NORTON META TAG

Showing posts with label chemical weapons. Show all posts
Showing posts with label chemical weapons. Show all posts

15 April 2017

White House Spokesman Stumbles Over Assad-Hitler Comparison & Calls Grow to Fire Sean Spicer After He Says Hitler Didn't Use Chemical Weapons During Holocaust 11&13APR17

Image result for arbeit macht frei auschwitz
ENTRANCE TO AUSCHWITZ, ONE OF SEAN SPICER'S "HOLOCAUST CENTERS"

THIS is not ignorance, it is a slip of the tongue reminding us of the neo nazi fascist attitude and agenda of the drumpf/trump-pence administration. I hope sean spicer isn't fired because without his inability to control his mouth it will be harder to find out just what this administration's plans, policies and agenda really is. From +NPR and +Democracy Now! .....

White House Spokesman Stumbles Over Assad-Hitler Comparison

Updated: 6:33 p.m. ET
White House spokesman Sean Spicer warned Russia today that its alliance with Syria is putting it "on the wrong side of history, in a really bad way, really quickly."
The press secretary found himself in the same situation just a moment later, while trying to underscore the horror of Syria's alleged use of chemical weapons.
"You had someone as despicable as Hitler who didn't even sink to using chemical weapons," he said, overlooking the millions who were gassed to death in Nazi concentration camps.
When reporters tried to give Spicer an opportunity to correct his mistake, he only made matters worse.
"He was not using the gas on his own people the same way that [Syrian President Bashar] Assad is doing," Spicer said. "He brought them into the Holocaust center, I understand that. But I'm saying in the way Assad used them, where he went into towns, dropped them down to innocent — into the middle of towns. It was brought — the use of it, I appreciate the clarification. That was not the intent."
This is not the first time this White House has struggled with historical amnesia. During President Trump's first full week in office, he issued a statement honoring Holocaust Remembrance Day but somehow forgot to include any mention of Jews.
The Holocaust Museum in Washington took Spicer to task via Twitter, showing footage of what American forces found when they liberated the death camp at Buchenwald.
The Anne Frank Center for Mutual Respect went further, calling on President Trump to fire Spicer.
"On Passover no less, Sean Spicer has engaged in Holocaust denial, the most offensive form of fake news imaginable, by denying Hitler gassed millions of Jews to death," said the center's executive director, Steven Goldstein. "Spicer's statement is the most evil slur upon a group of people we have ever heard from a White House press secretary."
Democratic House leader Nancy Pelosi also called for Spicer's dismissal.
"While Jewish families across America celebrate Passover, the chief spokesman of this White House is downplaying the horror of the Holocaust," Pelosi said in a statement. "Either he is speaking for the President, or the President should have known better than to hire him."


Late Tuesday, Spicer appeared on CNN to make amends.
"I apologize. It was a mistake to do that," Spicer told Wolf Blitzer. "It was insensitive and inappropriate. I should have stayed focused on the Assad regime and the dangers they have brought to their own people and the terrible atrocities they did and to drag any other comparisons into this was not appropriate."

Calls Grow to Fire Sean Spicer After He Says Hitler Didn't Use Chemical Weapons During Holocaust

STORYAPRIL 13, 2017
Lawmakers and Jewish organizations, including the Anne Frank Center, are continuing to call for White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer to be fired, after Spicer compared Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to Hitler and falsely claimed Hitler never used chemical weapons. In fact, the Nazis systematically used poison gas as part of its genocide of 6 million Jews. The Nazis began experimenting with gas with the specific purpose of carrying out mass murder in the late 1930s. We speak to Steven Goldstein, executive director of the Anne Frank Center for Mutual Respect.

