When prevailing GLOBALIST GROUP THINK AND ECHO CHAMBERS exists you don't need FACTS.

The FBI sells it self as the premier law enforcement agency in the USA, and maybe in the world...with well educated WASP men, some even with post graduate degrees talking very eloquently with a diversity of vocabulary and jargon.

Massive media propaganda in the USA makes them out as heroes catching 'bad people'.

But alas this is an illusion, a very elaborate illusion.

Image result for jewish mafia

An organisation created in 1908, and run by a rampant homosexual cross dresser who loved little boyzzzz for 50 years as his personal fiefdom, ignoring the existence of the East European Jewish mafia in the USA in the 1930's, 1940's, 1950's and 1960's........can never be an effective law enforcement agency.

These men were after all the BIGGEST ORGANISED CRIMINALS in the country......not a few lefties.

J Edgar Hoover was also a total hypocrite who was part African American but passed himself off as a White nationalist who loathed blacks and the civil rights movement. Probably was involved in the assassination of Martin Luther King.

The FBI covered up 9/11 with Robert Mueller the III in charge ( he is a straight shooter---more probably when they try to kill Presidents)

Perhaps Devon Nunes should interview Russians Sergei Millian and Felix Sater and their intimate links with Herr Mueller (Stories to tell).
Image result for sergei millian

Image result for Felix sater


Putin Asks And Trump Delivers - A List Of All The Good Things Trump Did For Russia

By Moon of Alabama

Slate's Fred Kaplan writes:
The Washington Post’s Greg Miller reported Sunday that President Donald Trump’s confiscation of the translator’s notes from a one-on-one conversation with Russian President Vladimir Putin in 2017 was “unusual.” This is incorrect. It was unprecedented. There is nothing like it in the annals of presidential history.
Not really. Other U.S. leaders held long private meetings with their counterparts without notes being taken.

When Richard Nixon met Leonid Brezhnev he did not even bring his own interpreter:
George Szamuely @GeorgeSzamuely - 20:57 utc - 14 Jan 2019Nixon would meet Brezhnev alone, the only other person in attendance being Viktor Sukhodrev, the Soviet interpreter. "Our first meeting in the Oval Office was private, except for Viktor Sukhodrev, who, as in 1972, acted as translator." Nixon on Brezhnev's 1973 visit. RN, p.878 . Therefore, the only "notes" that would exist would be those of the Soviet interpreter. Not sure he would have time to make notes and translate and, even if he did so, whether those notes would be housed in any US archive.
Nixon's White House office was bugged. There are probably tape recordings of the talks. There might also be recordings of the Trump-Putin talks.

At their 1986 Reykjavik summit Ronald Reagan and Mikhail Gorbachev talked without their notetakers:
Mr. Reagan and Mr. Gorbachev began their second day of talks with a private meeting that had been scheduled to last 15 minutes but ran for nearly 70 minutes, with only interpreters present. They met in a small room in the Soviet Mission, with the Soviet leader seated in a small armchair and Mr. Reagan on a sofa.In the afternoon, they meet alone for a little over 20 minutes and then again for 90 minutes. All told, the two leaders have spent 4 hours and 51 minutes alone, except for interpreters, over the two days here.
The archives of the Reykjavik talks do not include any notes of those private talks.

But, who knows, maybe Nixon and Reagan where also on the Russian payroll, just like Donald Trump is today.

Only that Trump is controlled by Putin can explain why the FBI opened a counter-intelligence investigation against Trump (see section three).

That the FBI agents involved in the decision were avid haters of Russia and of Trump has surely nothing to do with it. That the opening of a counter-intelligence investigation gave them the legal ability under Obama's EO12333 to use NSA signal intelligence against Trump is surely irrelevant.

What the FBI people really were concerned about is Trump's public record of favoring Russia at each and every corner.

Trump obviously wants better diplomatic relations with Russia. He is reluctant to counter its military might. He is doing his best to make it richer. Just consider the headlines below. With all those good things Trump did for Putin, intense suspicions of Russian influence over him is surely justified.

