the Maine? Cubans See an American Plot Continuing to This Day’, New York Times, 14 February, online:

To Sell A War – Gulf War Propaganda (1992)


This was aired in December 1992 as part of CBC program The Fifth Estate, which was directed by Martyn Gregory and produced by Neil Docherty.

It exposes the Citizens for a Free Kuwait campaign as public relations spin to gain public opinion support for the Gulf War. As well, it reveals that Nurse Nayirah was in fact Nijirah al-Sabah, the daughter of Kuwait’s ambassador to the United States Saud Nasir Al-Sabah, coached by Hill & Knowlton to forge her infamous testimony about Iraqi soldiers removing babies from incubators, which was widely reported and repeated throughout the media.

Professors Suggest Parents Could Be Randomly Assigned Babies to End Racism


Renegade Editor’s Note: What these professors are suggesting is literally genocide according to the UN’s definition:

(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”

By Daniel Lang of The Daily Sheeple

It’s strange how people from academia can be so out of touch with reality. It often seems like the people who spend the most time pursuing an education, particularly if it’s not STEM related, have the most backward views of society and propose the most asinine solutions to non-problems. You’d think that people who put so much effort into trying to understand the world would have great ideas, but that’s not always true.

Case in point: Howard Rachlin, a professor of psychology from Stony Brook University and Marvin Franke, a professor of psychology at Sarah Lawrence College, have come up with a solution to end racism in America. In an op-ed for Aeon, they suggested (as a thought experiment of course) that the best way to stop racism and what they call “genetic chauvinism,” would be to assign babies randomly to parents, without their consent.

The superficial connection between color and culture would be severed. Racism would be wiped out. Racial ghettos would disappear; children of all races would live in all neighborhoods. Any white child could have black parents and any black child could have white parents.” they said before adding “Imagine if social mixing had been in effect 100 years ago in Germany, Bosnia, Palestine or the Congo. Racial, religious, and social genocide would not have happened.”

What’s even more creepy than that, is what they think would happen to parents who refuse to go along with this policy, and raise their own children in secret. 

But those babies would not have birth certificates, they would not be citizens, they could not vote, serve in public office and so forth. If discovered, the children might be taken away after the strong bonds of psychological (as opposed to biological) parenthood had been formed. Few Americans would risk these penalties.”

The professors admit this plan would be “politically impossible, perhaps even repellent.” They say it’s not a serious proposal, but their in-depth analysis of this idea sure sounds serious. Leftist academics are obsessed with ideas that break down the family and erase social and cultural boundaries, and this fits that bill. It sounds like a socialist wet dream that only an academic swimming in social justice notions would come up with.

This article originally appeared on The Daily Sheeple.

Dozens of U.S. Missiles Hit Air Base in Syria

WASHINGTON — President Trump said Thursday night that the United States had carried out a missile strike in Syria on Thursday night in response to the Syrian government’s chemical weapons attack this week that killed more than 80 civilians.

“Tonight, I ordered a targeted military strike on the air base in Syria from where the chemical attack was launched,” Mr. Trump said in remarks at his Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida. “It is in this vital national security interest of the United States to prevent and deter the spread and use of deadly chemical weapons.”

A senior military official said that 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles had hit Al Shayrat airfield in Syria. The missiles were aimed at Syrian fighter jets and other infrastructure but did not target anything that may have had chemical weapons.

Hassan Youssef, 40, a victim of Tuesday’s chemical weapons attack in northern Syria, was in a hospital Thursday in the city of Idlib. The United States launched a missile attack Thursday night in response to the Syrian government’s use of such weapons on civilians. CreditOmar Haj Kadour/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

He said that no Russian planes were at the airfield and that the cruise missiles did not target any Russian facilities.

The Pentagon informed Russian military officials, through its established deconfliction channel, of the strike before the launching of the missiles, the official said, with American officials knowing when they did that that Russian authorities may well have alerted the Assad regime. “With a lot of Tomahawks flying, we didn’t want to hit any Russian planes,” he said.