GUESTS
Steven Goldstein
executive director of the Anne Frank Center for Mutual Respect.
TRANSCRIPT
This is a rush transcript. Copy may not be in its final form.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Lawmakers and Jewish organizations, including the Anne Frank Center, are continuing to call for the White House spokesman, Sean Spicer, to be fired, after Spicer compared Syrian President Bashar al-Assad to Hitler and falsely claimed Hitler never used chemical weapons. This is Spicer speaking on Tuesday, the first day of the Jewish holiday of Passover.
PRESS SECRETARY SEAN SPICER: You look, we didn’t use chemical weapons in World War II. You know, you had a—you know, someone as despicable as Hitler, who didn’t even sink to the—to using chemical weapons. So you have to, if you’re Russia, ask yourself: Is this a country that you, and a regime, that you want to align yourself with?
AMY GOODMAN: In fact, the Nazis systematically used poison gas as part of its genocide of 6 million Jews and others. The Nazis began experimenting with gas with the specific purpose of carrying out mass murder in the late ’30s. After the Nazis invaded the Soviet Union, they deployed gas vans to kill hundreds of thousands of people. By 1942, the Nazis had set up a series of concentration camps where gas chambers were the main method of killing people. At its peak, as many as 6,000 people, mostly Jews, were gassed to death every day at Auschwitz concentration camp alone.
During his comments, Spicer also referred to Nazi concentration camps as "holocaust centers." Hours later, Spicer apologized, although he made a number of mistakes during his apology, including mispronouncing Syrian President Bashar al-Assad’s name.
PRESS SECRETARY SEAN SPICER: I mistakenly used an inappropriate and insensitive reference to the Holocaust, for which, frankly, there is no—there is no comparison. And for that, I apologize. It was a mistake to do that. I needed to make sure that I clarified and not was in any way, shape or form any more of a distraction from the president’s decisive action in Syria and the attempts that he’s making to destabilize the region. There’s no way that I can see a stable and peaceful Syria with Bashad al-Asiya—Bashar al-Saad in charge.
WOLF BLITZER: Bashar al-Assad. I know you’ve mispronounced his name a few times, but it’s Bashar al-Assad.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: That’s Sean Spicer speaking to Wolf Blitzer. Spicer later said he meant to say President Trump was seeking to stabilize the region, not to destabilize it. On Wednesday, Spicer apologized again, saying he regrets that he, quote, "let the president down."
PRESS SECRETARY SEAN SPICER: I made a mistake. There’s no either way—I mean, there’s no other way to say it. I got into a topic that I shouldn’t have. And—and I screwed up.
AMY GOODMAN: On Wednesday, the Anne Frank Center for Mutual Respect posted on Facebook, quote, "That’s not an apology. That’s a bungled political strategy only in response to a public outcry. Spicer needs to go."
Well, for more, we’re joined by Steven Goldstein, the executive director of the Anne Frank Center for Mutual Respect.
Steven Goldstein, welcome to Democracy Now!
STEVEN GOLDSTEIN: Great to be here.
AMY GOODMAN: Why is this so important to you?