WAR READY: Trump deploys TANKS to Estonia as NATO builds up HUGE army on Russian border
Tillerson. Oil. Russian dupe?
U.S. Rejects Exxon Mobil Bid for Waiver on Russia Sanctions
RT and Sputnik forced to register as foreign agents.
Russia's RT America registers with DOJ as a foreign agent
What is happening at the UN with Trump’s delegation?
Watch Nikki Haley's brutal takedown of Russia at the U.N.
Additional sanctions not under the old sanctions.
U.S. Punishes Chechen Leader in New Sanctions Against Russians

No more Russian flights over the US based on previous treaty
US 'to restrict Russian military flights over America'
Both Russia and the US are among the 34 signatories of the Treaty on Open Skies, which allows ratified member states to conduct unarmed aerial surveillance flights over each other's territory.
The flights are intended to foster transparency about military activity.
And this after Kapersky helped the NSA find one major data breach.
A Russian American was put on sanctions list based on Forbes list of Russian billionaires. This guy founded a high tech industrial laser company employing over a thousand American workers. Forbes realized they f'ed this guy over and took him off their Russian billionaire list. But too late--he remains sanctioned.

When one adds up all those actions one can only find that Trump cares more about Russia, than about the U.S. and its NATO allies. Only with Trump being under Putin's influence, knowingly or unwittingly, could he end up doing Russia so many favors.



The FBI led a hostile investigation of Trump from 2017 if not earlier on behalf of the Deep State.


An Imperial SES member, a Bush era cover up artist and a GLOBALIST

More 3-D CHESS from President Trump.

The man who is purportedly an outsider has only time for insiders.


Bill Barr’s CIA Resume: Cover-Ups, Covert Operations, and Pardons
By Jefferson Morley at the Deep State blog

“I started off in Washington at the Central Intelligence Agency and went to law school at night while I was working at CIA,” recalled William Barr in a 2001 oral history for the University of Virginia.

Trump’s nominee to be attorney general has what Trump might call “deep state” credentials.

Barr came to Langley in 1973. He was a 23 year graduate of Columbia with a resume which shows he toiled at the agency by day and attended George Washington University law school at night. The Watergate scandal was ravaging the agency’s reputation and bringing down president Richard Nixon.

Barr spent four formative years working in the Intelligence directorate and the Office of Legislative  Counsel. He even made the acquaintance of CIA director George H.W. Bush. In 1977 Barr moved on to a prestigious clerkship for a federal judge and then a series of jobs in private practice and the Justice Department. In 1991, Bush, who had since been elected president, appointed Barr to be attorney general.

At age 41, Barr was one of the younger men ever to hold that office. He left after one year and went on to a long career in corporate law and public service. Barr now returns to his old job at the behest of a besieged president under investigation for his dealings with Russian state agents.

Barr’s confirmation hearings open this week amid questions about the legality of the president’s conduct at home and abroad.

Will Barr protect the investigation of Special Prosecutor Robert Mueller? Or will he act on a tightly argued memo in which he claimed Mueller has already exceeded his authority?

A close examination of Barr’s legal career indicates a high tolerance for presidentially sanctioned law-breaking.

In his first turn as attorney general in 1991, Barr handled three legal issues of deep concern to the CIA. He helped resolve all three issues favorably for the agency’s leaders and the president.

Barr’s decisions, it is worth remembering today, were unfavorable to law enforcement, Congress, and the voters.

Bank of Fear

The first deep state fiasco handled by Attorney General Barr was the mother of all scandals, known by the sibilant initials, BCCI.

The Bank of Credit and Commerce International was a global institution, which deputy CIA director Robert Gates described, slightly more accurately, as “the Bank of Crooks and Criminals.” Spy novelist David Ignatius dubbed it “The Bank of Fear.”

Barr and Bush

BCCI was a shadowy but very real institution with connections to governments and intelligence services all over the world. BCCI’s owners specialized in evading regulators so that they could speculate and bribe with the depositors’ money. As the fraud mounted and depositor losses spread, law enforcement officials and bank regulators the world over discovered what the CIA had been trying to hide.

Congressional investigators, led by Sen. John Kerry, found the agency had numerous BCCI accounts. Kamal Adham, the former chief of Saudi intelligence and a CIA collaborator,played a leading role in the bank’s dealings.

The final report of the Kerry Committee captures the mind-boggling scale of BCCI’s corruption. BCCI was the kind of true story that makes people believe there is a “deep state.”
In 1991, federal prosecutors in Tampa launched an investigation of money laundering at BCCI. At the same time the District Attorney of Manhattan investigated a broad array of bank activities and suddenly found itself getting zero cooperation from colleagues in the Justice Department and CIA.