The cruise missiles struck the airfield beginning around 8:30 p.m. Eastern Time on Thursday and the strikes continued for three to four minutes.

According to one military official, the Tomahawks were launched from two Navy warships.

The official said that the cruise missile strike was at the more limited end of the military options presented to Mr. Trump Thursday by Defense Secretary Jim Mattis. The cruise missile strike, the official said, was intended to send a message to Mr. Assad about the American intention to use military force if he continues to use chemical weapons.

It was the first time that the White House had ordered military action against forces loyal to Mr. Assad.

The speed with which the Trump administration responded — and remarks earlier in the day by American officials who said that options were still being considered — appeared intended to maximize the element of surprise and sharply contrasted with the methodical scrutiny of the use of force by the Obama administration.

It was Mr. Trump’s first order to the military for the use of force — other operations in Syria, Yemen and Iraq had been carried out under authorization delegated to his commanders — and appeared intended to send a message to North Korea, Iran and other potential adversaries that the new commander in chief was prepared to act, and sometimes on short notice.

The airstrikes were carried out less than an hour after the president concluded a dinner with Xi Jinping, the president of China, at Mar-a-Lago, sending an unmistakably aggressive signal about Mr. Trump’s willingness to use the military power at his disposal.

Mr. Trump authorized the strike with no congressional approval for the use of force, an assertion of presidential authority that contrasts sharply with the protracted deliberations over the use of force by his predecessor, former President Barack Obama.

Unlike Mr. Obama, who weighed — and ultimately rejected — the use of a similar strike at targets after Syria used chemical weapons in 2013, Mr. Trump moved with remarkable speed, delivering the punishing military strike barely 72 hours after the devastating chemical attack that killed 80 people this week.

Two Republican senators, John McCain of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, praised the strike in a statement and called for Mr. Trump to go further and to “take Assad’s air force — which is responsible not just for the latest chemical weapons attack, but countless atrocities against the Syrian people —completely out of the fight.”

Why Steve Bannon Was Kicked Off the National Security Council: 4 of the Most Popular Theories

In the aftermath of White House chief strategist Steve Bannon’s surprise removal from the National Security Council on Wednesday, rumors have started to swirl about the deeper implications this will have for the former Breitbart CEO’s influence on President Donald Trump.

Rumor #1: He had already threatened to resign in general because of internal power struggles

One report holds that Bannon has grown increasingly frustrated by the growing power of Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner and considered quitting due to what he perceives as Kushner’s undermining of his populist agenda, according to what five high-ranking sources told Politico. Another source told Politico that Bannon threatened to resign if he was taken off of the National Security Council. Either way, it took the intervention of Republican donor Rebekah Mercer to convince him to stay on board. Bannon has dismissed rumors of his threatened resignation to Politico as “total nonsense.”

Rumor #2: National Security Adviser H. R. McMaster pushed him out

Although Bannon has been saying that his removal from the National Security Council was part of a “natural evolution,” it was apparently insisted upon by National Security Adviser H. R. McMaster, according to a report by The New York Times. Even Bannon’s official statement on the matter seems to place some blame on McMaster: “Susan Rice operationalized the N.S.C. during the last administration. I was put on the N.S.C. with General Flynn to ensure that it was de-operationalized. General McMaster has returned the N.S.C. to its proper function.”

Bannon has not explained what he means by “deoperationalize,” a point that has not gone unnoticed.

If Bannon was placed on NSC temporarily to “deoperationalize” it (whatever that means), why wouldn’t WH have said that at the outset?

Rumor #3: Bannon hasn’t delivered and Trump has had enough of it

One point made by The New York Times that is hard to dispute: Bannon has not delivered results on some of Trump’s major policy initiatives, from the immigration order to the Obamacare repeal. This would explain why Vice President Mike Pence and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney have started taking on more prominent roles as Trump’s liaisons with Capitol Hill, as well as why Bannon’s presence at White House meetings has started to diminish.