STEVEN GOLDSTEIN: OK. Coming on Passover, I, like many other Jews, were—was with my family during two seders. My entire family wanted to throw up in disbelief. Passover tells the story of Jews who were oppressed, and here we have the press secretary to the president of the United States denying that Adolf Hitler gassed millions of Jews. That means Sean Spicer has to go. He has to be fired. And here’s why, Amy. Either Sean Spicer’s comments were a matter of ignorance, incompetence or prejudice—or all three or any combination thereof. That doesn’t make one fit to be press secretary. In fact, that doesn’t make one fit to serve in government whatsoever. Sean Spicer is an embarrassment to the United States of America.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Well, what about those who say, including a former spokesman, Ari Fleischer, that such mistakes are commonly made by people who speak extemporaneously?
STEVEN GOLDSTEIN: Oh, well, here’s the problem. That wasn’t just a mere mistake. That comes in the context of this administration’s grotesque insensitivity to Jews through anti-Semitic nonresponses. Let’s not forget that on International Holocaust Remembrance Day in January, this administration refused to include Jews in Holocaust remembrance. And I can’t even begin to tell you how many times this president has been offensive to other oppressed communities, including Muslims, including people of color. So, this is a pattern. This is not a mere mistake.
AMY GOODMAN: So you have Sean Spicer, who apparently apologized, called the billionaire Republican donor Sheldon Adelson. Politico reports Adelson’s office issued a statement, confirming "Sean called shortly after and said he made a terrible mistake and apologized if he was offensive." Your response to—
STEVEN GOLDSTEIN: I’m laughing, because it shows you—Sheldon Adelson is the recipient of an apology. That says it all, doesn’t it?
AMY GOODMAN: Well, explain what you mean.
STEVEN GOLDSTEIN: You know, Sheldon Adelson is a prominent Republican donor. And apologizing to a prominent Republican donor politicizes what Sean Spicer did. Sean Spicer needs to apologize to the entire Jewish community and to, frankly, all people of goodwill. And Sean Spicer really didn’t apologize, folks. As you said, Amy, when you have to pull teeth to get an apology, and it takes three attempts to pull teeth, that’s what you call an apology by committee behind the scenes. You have the White House staff looking at the public outcry, saying, "Sean, you better really clarify your apology." Couldn’t do it once. Couldn’t do it twice. Took him three times, pulling teeth. A national embarrassment.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Well, what about Trump’s constant refrain—just in the last 30 seconds—that his daughter is Jewish, his son-in-law is Jewish—
STEVEN GOLDSTEIN: You know what?
NERMEEN SHAIKH: —and therefore he cannot be anti-Semitic?
STEVEN GOLDSTEIN: Can I tell you something? It’s so offensive when Donald Trump trots out his daughter and his son-in-law as mere talking points. Is that what Donald Trump does in response to charges of anti-Semitism? He trots out his token relatives who are Jewish? That, in itself, is anti-Semitic.
AMY GOODMAN: Sean Spicer’s reference to "holocaust centers"?
STEVEN GOLDSTEIN: Yeah, what is a holocaust center? I mean, I’ve never heard of that. Is that a community center? That makes complete light of concentration camps. And it shows Sean Spicer’s ignorance. Has this man never heard of the phrase "concentration camp"? If he hasn’t, he’s been through some very bad education in his lifetime. And if that’s the case, he should have gotten educated before he took his job.
NERMEEN SHAIKH: Well, before we end today’s show, on behalf of everyone at Democracy Now!, we’d like to wish Amy Goodman a very, very happy birthday.
STEVEN GOLDSTEIN: Happy birthday.
AMY GOODMAN: Thank you very much, Nermeen. Thank you, Nermeen. That wasn’t part of what we were supposed to be doing right now. But I want to thank Steven Goldstein for joining us, executive director of the Anne Frank Center for Mutual Respect. And we’ll link to our previous interview with you at democracynow.org.