Barr sat on the deputies committee of the National Security Council which decided the government’s position on what information to share.

“We couldn’t get records. We couldn’t get witnesses. We could barely get a meeting,” said John Moscow, the lead BCCI prosecutor in Manhattan, in a recent interview.

Barr was up for confirmation as Attorney General. Moscow said he heard that Democrats on the Judiciary Committee made Barr promise to let the BCCI investigation go ahead.

“We didn’t have a problem once Barr was in there,” Moscow said. “We got cooperation. We prosecuted a seventeen people here in New York. Of course, the biggest guys got away.”

Several of the BCCI ringleaders were indicted but they all escaped U.S. justice. Barr did not press for their extradition from Pakistan, nor did his successors in the Clinton administration.


Barr played a more direct role in sidelining an investigation in an Italian bank that the CIA used to funnel aid to Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein. The scandal was known as Iraq-gate.

Donald Rumsfeld, left, meets Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, December 1983 (Credit: National Security Archive)
The backdrop was the geopolitics of the horrific war between Iran and Iraq in 1980-88, which killed a million people. In the interests of harming Iran, the U.S. government, via the CIA, secretly aided Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein throughout the 1980s. In 1983 former White House chief of staff Donald Rumsfeld went to Baghdad for a friendly meeting with Hussein.

Five years later, President Bush authorized a program of covert support for Iraq, including the provision of targeting intelligence and commercial loan guarantees. The latter were made via the Atlanta branch of the Banca Nazionale del Lavoro (BNL).

The story was politically potent because Hussein had invaded Kuwait in August 1990 and Bush had to raise an international military coalition to drive him out.

The Iraq-gate story illustrated how, once again, a U.S. covert operation had backfired. The Iraqi dictator had been emboldened by the covert CIA support to launch a war on a weaker American ally. America had to go to war against its covert ally.

“Were the intelligence services of the U.S., Britain and Italy all aware of—and participants in—the West’s secret, unlawful arming of Saddam?” asked New York Times columnist William Safire. “Of course; but the stonewalling strategy of the departing Justice politicians is to have the C.I.A. take the gaspipe for all the wrongdoers.”

One of those “departing Justice politicians” was Barr. He made sure CIA did not “take the gas pipe,” ie commit suicide. Under pressure to appoint a special prosecutor to investigate, Barr passed the decision to a special examiner. A retired judge conducted a cursory investigation and said no independent counsel was necessary.

Incoming president Bill Clinton was not interested in investigating the CIA, and the BNL case was forgotten.

Barr later dismissed the Iraq-gate allegations as “nonsense.” But there was no doubt Hussein had received billions of dollars worth of loan guarantees via the U.S. branch of BNL. How that happened was never explained.

Barr, more than anyone, made sure the Iraq-gate scheme was not investigated.

Iran-Contra Pardons

With President Trump reserving the possibility that he might pardon former aides indicted by Mueller, Barr’s handling of the Iran-Contra pardons of 1992 is revealing.

After President Bush was defeated for reelection in 1992, Barr urged him to use his pardon power freely before leaving office. Like Trump today, Bush was under investigation by a special prosecutor, Judge Lawrence Walsh, for his role in the Iran-Contra conspiracy.

Mueller Sign

Also under investigation were former defense secretary Caspar Weinberger, and two top CIA officials, Clair George and Dewey Clarridge.

They had all plotted to evade a congressional ban on aid to the counterrevolutionaries in Central America by illegally selling weapons to Iran.

The CIA was in real danger. The trials of George and Clarridge promised to be a public relations nightmare or worse.. Sen. Pat Moynihan, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee had introduced a bill to abolish the clandestine service. The Cold War was coming to an end and the agency’s future was in doubt.

In his oral history, Barr urged Bush to pardon the CIA men on the grounds that they were victims of the “criminalization” of foreign policy. When it came to pardoning, Barr said he “favored the broadest” use of the power.

“There were some people arguing just for Weinberger, and I said, No, in for a penny, in for a pound,” Barr recalled.

Bush took his advice. Barr had little respect for the special prosecutor’s work, no interests in his findings about how the CIA tried to subvert Congress, and no regrets about consigning Walsh’s work to history. Walsh accused Bush of hiding criminal misconduct but the former president and aides escaped justice.