Rumor #4: Trump was getting jealous of Bannon — and embarrassed by all of the jokes which implied that Bannon was the power behind the throne

Perhaps the most tantalizing rumor — one which, given Trump’s reputation as an avid consumer of popular culture, has the ring of truth to it — is that the president dislikes Bannon’s reputation as the power behind the throne. “Several associates said the president had quietly expressed annoyance over the credit Mr. Bannon had received for setting the agenda — and Mr. Trump was not pleased by the “President Bannon” puppet-master theme promoted by magazines, late-night talk shows and Twitter,” reports The New York Times.


Matthew Rozsa is a breaking news writer for Salon. He holds an MA in History from Rutgers University-Newark and his work has appeared in Mic, Quartz and MSNBC.

Rudolf Hess’ Last Words Before Final Judgment in Colour


Rudolf Hess must rightfully be honored as a martyr among martyrs. Over nearly a half century of unjustified imprisonment, much of it in solitary confinement, Hess never betrayed his race, or his leader or his comrades.

His attempt to bring peace between the then Aryan countries of Germany and Britain ran counter to the Zionist aim of genocide through fratricidal war. So, he was hated with passion by the world’s talmudic rulers. Finally, as an old man he was severely beaten and hanged in his solitary prison, as a final act of cruelty.

Banned Nerve Agent Sarin Used in Syria Chemical Attack, Turkey Says

ISTANBUL — The poison used in the deadly chemical bomb attack in a rebel-held part of northern Syria this week was the banned nerve agent sarin, the Turkish Health Ministry said in a statement on Thursday.

The statement from Turkey, where many of the stricken Syrians were taken after the assault on Tuesday, was the most specific about the cause.

“According to the results of preliminary tests,” the statement said, “patients were exposed to chemical material (Sarin).”

Western countries have accused the Syrian government of President Bashar al-Assad of carrying out the chemical attack on the town of Khan Sheikhoun in Idlib Province, which left scores dead and hundreds sickened in one of the worst atrocities so far in the six-year-old Syria war.

The Syrian government has denied responsibility. Russia, its main ally, has accused Mr. Assad’s enemies of rushing to judgment and has threatened to veto a United Nations Security Council measure condemning the assault.

The Turkish statement said the sarin conclusion had been based on autopsies on three victims performed at Turkey’s Adana Forensic Medicine Institution with the participation of representatives from the World Health Organization and the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, a group based in The Hague that monitors compliance with the global treaty that bans such munitions.

Mr. Assad’s government signed that treaty less than four years ago and agreed to give up its chemical arsenal after the first major chemical weapons attack in Syria, which left hundreds dead near Damascus.

Western governments accused the Syrian military of carrying out that attack, in August 2013, in which sarin was identified as the poison. It led President Barack Obama to threaten a direct military intervention in the conflict — an option he abandoned when Mr. Assad agreed to sign the chemical weapons ban.

The Turkish statement did not elaborate on how the sarin had been identified in the assault on Tuesday, but it said some of the telling symptoms seen in the victims included “lung edema, increase in lung weight and bleeding in lungs.”

The statement was issued hours after Syria’s foreign minister challenged accounts by witnesses, experts and world leaders that his government had carried out the attack.

“I stress to you once again: The Syrian Army has not, did not and will not use this kind of weapons — not just against our own people, but even against the terrorists that attack our civilians with their mortar rounds,” the minister, Walid al-Moallem, said at a news conference in Damascus.

Mr. Moallem repeated an explanation, which experts say is implausible, that the toxic substances were dispersed after the Syrian Army had conducted an 11:30 a.m. air raid on an insurgent depot that he said contained chemical weapons.

His statement echoed a Russian account of what had happened that witnesses and Western leaders say is contradicted by the evidence.

Mr. Moallem asserted that Al Qaeda’s Syria affiliate, commonly called Al Nusra Front, and its main jihadist rival, the Islamic State, harbor illicit chemical weapons in Syria.

