So now we take the deep state at their word?
Not sure I agree with it, but I guarantee our notice to Russia was to ensure they had no troops present at that location prior to our attack. Hitting Syria is one thing, but killing Russian troops would lead to rapid and significant escalations.
I just wish people would be consistent in the amount of skepticism they have for the anonymous deep state. I think the correct amount of skepticism is a boat load, but I would settle for consistency.No idea if he's being serious but this. I call bullshit. Neither country has anything to gain in this action, nothing.
I just wish people would be consistent in the amount of skepticism they have for the anonymous deep state. I think the correct amount of skepticism is a boat load, but I would settle for consistency.
It is true that it is not sinister enough to call the reason that the foreign policy consensus has not changed from Obama to Trump "bureaucracy."Well, we used to call the "deep state" the "bureaucracy" but that's not sinister enough, so we adopted new nomenclature to help whip up conspiracies.
I move that instead of calling the minority party in Congress the "minority party" we collectively call them the "shadow mole." Does anyone second that?
I just wish people would be consistent in the amount of skepticism they have for the anonymous deep state. I think the correct amount of skepticism is a boat load, but I would settle for consistency.
for sure both directionsI kind of thought that was the direction you were taking. I feel we have some on this board that have been.
Yet another anonymous "senior official" source. These "sources" are becoming the punchline.
Turkey says your wrong Colonel Sanders.Not sure I agree with it, but I guarantee our notice to Russia was to ensure they had no troops present at that location prior to our attack. Hitting Syria is one thing, but killing Russian troops would lead to rapid and significant escalations.