Tucker Carlson Reminds Us of What It Means to Go to War

 

Lately, Tucker Carlson has been my favorite of the Fox News talking heads. Right now, he happens to be the only voice out there who is carefully examining the latest of the USA Must Go To War chorus that sprung up against the alleged “Assad-led” use of chlorine gas against Syrian civilians in a Damascus suburb.

He reminds us that we still do not know if Assad was behind the last attack utilizing poison gas — an attack that occurred just about one year ago. He touches on the rather famous notion, via Sherlock Holmes, of what question to ask before assigning a criminal mind to a particular crime: who benefits? Tucker points out quite rightly that Assad had just heard that Trump was pulling the US out of Syria days before this attack. So why would Assad do this now? Assad may be many things, but stupid is not one of them.

Tucker then points out that there are many reasons to avoid dropping bombs and going into a full-fledged hot war against the people of Syria. Seventy people died in this chlorine gas attack. Should we avenge those deaths by killing thousands or tens of thousands more people? And included in the new number of possible war dead would be the surviving members of one of the only intact Christian communities in the Middle East.

Here is the pertinent video of Carlson’s rant against this new war:

https://youtu.be/U0niyl-vDBk

.

Published in General
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 47 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Matt Upton Inactive
    Matt Upton
    @MattUpton

    It’s entirely possible to make a case against intervention in Syria without dismissing our most reliable allied intelligence and embracing RT talking points. Now Russia is conveniently blaming Great Britain.

    I would have loved to see Tucker and Noah Rothman have a debate about intervention in Syria on the merits. Instead we get Tucker taking offense at being called “ostensibly patriotic” while using Russian talking points and trying to bait Rothman for 7 minutes (watch the video, and note all the side swipes from from Tucker vs. Rothman’s straight answers).

    Would also be nice to have a debate in the capital by the people who have the Constitutional authority to declare war. I realize there is an election coming up, but they need to take some of the burdens of power that come with its privileges.

    • #31
  2. Jager Coolidge
    Jager
    @Jager

    James Lileks (View Comment):

    Tucker points out quite rightly that Assad had just heard that Trump was pulling the US out of Syria days before this attack. So why would Assad do this now?

    Because Trump announced he was pulling out? See also, Obama, Iraq, withdrawal.

    I am not sure it is the best strategy, whether by Trump or Obama, to announce these things. 

    That said isn’t this the opposite argument that we were making about Obama and Iraq? I may be mis-remembering but I thought that the main “attack” on Obama for this was that Al-quida or ISIS or whomever would just wait it out and attack when America had left. 

    Now the thought is that the bad guys will attack while we are still their because we say we are leaving? It would seem that this would not be smart, if you want America out let them leave. If you want America to leave, don’t give them a reason stay.

    • #32
  3. Larry3435 Inactive
    Larry3435
    @Larry3435

    Whatever “message” Trump decides to send in Syria is actually addressed to North Korea.  If that message is that the US talks tough but then folds it tents and goes home at the first sign of trouble, little rocket man will take notice.

    • #33
  4. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    Larry3435 (View Comment):

    Whatever “message” Trump decides to send in Syria is actually addressed to North Korea. If that message is that the US talks tough but then folds it tents and goes home at the first sign of trouble, little rocket man will take notice.

    Won’t little rocket man take notice regardless, for example, tough talk followed by tough action.

    • #34
  5. CarolJoy Coolidge
    CarolJoy
    @CarolJoy

    Doug Watt (View Comment):

    CarolJoy (View Comment):

    Susan Quinn (View Comment):

    CarolJoy (View Comment):
    Many people who are not given to propaganda could care less about Israel and what that nation is or isn’t confirming. Let the Israelis fight their own wars – we pay that nation enough to have a strong military.

    For the record, Israel has no interest whatsoever in our fighting, or helping to fight, their wars.

    Here is a discussion from the New Stateman, regarding the British investigation of how and why that nation got sucked into the 2003 on going war against the nation if Iraq:

     

    The most unforgivable, outrageous and bizarre moment of the day occurred when Tony Blair, for some inexplicable reason, volunteered the following revelation about his all-important meeting with George W Bush in Crawford, Texas, back in April 2002:

    As I recall that discussion, it was less to do with specifics about what we were going to do on Iraq or, indeed, the Middle East, because the Israel issue was a big, big issue at the time. I think, in fact, I remember, actually, there may have been conversations that we had even with Israelis, the two of us, whilst we were there. So that was a major part of all this.