In all three cover-ups Barr sacrificed the interests of transparency and accountability to the political needs of Langley and the White House.


Bring Assange to America a free man

The Deep State in the Trump administration will oppose this with peculiar violent language.


DECISIVELY clear the President of ALL fake gossip against him FROM THE DEEP STATE.

This is significant as the fake crescendo by the Mueller investigation reaches its climax....and we ought not wait till 2020.

Julian Assange needs to be freed from the Stasi Gulag that he exists in now.

President Donald Trump did not release the full text of the memo which would have implicated ALL the GLOBALIST criminals inside and outside the USA, the quid pro quo is that the UK state will no longer hold him since 2012 in the Ecuadorian Stasi Gulag.

Rudi Guiliani, the Brilliant prosecutor from NY, and former Mayor is speaking for the PRESIDENT, on such a sensitive matter.

.. ..Contact his lawyer and make things happen.

Rat Rodenstein will quietly leave the scene, after almost destroying the Trump Revolution



The USA killed 1.3 million German POW's 1945-7.

So much for the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners and the Nuremberg Laws about genocide and crimes against humanity.

Eisenhower is believed to have been a crypto-Jew Swedish origin mediocre womanizing pen pusher who was promoted well beyond his true value to lead the Allied invasion of Europe and command 4.5 million men.

Conversely the USA illegally funneled 1000's War crime Nazis into North America, and South America to escape justice, and continue the war against Communism.

Hitler was among them into fascist Argentina.

The Hitler project was intimately funded by Jewish bankers in Frankfurt, Switzerland and London/NY. The USA played a crucial role in the rise of Hitler.

The Hitler project was destined to fail within the 'Hegelian dialect', but not before it directly and indirectly killed 60 million people, and led inevitably to the USA leadership OF THE WORLD (ECONOMIC, POLITICAL AND CULTURAL, SOCIAL AND OF COURSE MILITARY)......to the point where it now has 1000 military bases in the world, and numerous hot and cold wars ongoing.

THE USA EMPIRE has killed between 10-20 million untermensch since 1945.

Germany no longer needs to make self critical movies of its actions in WWII. The German people were a victim of the Globalists where 7-8 million of them died between 1939-48...civilians, soldiers in combat and of course POW's....millions of them.

The crimes of the German state and Cryto Jew Merkel are not to be equated with the good Indo-European German people.


A Holocaust Was What the Americans Did to the Germans

By Paul Craig Roberts Blog

Eisenhower’s Starvation Order

By James Bacque

Never had so many people been put in prison. The size of the Allied captures was unprecedented in all history. The Soviets took prisoner some 3.5 million Europeans, the Americans about 6.1 million, the British about 2.4 million, the Canadians about 300,000, the French around 200,000. Uncounted millions of Japanese entered American captivity in 1945, plus about 640,000 entering Soviet captivity.

As soon as Germany surrendered on 8 May 1945, the American Military Governor, General Eisenhower, sent out an “urgent courier” throughout the huge area that he commanded, making it a crime punishable by death for German civilians to feed prisoners. It was even a death-penalty crime to gather food together in one place to take it to prisoners … The order was sent in German to the provincial governments, ordering them to distribute it immediately to local governments. Copies of the orders were discovered recently in several villages near the Rhine … The message [which Bacque reproduces] reads in part: “… under no circumstances may food supplies be assembled among the local inhabitants in order to deliver them to the prisoners of war. Those who violate this command and nevertheless try to circumvent this blockade to allow something to come to the prisoners place themselves in danger of being shot….”
Eisenhower’s order was also posted in English, German and Polish on the bulletin board of Military Government Headquarters in Bavaria, signed by the Chief of Staff of the Military Governor of Bavaria. Later it was posted in Polish in Straubing and Regensburg, where there were many Polish guard companies at nearby camps. One US Army officer who read the posted order in May 1945 has written that it was “the intention of Army command regarding the German POW camps in the US Zone from May 1945 through the end of 1947 to exterminate as many POWs as the traffic would bear without international scrutiny.”