Asked whether Syria would present proof that it was not involved in the attack, Mr. Moallem responded, “How am I supposed to go to Khan Sheikhoun if it’s held by Al Nusra?”

At least 86 people were killed in the assault including 28 children, according to a tally from the health department in rebel-held Idlib Province, but that may not include victims sent to Turkey who have died. Some officials including President Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey have said the attack killed more than 100 people. Unicef said in a statement on Thursday that 546 people were injured, “among them many children.”

Independent evidence continued to suggest that the Syrian military was to blame.

Dr. Monzer Khalil, the health director of Idlib Province, said medical teams had collected samples of blood, urine, hair and clothing from the victims and of soil and other materials in the areas where the poison spread. The samples were being preserved and offered to international agencies and governments as evidence, he said in an interview via Skype.

The Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons has in the past refused to accept samples not collected by its own teams and has accepted others but given them less credibility as evidence, according to Syrians who have worked for years to collect samples from what were suspected to be attacks.

Turkey’s deputy prime minister, Tugrul Turkes, told the state-run Anadolu Agency on Thursday that the Russian explanation was “unfulfilling.”

“If the Syrian regime knew that there were chemical weapons in the warehouse, it should have also known that it should not have attacked it,” he said.

He added that he believed the attack “was the work of the regime and that it was an attack against civilians.”

In Russia, officials said the case against Mr. Assad was far from clear.

The Kremlin’s spokesman, Dmitri S. Peskov, warned the West on Thursday against rushing to blame Mr. Assad.

He said that the West lacked objective evidence, and that materials presented by the White Helmets, a Syrian humanitarian group, did not suffice as proof.

“The use of chemical weapons is absolutely inadmissible,” Mr. Peskov said, adding that the Syrian Army must act to “prevent any chemical agents that can be used as weapons from falling into the terrorists’ hands.”

Later on Thursday, however, Mr. Peskov said that the Russian government supported a full investigation into the attack and that the Kremlin’s support for Mr. Assad’s government was “not unconditional.”

The Russian-Syrian posture came under immediate attack from Western leaders, including President Trump, who had urged his predecessor, Mr. Obama, in 2013 not to intervene in Syria. On Wednesday, Mr. Trump said that the chemical attack had “crossed a lot of lines for me,” and added, “My attitude toward Syria and Assad has changed very much.” He did not specify his plans.

France, Britain and the United States have circulated a draft resolution at the United Nations Security Council condemning the attack and demanding Syria’s cooperation — including access to all military flight logs of Syrian aircraft operating in Idlib during the attack.

Diplomats were negotiating the draft resolution but said they did expect a vote on Thursday. It remained unclear whether Russia would veto the measure, which would make it the eighth veto by Russia of a Security Council resolution regarding Syria.

Britain’s foreign secretary, Boris Johnson, said he “cannot understand how anybody on the U.N. Security Council could fail to sign up to a motion condemning the actions of the regime that is almost certainly responsible for that crime.”

Jean-Marc Ayrault, the French foreign minister, took a more moderate stance, telling CNews television that “France is still seeking to talk with its partners on the Security Council,” including “Russia in particular.”

“These crimes must not remain unpunished,” he said, adding, “One day, international justice will rule on Assad.”

Senate Republicans Deploy ‘Nuclear Option’ to Clear Path for Gorsuch

WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans on Thursday engineered a dramatic change in how the chamber confirms Supreme Court nominations, bypassing a Democratic blockade of Judge Neil M. Gorsuch in a move that will most likely reshape both the Senate and the court.

After Democrats held together Thursday morning and filibustered President Trump’s nominee, Republicans voted to lower the threshold for advancing Supreme Court nominations from 60 votes to a simple majority.

In deploying this so-called nuclear option, lawmakers are fundamentally altering the way the Senate handles one of its most significant duties, further limiting the minority’s power in a chamber that was designed to be a slower and more deliberative body than the House.