    Blair and Bush had “conversations” with “Israelis” while they were alone in Crawford, having a behind-closed-doors, private meeting about Iraq? Which Israelis? Were they present, or on the phone? Did the Israelis express a view about Saddam Hussein, WMDs or “regime change”? How many other Iraq-related meetings or discussions were the Israelis involved in?

    _______________________________________

    If a person utilizes a search engine to see if it has bothered anyone about exactly what the relationship was between the US and Israel, with regards to the Iraq Wars, there are over 2.5 million citations.

    I asked a specific question in comment #24 involving specific statements that you made. I’ll just assume that you don’t have a source and link for those statements.

    And I will reply as I already have, that there are 2.5 million people who are discussing facts relating to the other side of the issue per the American taking on of the war against the people of Iraq. And that includes many people who were privy to the various statements made by Israeli officials.

    I am sure you can use Google or the search engine of your choice. As well as looking to comments made earlier these past ten days, before the recent chemical attack, that reflect the various Israeli officials’ displeasure with Trump stating we need to pull out of Syria.

     

    • #35
  6. CarolJoy Coolidge
    CarolJoy
    @CarolJoy

    Doug Watt (View Comment):

    CarolJoy (View Comment):

    Anyone here want to know the skinny on how we got into Syria in the first place? As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton was part of some business dealings such that Qatar, and Saudi Officials put out the word that they needed the USA involved in a war against the nation of Syria.

    So the whole reason behind why the Saudis and Qatar people wanted the war was this one: there was an entrenched battle by those interests, plus the nation of France to take over Libya, due to Libya’s President Ghaddafi having some 320 Billions of dollars of gold bullion. However, the US Congress had placed down sanctions such that weaponry from the USA could not go to Libya. However if there was a live war against Syria, US weapons could move from Syria across the land or by mid sized boats over to Libya, and then the various interested parties could get their hands on all that gold bullion.

    So in mid summer 2013, Obama finally utilized his bully pulpit to explain to the citizens that we all needed this war in Syria. Once on TV in prime time, he pleaded with us to fax, phone, email or write our Congress critters. And so we did. But the majority of us, some 87%, let Congress know we were sick of the un-ending, never-to-be won wars where we already were fighting. So all the activities that came about in Syria had to do with our CIA funding various rebel militants.

    Our government also was behind the brutal murder of Ghaddaffi, and then once he was out of the way, that bullion went missing. The gold is rumored to have been gotten by the officials from France, but who knows, right? … And Hillary saw a 32 million dollar donation posted to The Clinton Foundation shortly after or during these activities, from her friends in Saudia Arabia and Qatar.

    Would you happen to have a source, and link for this information?

    This is information many of my friends, all of whom are now Dem Exit, pieced together over long years of discussion on various blogs. I will see if I have time to bring about a collection of pieces of information that support this. (I no loner use the HD storing this, so it involves shifting  around furniture and connecting and re-connecting – sigh.) You can utilize a search engine and find out that not once before the summer of 2013 did Obama utilize the bully pulpit, and then it was for the purpose of asking us citizens to support  the idea of “boots on the ground” in Syria immediately. (The US had already been funding Syria’s “rebels” and “militants” since at least 2012.

     

    • #36
  7. CarolJoy Coolidge
    CarolJoy
    @CarolJoy

    @dougwatt

    Hopefully you will first read my earlier reply, right above this one.

    But I did a quick google search and here is something of value that came up: it is a piece relating Seynmour Hersh’s very astute remarks and insights on how Hillary was behi9nd the earlier Sarin gas attacks (maybe circa 2012 or 2013?)

    https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2016/04/28/seymour-hersh-hillary-approved-sending-libya-sarin-syrian-rebels.html

    from the article:

    However, now, for the first time, Hersh has implicated Hillary Clinton directly in this «rat line». In an interview with Alternet.org, Hersh was asked about the then-US-Secretary-of-State’s role in the Benghazi, Libya US consulate’s operation to collect weapons from Libyan stockpiles and send them through Turkey into Syria for a set-up sarin-gas attack, to be blamed on Assad in order to ‘justify’ the US invading Syria, as the US had invaded Libya to eliminate Gaddafi.