… The [American] army’s policy was to starve [German] prisoners, according to several American soldiers who were there. Martin Brech, retired professor of philosophy at Mercy college in New York, who was a guard at Andernach in 1945, has said that he was told by an officer that “it is our policy that these men not be fed.” The 50,000 to 60,000 men in Andernach were starving, living with no shelter in holes in the ground, trying to nourish themselves on grass. When Brech smuggled bread to them through the wire, he was ordered to stop by an officer. Later, Brech sneaked more food to them, was caught, and told by the same officer, “If you do that again, you’ll be shot.” Brech saw bodies go out of the camp “by the truckload” but he was never told how many there were, where they were buried, or how. 

… The prisoner Paul Schmitt was shot in the American camp at Bretzenheim after coming close to the wire to see his wife and young son who were bringing him a basket of food. The French followed suit: Agnes Spira was shot by French guards at Dietersheim in July 1945 for taking food to prisoners. The memorial to her in nearby Buedesheim, written by one of her chidren, reads: “On the 31st of July 1945, my mother was suddenly and unexpectedly torn from me because of her good deed toward the imprisoned soldiers.” The entry in the Catholic church register says simply: “A tragic demise, shot in Dietersheim on 31.07.1945. Buried on 03.08.1945.” Martin Brech watched in amazement as one officer at Andernach stood on a hillside firing shots towards German women running away from him in the valley below.

The prisoner Hans Scharf … was watching as a German woman with her two children came towards an American guard in the camp at Bad Kreuznach, carrying a wine bottle. She asked the guard to give the bottle to her husband, who was just inside the wire. The guard upended the bottle into his own mouth, and when it was empty, threw it on the ground and killed the prisoner with five shots.

….Many prisoners and German civilians saw the American guards burn the food brought by civilian women. One former prisoner described it recently: “At first, the women from the nearby town brought food into the camp. The American soldiers took everything away from the women, threw it in a heap and poured gasoline [benzine] over it and burned it.” Eisenhower himself ordered that the food be destroyed, according to the writer Karl Vogel, who was the German camp commander appointed by the Americans in Camp 8 at Garmisch-Partenkirchen. Although the prisoners were getting only 800 calories per day, the Americans were destroying food outside the camp gate.

Note from RI: See also Thomas Goodrich's: Summer 1945—Germany, Japan and the Harvest of Hate


Propaganda to ensure that Turkiye Abe makes the right CLEAR decisions

Image result for Sultan Selim the Grim

As has been stated for many, many years Turkey must be focused on the Greater Kurdistan project initiated by Jewish Neocons, which is designed to destroy 4 sovereign states—Turkey, Iran, Syria and Iraq.

The evil, dastardly, conspiratorial policy like so many originates from Rothschilds London. Under the policy titled ‘Arch of Crisis’ and ‘Operation Cyclone’…Sunni Wahabi Salafi forces would be created and directed by the CIA for the Globalists in London….using the funding of the GCC and especially Saudi Arabia. The Rothschilds then sent their high emissary super spy, Bernard Lewis to preach to the Globalists in the USA in the early 1970’S at Princeton University (Lord Nick Clegg is coming to the USA to run FACEBOOK). With his ‘Clash of Civilization’ meme the Globalist Carter administration adopted his policies in full.

In their arrogance they reasoned that if they could draw the boundaries of the Middle East in 1917 under the secret Sykes-Picot agreement, then why not do this again into smaller Balkanized ethnic enclave FAILED statlets…..RUN BY Wahabi  Salafi puppets of the CIA?

As the most powerful country in the group of 4 (5th most powerful nation on earth via its conventional forces), Turkey must do more than most of them to destroy the Greater Kurdistan project.

It’s a basic matter of duty and survival and beyond political ideology.

Conversely Turkiye Abe can no longer support Sunni Wahabi Salafi forces in Syria, Iraq and IRAN, directly and indirectly.

Turkiye Abe cannot pursue both policies meaningfully.

Its must choose one or the other 100%

History must not repeat itself at the behest of Sultan Selim the Grim

Related image

The Safavids no longer align with the Mamlukes, against Ottoman Turkey.

It is a different scenario.


Trillions missing--part of the estimated $41 trillion of illegal funds from America in the 70 off shore accounts.