THESE KIDS ARE DEAD

My Outdoors:

Donald Trump's Syria strike looks a lot like Barack Obama's plan, despite what Rubio, others say 12APR17

Image result for trump syria meme
(ONE has to wonder what this is going to do to the drumpf/trump-iranian revolutionary guards investment partnership in Baku, Azerbaijan).
THE drumpf/trump-pence administration's illegal war with out end Syria policy isn't any different than the Obama-Biden administration's with one exception. (NOT MY) president drumpf/trump is a megalomaniac, too unstable to be trusted to be commander-in-chief with access to our nuclear weapons arsenal. At least Obama went to congress for authorization for military action in response to assad's use of chemical weapons in 2013, though he didn't for his other military actions in the Middle East. drumpf/trump doesn't plan on asking congress for  authorization for military action in the Middle East under the war powers act because nobody is going to tell him what he can and can not do with "his military". NOTE to drumpf/trump, STOP referring to the US Military as "my military". It is not yours, it is the military of the United States of America and it's responsibility is to protect the American people, not to be used as the pawn of the war lord you (and little marco) seem to think you are. This from PolitiFact....

Donald Trump's Syria strike looks a lot like Barack Obama's plan, despite what Rubio, others say


Share The Facts
Marco Rubio
Republican senator from Florida

the Obama administration’s 2013 Syria airstrike proposal "had no clear objective," while Trump’s Syria strike "had a clear strategic objective."
It was "the right move" for President Donald Trump to launch airstrikes in Syria in retaliation for a chemical weapons attack, said Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., on CNN April 7.
But almost four years ago, Rubio opposed President Barack Obama’s plan to order airstrikes in Syria, also after dictator Bashar al-Assad used chemical weapons against his people.
Rubio explained why 2017 is different than 2013 on ABC's This Week with George Stephanopoulos.
"Here's the first thing that's changed from 2013 to now: The Russians are now there," Rubio said in an April 9 interview. "Assad was losing back in 2013. If we had armed non-jihadist elements on the ground, they could have overthrown him. That's what I thought was the better approach at the time.
"The second is that the administration, what they were proposing, had no clear objective. They wanted to blow up some things to send a message. I don't think you use the U.S. military simply to send a message. This strike was limited, but it had a clear strategic objective, which was the destruction or degrading of a key airbase installation that is used in these chemical attacks."
Rubio is one of several Republicans — including Trump — who have flipped from opposing post-chemical weapons airstrikes in 2013 to supporting them in 2017.
Rubio has a point that the geopolitical situation in Syria has changed; Russia, Iran and the Islamic State are all bigger players in the Syrian civil war than they were three and a half years ago. But we were also interested in Rubio’s assertion that the Obama administration’s proposal, compared to Trump’s actions, didn’t have a clear objective.
The argument rings hollow.
Obama and his team spent several days making the case to Congress and the public that they should support military action in Syria, and the goals and plans they laid out were quite similar to the actions Trump took in 2017.
We reached out to Rubio's staff for comment but didn't hear back.
Making the case
In August 2013, Assad’s regime killed more than 1,400 people in a chemical weapons attack on the city of Damascus. Obama wanted to strike Syria in retaliation, but he chose to ask Congress to authorize his use of military force. Obama couldn’t get enough votes to pass his proposal, so he did not order strikes fired in direct retaliation for the chemical attacks.
The 2017 chemical weapons attack was much smaller, killing about 80 people. Two days later, without advance notice or requesting congressional approval, Trump launched nearly 60 cruise missiles at a Syrian airfield used to carry out the chemical weapons attacks.  
Because the Obama administration spent several days lobbying Congress and the public to support his proposed military action, there are numerous speeches, media interviews, documents and congressional hearings during which his team laid out the strategy.
For Trump, in contrast, we have to look at what members of his administration have said to justify the airstrikes after the fact.
Here are three examples each of the Obama and Trump administrations laying out their goals. Both describe sending a message to Assad that chemical weapons use is unacceptable. Both involve a targeted attack plan designed to degrade Assad’s chemical weapon capabilities by taking out related facilities and resources.
If anything, the Obama White House’s objectives, as well as the scope of the operation, were more clear than Trump’s because the Obama administration had to lobby the public instead of acting unilaterally.
Obama:
In this 2013 photo, members of former President Barack Obama’s administration — Martin Dempsey, John Kerry and Chuck Hagel — appear before the Senate to make the case for military action in Syria. (Jacquelyn Martin/Associated Press)
• Obama’s proposal to Congress: "The objective of the United States' use of military force in connection with this authorization should be to deter, disrupt, prevent, and degrade the potential for, future uses of chemical weapons or other weapons of mass destruction."
• Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Martin Dempsey in a House hearing: "(Obama) has directed me to plan for a militarily significant strike that would do the following: deter the Assad regime's further use of chemical weapons and degrade the regime's military capability to employ chemical weapons in the future. We've assembled target packages in line with those objectives. We have both an initial target set and subsequent target sets should they become necessary. The planned strikes will disrupt those parts of Assad's forces directly related to the chemical attack of 21 August; degrade his means of chemical weapons delivery; and finally, degrade the assets that Assad uses to threaten his neighbors and to defend his regime. Collectively, such strikes will send Assad a deterrent message, demonstrating our ability to hold at risk the capabilities he values most and to strike again if necessary."