The move, once unthinkable among senators, is a testament to the creeping partisan rancor in recent years, after decades of at least relative bipartisanship on Supreme Court matters. Both parties have warned of sweeping effects on the court itself, predicting the elevation of more ideologically extreme judges now that only a majority is required for confirmation.

Senate Democrats in 2013 first changed the rules of the Senate to block Republican filibusters of presidential nominees to lower courts and to government positions. But they left the filibuster for Supreme Court nominees untouched, an acknowledgment of the court’s exalted status. On Thursday, that last pillar was swept away on a party-line vote, with all 52 Republicans choosing to overrule Senate precedent and all 48 Democrats and liberal-leaning independents pushing to keep it.

For weeks, the demise of the Supreme Court filibuster had seemed preordained — like a moldering stadium with a demolition date — even as members lamented the inevitability as a low moment for the Senate. In recent days, faint rumblings of a deal to avert the clash had faded almost entirely.

Democrats placed the blame squarely on Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, and his Republican colleagues, who last year refused to even consider Judge Merrick B. Garland, President Barack Obama’s nominee for the seat of Justice Antonin Scalia, who died nearly 14 months ago.

“When history weighs what happened, the responsibility for changing the rules will fall on the Republicans’ and Leader McConnell’s shoulders,” said Senator Chuck Schumer of New York, the Democratic leader, who had called for the withdrawal of the nomination if Judge Gorsuch could not earn 60 votes.

“They have had other choices,” he added. “They have chosen this one.”

Lawmakers first convened late Thursday morning to decide whether to advance the nomination. Republicans needed 60 votes — at least eight Democrats and independents joining the 52-seat majority — to end debate on the nomination and proceed to a final vote. Only a handful of Democrats defected, leaving Republicans to choose between allowing the president’s nominee to fail or bulldozing long-held Senate practice.

The final confirmation vote is set for Friday.

Republicans argued that changing the rules to push through the nomination was their only option, accusing Democrats of razing Senate norms with the first-ever successful partisan filibuster of a Supreme Court nominee. Allowing this obstruction to stand, Republicans said, would have caused more damage than overriding Senate precedent to turn back the filibuster.

“This is the latest escalation in the left’s never-ending judicial war, the most audacious yet,” Mr. McConnell said, after describing Democratic opposition in the past to Judge Robert H. Bork and Justice Clarence Thomas. “And it cannot and it will not stand. There cannot be two sets of standards: one for the nominees of the Democratic president and another for the nominees of Republican presidents.”

But Democrats had shown no signs of forsaking their filibuster plans all week. Their stance has pleased their most progressive voters, who have preached resistance to Mr. Trump at every opportunity.

Critics of Judge Gorsuch said they had identified ample reasons to oppose him, chafing at the suggestion that Democrats are merely seeking payback for Judge Garland. They cited concerns over Judge Gorsuch’s record on workers’ rights and wondered whether he could be reliably independent from Mr. Trump and conservative groups like the Federalist Society, which pushed his nomination.

But at times on Thursday, it was difficult to escape the conclusion that Judge Garland loomed largest in the minds of Democrats.

After Mr. McConnell suggested from the Senate floor that Republicans had given due deference in the past to Supreme Court nominees under Democratic presidents, Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, could not suppress a rebuttal.

“There must have been a hacking into his computer,” he said of Mr. McConnell, “because he can’t print the name Merrick Garland to include in the speech.”

Mr. Durbin later said that both Mr. McConnell and Judge Gorsuch would “enter the history books with asterisks by their names.”

Senator Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota was one of only a handful of Democrats who voted to end debate on Judge Gorsuch’s confirmation while her colleagues filibustered. CreditStephen Crowley/The New York Times

And in a performative flourish of parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Schumer seized the floor to ask if any rules or precedents prohibited the Senate from “considering and voting on a nominee to the Supreme Court in the fourth year of the president’s term” — the oft-used justification for denying Judge Garland even a hearing.