. . .
The Greatest nation on earth, which presumes to police the world.....can't figure out what happened to $21 trillion in its defense Budget....alone (never mind the staggering corruption in other government agencies)

William Burr calls out the illegality of the Mueller investigations



Jimmy Dore


The decision to leave Syria was very long, longer than President Trump wanted and very measured

It is difficult to believe that a man like President Trump who has a boy like adulation for the USA military would all of a sudden be thumbing his nose at them very cynically.

The man who surrounded himself with generals ...more than any other USA peacetime President.

As the article below illustrates, this is far from the truth from which the Fake Mockingbird media has presented.

Rash impulsive--no!
Strategic long term--yes!


Trump Fought the Generals for His Syria Withdrawal for a Year

His national security team had been trying to box him in like every other president. But he called their bluff
  • He's the first president in 50 years to not allow himself be boxed-in by the warfare state
By Gareth Porter of The American Conservative.

The mainstream media has attacked President Donald Trump’s decision to withdraw U.S. troops from Syria as impulsive, blindsiding his own national security team. But detailed, published accounts of the policy process over the course of the year tell a very different story. They show that senior national security officials and self-interested institutions have been playing a complicated political game for months aimed at keeping Trump from wavering on our indefinite presence on the ground in Syria.

The entire episode thus represents a new variant of a familiar pattern dating back to Vietnam in which national security advisors put pressure on reluctant presidents to go along with existing or proposed military deployments in a war zone. The difference here is that Trump, by publicly choosing a different policy, has blown up their transparent schemes and offered the country a new course, one that does not involve a permanent war state.

The relationship between Trump and his national security team has been tense since the beginning of his administration. By mid-summer 2017, Defense Secretary James Mattis and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Joseph Dunford had become so alarmed at Trump’s negative responses to their briefings justifying global U.S. military deployments that they decided to do a formal briefing in “the tank,” used by the Joint Chiefs for meetings at the Pentagon.  

But when Mattis and Dunford sang the praises of the “rules-based, international democratic order” that has “kept the peace for 70 years,” Trump simply shook his head in disbelief
Image result for general macarthur
By the end of that year, however, Mattis, Dunford, and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo believed they’d succeeded in getting Trump to use U.S. troops not only to defeat Islamic State but to “stabilize” the entire northeast sector of Syria and balance Russian and Iranian-sponsored forces. Yet they ignored warning signs of Trump’s continuing displeasure with their vision of a more or less permanent American military presence in Syria.  
Image result for general westmoreland
In a March rally in Ohio ostensibly about health care reform, Trump suddenly blurted out, “We’re coming out of Syria, like, very soon. Let the other people take care of it now. Very soon—very soon we’re coming out.” 

Then in early April 2018, Trump’s impatience with his advisors on Syria boiled over into a major confrontation at a National Security Council meeting, where he ordered them unequivocally to accept a fundamentally different Syria deployment policy.  

Trump opened the meeting with his public stance that the United States must end its intervention in Syria and the Middle East more broadly. He argued repeatedly that the U.S. had gotten “nothing” for its efforts, according to an account published by the Associated Press based on interviews with administration officials who had been briefed on the meeting. When Dunford asked him to state exactly what he wanted, Trump answered that he favored an immediate withdrawal of U.S. forces and an end to the “stabilization” program in Syria.
Image result for general macleland american civil war
Mattis responded that an immediate withdrawal from Syria was impossible to carry out responsibly, would risk the return of Islamic State, and would play into the hands of Russia, Iran, and Turkey, whose interests ran counter to those of the United States. 

Trump reportedly then relented and said they have could five or six months to destroy the Islamic State. But he also made it clear that he did not want them to come back to him in October and say that they had been unable to defeat ISIS and had to remain in Syria. When his advisors reiterated that they didn’t think America could withdraw responsibly, Trump told them to “just get it done.” 
HoratioGatesByStuart crop.jpg
Trump’s national security team had prepared carefully for the meeting in order to steer him away from an explicit timetable for withdrawal. They had brought papers that omitted any specific options for withdrawal timetables. Instead, as the detailed AP account shows, they framed the options as a binary choice—either an immediate pullout or an indefinite presence in order to ensure the complete and permanent defeat of Islamic State. The leave option was described as risking a return of ISIS and leaving a power vacuum for Russia and Iran to fill.
Image result for general benedict arnold
Such a binary strategy had worked in the past, according to administration sources. That would account for Trump’s long public silence on Syria during the early months of 2018 while then-secretary of state Rex Tillerson and Mattis were articulating detailed arguments for a long-term military commitment.