  Secretary of State John Kerry in a Huffington Post article: "It would be a tailored action to make clear that the world will not stand by and allow the international norm against the use of chemical weapons to be violated with impunity by a brutal dictator willing to gas hundreds of children to death while they sleep. Our action would be a limited and targeted military action, against military targets in Syria, designed to deter Syria's use of chemical weapons and degrade the Assad regime's capabilities to use or transfer such weapons in the future."
Trump:
In this image provided by the U.S. Navy, a guided-missile destroyer launches a missile in the Mediterranean Sea, April 7, 2017. (via Associated Press)
•  Trump in a statement to Congress two days after the strikes: "United States intelligence indicates that Syrian military forces operating from this airfield were responsible for the chemical weapons attack on Syrian civilians in southern Idlib Province, Syria, that occurred on April 4. I directed this action in order to degrade the Syrian military's ability to conduct further chemical weapons attacks and to dissuade the Syrian regime from using or proliferating chemical weapons, thereby promoting the stability of the region and averting a worsening of the region's current humanitarian catastrophe."
• National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster in a press briefing"Obviously, the regime will maintain the certain capacity to commit mass murder with chemical weapons, we think, beyond this particular airfield. But it was aimed at this particular airfield for a reason because we could trace this murderous attack back to that facility. And this was not a small strike."
• Secretary of State Rex Tillerson on This Week: "The president was very clear in his message to the American people that this strike was related solely to the most recent horrific use of chemical weapons against women, children and, as the president said, even small babies. And so the strike was a message to Bashar al-Assad that your multiple violations of your agreements at the U.N., your agreements under the Chemical Weapons Charter back in 2013, that those would not go without a response in the future."
Rubio himself had the opportunity to question Obama administration officials about Syria in a September 2013 Senate hearing. There, he said he was concerned that Obama’s proposed operation was too narrow to degrade Assad’s chemical weapons abilities and deter future attacks — a position that conflicts with his current stance that Obama administration’s plans weren’t focused enough.
"Quite frankly, I'm a bit skeptical that the act, that what the president is asking for will provide the support needed to achieve these objectives and that these objectives are even realistic at this point," Rubio said. "It leads me to my second question: How confident are you, and how confident can you express to this committee, you are that we can, in fact, put in place a military plan that's limited in scope and duration, that can effectively degrade Assad's capability to carry out future chemical attacks?"
Dempsey replied, "I'm confident in the capabilities we can bring to bear to deter and degrade. And it won't surprise you to know that we will have not only an initial target set, but subsequent target sets should they become necessary."
Philip Gordon, who was the White House coordinator for the Middle East, North Africa and the Gulf Region from 2013 to 2015, told PolitiFact that he doesn’t see any material difference between the Trump administration’s actions in 2017 and Obama’s proposed actions in 2013 that could lead a politician to change their position, other than political calculation.
Yes, the dynamics of the Syrian civil war have changed, in that Russia, Iran and ISIS now play larger roles, Gordon said, "But none of those are relevant to the core question at hand: Is this strike capable of deterring chemical weapons? That’s the stated goal of both presidents."
Our ruling
Rubio said the Obama administration’s 2013 Syria airstrike proposal "had no clear objective," while Trump’s Syria strike "had a clear strategic objective."
In 2013 Obama’s team made their goals clear through a days-long lobbying effort: to degrade Assad’s chemical weapons abilities and deter future attacks through targeted military strikes on facilities and resources related to the attack.
Trump in 2017, conversely, didn’t lobby Congress and the public because he launched his strike unilaterally. After the strike, his team said the action was designed to degrade a facility related to the chemical weapons attack and send a message that the United States doesn’t tolerate chemical weapons use.
There is little material difference between what Obama planned to do and what Trump actually did, in terms of goals and scope. We rate Rubio’s claim False.

About this statement:

Published: Wednesday, April 12th, 2017 at 11:22 a.m.
Researched by: Lauren Carroll
Edited by: Katie Sanders
Subjects: Foreign Policy

Sources:

ABC News, This Week transcript, April 9, 2017
FactCheck.org, "McConnell Revises History on Syria," April 7, 2017
Rubio website, "Rubio Statement on U.S. Airstrikes in Syria," April 6, 2017
State Department, Remarks With National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster, April 6, 2017
CQ, Senate Foreign Relations Committee Holds Hearing on the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Syria, Sept. 3, 2013
CQ, House Foreign Affairs Committee Holds Hearing on the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Syria, Sept. 4, 2013
CQ, House Armed Services Committee Holds Hearing on the Authorization for Use of Military Force in Syria, Sept. 10, 2013
CQ, archive search, conducted April 11, 2017
Obama White House archive search, conducted April 11, 2017
Phone interview, Council on Foreign Relations senior fellow Philip Gordon, April 11, 2017