“The chair is not aware of any such prohibition in its rules or precedents,” replied Senator Deb Fischer, Republican of Nebraska, who was presiding in the chamber at the time.

For Mr. McConnell, who could be seen doling out high-fives among lawmakers and aides after the votes, Thursday’s proceedings amounted to a gamble rewarded. Last year, Democrats had hoped to make Republicans pay at the ballot box for their treatment of Judge Garland. Instead, they will watch on Friday as a conservative jurist is confirmed for a lifetime appointment, with no power to filibuster nominees for future vacancies.

Judge Gorsuch will be taking the seat of one of the court’s most reliably conservative justices. A Trump-named replacement for Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 84, Anthony M. Kennedy, 80, or Stephen Breyer, 78, would herald a significant ideological shift for the high court.

“They had a right to do what they did,” Senator Orrin G. Hatch of Utah, the body’s longest-serving Republican, said of the Democrats’ filibuster. “I just thought it was stupid.”

Other lawmakers sounded graver notes on Thursday, even as members of both parties dismissed any suggestion that a majority party might one day pursue more drastic remedies, like removing the filibuster on legislation.

Senator Benjamin L. Cardin, Democrat of Maryland, said he was now serving an institution in “suffering,” with no clear direction as the parties lurched toward a deeper mutual resentment.

“Where we go from here, it’s hard to tell,” he said. “Will there be further erosions or not?”

He was asked if this might prove a turning point, a moment for doubling back. “We’re pretty early in this Congress,” he said. “So there’s plenty more time for more harm to be done.”

Despair was bipartisan.

Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine, said she had strained over the last several days to broker an agreement to head off the filibuster and nuclear option.

By all accounts, the senators hoping for such a compromise did not come particularly close.

“There is such a profound lack of trust between the two parties,” said Ms. Collins, the rare Republican last year who supported holding a hearing and a vote on Judge Garland. “It’s hard to know whether the polarization in the Senate reflects the country or whether the polarization and divisiveness in the Senate affects the country.”

She paused for a beat, a few feet from Mr. McConnell’s office.

“Well, it clearly affects the country,” she said. “But which causes the other is at times hard to discern.”

Devin Nunes to Step Aside From House Investigation on Russia

WASHINGTON — The continuing fallout from President Trump’s unsubstantiated wiretapping allegation cost him another ally on Thursday, as the embattled Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee announced he would step aside from his panel’s investigation into Russia’s efforts to disrupt last year’s election.

The announcement from the committee’s chairman, Representative Devin Nunes of California, came shortly before the House Committee on Ethics said he was under investigation because of public reports that he “may have made unauthorized disclosures of classified information.”

Mr. Nunes’s recusal from the Russia inquiry was a blow to Mr. Trump, who in less than three months in office has seen the imbroglio over Russia’s disruption campaign exact political damage on some of his closest advisers and most vigorous supporters. The furor over the contacts that some of the president’s aides had with Russian officials has already led to the firing of Michael T. Flynn, Mr. Trump’s national security adviser, and the recusal of Attorney General Jeff Sessions from overseeing the F.B.I.’s inquiry into the Russian efforts.

Now it has led to the recusal of Mr. Nunes from the House Intelligence Committee’s Russia investigation, and Mr. Trump faces the potential revival of that inquiry. The investigation had descended into a partisan sideshow in the two weeks since Mr. Nunes told reporters that Trump associates had been swept up in surveillance of foreign officials by American spy agencies during the transition, citing intelligence reports that were classified.

He then rushed to the White House to brief Mr. Trump, prompting Democrats to argue that Mr. Nunes had proved himself far too close to the president to run an independent investigation. The criticism intensified last week when The New York Times revealed that the classified information about incidental surveillance cited by Mr. Nunes came from White House officials.

White House officials had been seeking evidence to bolster a claim that Mr. Trump made March 4 on Twitter that the Obama administration had wiretapped Trump Tower during the presidential campaign. Numerous current and former American officials — including James B. Comey, the F.B.I. director — have debunked the claim.