Another reason the approach had been so successful, however, was that Trump had made such a big issue out of Barack Obama giving the Pentagon a timetable for withdrawal from Afghanistan. As a result, he was hesitant to go public with a similar request for a Syria timetable. As CNN reported, a DoD official who had been briefed on the meeting “rejected that any sort of timeline was discussed.” Furthermore the official asserted that Mattis “was not asked to draw up withdrawal options….” Lieutenant General Kenneth McKenzie, the director of the Joint Chiefs, also told reporters, “the president has actually been very good in not giving us a specific timeline.”

Nevertheless, without referring to a timeline, the White House issued a short statement saying that the U.S. role in Syria was coming to a “rapid end.” 

Mattis and Dunford were consciously exploiting Trump’s defensiveness about a timeline to press ahead with their own strategy unless and until Trump publicly called them on it. That is what finally happened some weeks after Trump’s six month deadline had passed. The claim by Trump advisors that they were taken by surprise was indeed disingenuous. What happened last week was that Trump followed up on the clear policy he had laid down in April.

The Syria withdrawal affair is a dramatic illustration of the fundamental quandary of the Trump presidency in regard to ending the state of permanent war that previous administrations created. Although a solid majority of Americans want to rein in U.S. military deployments in the Middle East and Africa, Trump’s national security team is committed to doing the opposite.

Trump is now well aware that it is virtually impossible to carry out the foreign policy that he wants without advisors who are committed to the same objective.

That means that he must find people who have remained outside the system during the permanent war years while being highly critical of its whole ideology and culture. 

If he can fill key positions with truly dissident figures, the last two years of this term in office could decisively clip the wings of the bureaucrats and generals who have created the permanent war state we find ourselves in today.

Presidents Trumps 2020 VICTORY...a lot of hard work ahead.


To Win The 2020 Race Trump Will Need To Fire More Of His Staff

By Moon of Alabama

We pointed out that overruling his advisors by ending the U.S. war on Syria was a decision that will define Trump's presidency:
This was the first time Trump took a decisive stand against the borg, the permanent neoconservative and interventionist establishment in his administration, the military and congress, that usually dictates U.S. foreign policy.It was this decision, and that he stuck to it, which finally made him presidential.
Three analysts explain why Trump will need to go further down that road by finding people who diligently implement his foreign policy instead of undermining it.

Gareth Porter describes how the U.S. military under Secretary of Defense Mattis implemented its own policy, one far from President Trump's wishes. It delayed his policy of withdrawal from Syria again and again. Trump finally broke the scheme:
Mattis and Dunford were consciously exploiting Trump’s defensiveness about a timeline to press ahead with their own strategy unless and until Trump publicly called them on it. That is what finally happened some weeks after Trump’s six month deadline had passed. The claim by Trump advisors that they were taken by surprise was indeed disingenuous. What happened last week was that Trump followed up on the clear policy he had laid down in April.
The former Indian Ambassador Bhadrakumar also calls Mattis resignation a defining moment in U.S. foreign policy. He points out that the resistance of the borg against the elected president's policy is in defiance of the will of the people:
The really stunning part is that the bulk of America’s political class, think tanks and the media have rallied to support Mattis in an astounding display of defiance and spite toward their elected president. Suffice to say, there has been an insurrection against Trump’s foreign policy agenda and Mattis was a key figure in that enterprise. Quintessentially, the established American political system – what Trump calls the “Swamp” – refuses to make way for the elected president, his mandate from the people for his political platform notwithstanding. Isn’t it a sham that the US claims to have a government “of the people, by the people, for the people”?
The majority of the people indeed agree with Trump's policy:
Fifty-two percent of respondents said they back the moves in Syria and Afghanistan, which came as a surprise to the president’s own national security advisers when it was announced last week. By contrast, 48 percent said they oppose the troop withdrawals and reductions, the poll found.
Now, that the decision is made, even Obama's Ambassador to Syria Robert Ford, who personally instigated the insurgency against the Syrian government, comes out in favor of the Trump ordered retreat:
Many observers have asserted that the withdrawal gives victory in Syria to Russia, Iran and the Syrian government. That’s absurd. Bashar al-Assad’s regime already controls about two-thirds of Syria, including all of the major cities. The portion of Syria that U.S. forces control alongside their Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF) allies is mostly either desert or drought-prone plains. The oil fields there produce high-sulfur, low-value crude, and production has long been diminishing. Oil revenue made up only about 5 percent of Syrian gross domestic product before the 2011 uprising, according to the International Monetary Fund. In sum, holding northeastern Syria would not have enabled Washington to leverage any important concessions from Damascus, Tehran or Moscow.
In a clear rejection of John Bolton's and Mattis' overt manipulation of Trump's policies, Ford urges Trump to bring the people under him in line with his own ideas:
[T]he president needs to consider how his own foreign policy team got so far out ahead of him on Syria. He needs a National Security Council staff that can more clearly relay his cautions and concerns about U.S. foreign policy to the people in charge of executing it. That staff needs to make clear to officials in the departments that, while he hears various departments’ views, those departments must act on his guidance. Ensuring implementation is the NSC’s job. The president would benefit politically and, more importantly, U.S. national security would benefit from a more effective foreign policy team.
Porter makes a similar point:
The Syria withdrawal affair is a dramatic illustration of the fundamental quandary of the Trump presidency in regard to ending the state of permanent war that previous administrations created. Although a solid majority of Americans want to rein in U.S. military deployments in the Middle East and Africa, Trump’s national security team is committed to doing the opposite.
Trump is now well aware that it is virtually impossible to carry out the foreign policy that he wants without advisors who are committed to the same objective. That means that he must find people who have remained outside the system during the permanent war years while being highly critical of its whole ideology and culture. If he can fill key positions with truly dissident figures, the last two years of this term in office could decisively clip the wings of the bureaucrats and generals who have created the permanent war state we find ourselves in today.
Bhadrakumar sees a continuous struggle ahead, but believes that Trump knows of the importance to assert his policy:
[Mattis'] exit is not going to be the end of the vicious struggle going on in American politics. The good part is that Trump seems to understand that it will be a downhill slope ahead of him unless he took a last-ditch stance and dug in now to assert his constitutional prerogative as the president to push his foreign policy agenda.The point is, that agenda also happens to be linked to Trump’s campaign platform for the 2020 election.
To win in the 2020 elections Trump needs to show that he fulfilled the promises he made during the 2016 campaign. Draining the swamp and ending U.S. military involvement throughout the world were two of his major points. Both have a large constituency. 

Finally finding people who support these policies, instead of undermining them, would definitely increase his chance to win the next election.

Who will he choose?

The 2000-5000 USA troops and contractors should leave as quickly as possible before another 'Good reason to stay' is manufactured by the Deep State.

President Trump should't waste his breath explaining why USA troops should leave Syria for the next 4--12 months, pitched against the Globalist warmongering Mockingbird media. 

That is heavy painful work. Instead they should leave in very short order.


Trump: Syria Is ‘Sand and Death,’ We’re Getting Out

Says no timetable has been set yet

In comments surrounding a cabinet meeting Wednesday, President Trump reiterated since stance on withdrawing from Syria, saying the country was lost a long time ago, and the US is getting out. He added that Syria doesn’t have “vast wealth,” only “sand and death.”

Trump went on to say that he has not set any official timetable for the US withdrawal, and that the times being talked about elsewhere didn’t come from him. This started weeks ago with talk of a 30 day drawdown, and has since been in the four month range. 

CNN claimed that the four month figure came from the Pentagon, with an unnamed official saying it was the military “trying to please the President and not get everyone killed.” He added that the Pentagon should keep troops in Syria even longer. 

This of course, is all in keeping with the narrative among the Pentagon brass, most of whom never wanted to leave Syria at all. The idea that it would take four months minimum to remove 2,000 troops from eastern Syria, however, does not make a lot of sense. 

After all, while Syria isn’t exactly awash in infrastructure, the US has spent the last couple of years setting up small airfields, and its troops in Syria are generally not far from these, nor from the borders of friendly countries like Iraq and Jordan.

Though exact troop locations aren’t publicly available, all indications are that US troops embedded in the Kurdish YPG’s territory are in places specifically chosen so they wouldn’t get “stuck” there, and the idea that they physically can’t get out for months without everyone dying is an 

invention long after the fact 

to try to keep the war going.