Yet Mr. Nunes resisted demands to step aside until Thursday, when he found himself under investigation by the House ethics committee.

The internal House ethics investigation into whether Mr. Nunes disclosed classified information is a striking twist for a chairman who has made the unauthorized disclosure of classified information a focal point of his Russia investigation. At the same time, he has repeatedly dismissed the idea that he was wrong to disclose the existence of “dozens” of classified intelligence reports about incidental surveillance of associates of Mr. Trump.

“Any talk of that is nonsense,” Mr. Nunes said in an interview with The Times last month.

Mr. Nunes said in a statement that the ethics investigation was “entirely false and politically motivated” and that he would remain the intelligence committee’s chairman. But it was in the intelligence committee’s best interests for him to temporarily step aside from the Russia investigation, he said in the statement, which was issued 26 minutes before the ethics committee announced its inquiry.

The statement also put the blame for the investigation on complaints against him made by multiple watchdog groups to the Office of Congressional Ethics, which is entirely separate from the ethics committee. Mr. Nunes dismissed those organizations as “left-wing activist groups,” though it was not clear what role, if any, their complaints played in setting off the inquiry.

Mr. Nunes, who served on the president’s transition team, has for weeks offered Mr. Trump fuel to keep his wiretapping claims in the news — and to make more unsubstantiated accusations. In an interview with The Times on Wednesday, Mr. Trump said that the former national security adviser Susan E. Rice might have committed a crime by seeking the identities of the Trump associates who last year were swept up in surveillance of foreign officials by American spy agencies. Ms. Rice has said she did nothing wrong.

Mr. Nunes’s recusal on Thursday was welcomed by Democrats, who had questioned whether White House officials had used the congressman essentially to launder the information about incidental surveillance.

Representative Adam B. Schiff of California, the panel’s top Democrat, praised the chairman’s decision. “It will allow us to have a fresh start moving forward,” he told reporters on Thursday.

Representative K. Michael Conaway of Texas, a senior Republican on the committee, will assume control of the investigation. An accountant who formerly served as the chairman of the House ethics committee, Mr. Conaway will be assisted by two other Republicans on the committee, Mr. Nunes said: Representatives Tom Rooney of Florida and Trey Gowdy of South Carolina. Mr. Gowdy led the special investigation into the 2012 attacks on a diplomatic compound in Benghazi, Libya. Mr. Gowdy is also on the ethics committee.

Several of the watchdog groups that had complained to the separate Office of Congressional Ethics praised the ethics committee’s decision to investigate Mr. Nunes. Jordan Libowitz, spokesman for Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, described the congressman’s disclosure of classified information as “so grave that it needs to be investigated right away.”

The ethics committee comprises 10 House members: five Republicans and five Democrats. It is unclear how long the inquiry could take, but the investigations usually last months or years.

The panel has the power to impose a range of penalties, from a letter admonishing a member to a recommendation that the House vote to expel a member. In more serious cases, the panel can choose to refer evidence to law enforcement officials, a move it can make confidentially.

The independent Office of Congressional Ethics faced a threat in early January when House Republicans voted to gut it on the eve of the new Congress. Under pressure from Republican leaders and President Trump, they ultimately abandoned the effort.

The recusal offered hope to Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee, who worried that Mr. Nunes’s behavior had discredited the panel’s investigation and who had increasingly resigned themselves to the idea that they would have to conduct parallel inquiries rather than work with Republicans.

“We now have a chance to reclaim our committee’s independence, credibility and ability to make progress,” Representative Eric Swalwell of California said in a statement.

As the House investigation has deteriorated into partisan feuding in recent weeks, many have turned to the Senate Intelligence Committee as Congress’s last best hope for an impartial congressional investigation into Russian interference in the election.

Since late July, the F.B.I. has been conducting its own counterintelligence investigation into Russian interference in the election, including an examination of whether Mr. Trump’s associates cooperated with Russian officials to influence the race.