    Hersh said: «That ambassador who was killed, he was known as a guy, from what I understand, as somebody, who would not get in the way of the CIA. As I wrote, on the day of the mission he was meeting with the CIA base chief and the shipping company. He was certainly involved, aware and witting of everything that was going on. And there’s no way somebody in that sensitive of a position is not talking to the boss, by some channel».

    This was, in fact, the Syrian part of the State Department’s Libyan operation, Obama’s operation to set up an excuse for the US doing in Syria what they had already done in Libya.

    Full article at above link.

    Hersh is one of the few journalists that I have respect for. As an indie reporter (now retired) I gathered  more than enough evidence about how controlled the media has been for the last several decades. Even before this brouhaha relating to how  the Mainstream media only reports stories against Trump, I knew first hand  how controlled it is.

    • #37
  8. Bob Thompson Member
    Bob Thompson
    @BobThompson

    James Lileks (View Comment):

    Tucker points out quite rightly that Assad had just heard that Trump was pulling the US out of Syria days before this attack. So why would Assad do this now?

    Because Trump announced he was pulling out? See also, Obama, Iraq, withdrawal.

    Are you comparing a pulling out of Syria (whatever we have there?) as comparable to Obama’s withdrawal from Iraq, an invasion that was very clearly the United States?

    I don’t see such a clear picture in Syria, in fact, it looks as if the beneficiary of escalating US involvement in Syria against Assad, in any form, is the militant rebels.  

    • #38
  9. CarolJoy Coolidge
    CarolJoy
    @CarolJoy

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    James Lileks (View Comment):

    Tucker points out quite rightly that Assad had just heard that Trump was pulling the US out of Syria days before this attack. So why would Assad do this now?

    Because Trump announced he was pulling out? See also, Obama, Iraq, withdrawal.

    Are you comparing a pulling out of Syria (whatever we have there?) as comparable to Obama’s withdrawal from Iraq, an invasion that was very clearly the United States?

    I don’t see such a clear picture in Syria, in fact, it looks as if the beneficiary of escalating US involvement in Syria against Assad, in any form, is the militant rebels.

    Decent comment. Also, it is almost impossible as a stateside citizen to follow what is going on over there. Are there eight groups of militant rebels against Assad? Or nine? Or fewer?  The PBS sponsored show “POV” had a really good report on Syria some time ago. (Had to be 2015 or earlier.)

    And it was amazing how many Syrian  people started off as soldiers for Assad, but switched sides six months later,  and vice versa. Several times the Syrians being interviewed spoke of their belief that much of the disarray was due to US, Israeli and Saudi funding.  There simply  didn’t seem to be any side wherein an individual could be fighting for coherent goals. It was just about killing and killing  and more killing. Of anyone who got in the way of whichever side they were on.

    • #39
  10. CarolJoy Coolidge
    CarolJoy
    @CarolJoy

    Duane Oyen (View Comment):

    Two normally-OK-except-for-anything-having-to-do-with-foreign-policy commentators are Tucker Carlson and PJ O’Rourke. They often exhibit significant irresponsibility in their isolationist rants. At least PJ is a) funny and b) someone who comes from a normal, non-privileged background.

    I tend to believe that Mattis, Bolton, and Pompeo are a lot smarter than Tucker Carlson (Trump is not, and he is even more self-impressed than Tucker is). The significant problems we currently face are the direct result of Obama (and, with regard to the NORKs, Condi Rice, Albright, Jimmy Carter, et al) following essentially the policies that Carlson wants the US to embrace today.

    You can always have peace today- Stanley Baldwin and Frank Kellogg ensured peace in their times, leaving the world to pick up the fragments at great cost a decade later.

    Frank Kellogg was responsible for US officials signing a peace treaty in 1928, at a time when Hitler was still considered a punk/side liner in politics, and certainly not someone who would make the Brown Shirts an every day item. So I hardly undnerstand how he can be blamed for not being prescient about what would happen later on.

    You don’t seem to understand the mind set of that era. Even if you look back to the two reigning American magazines of the time, Look and Life, both heralded Mr Hitler for his uniting Germany and perhaps setting us all up for a wonderful peaceful decade ahead. And those magazines were printing those articles in 1935 and 1936!

    • #40
  11. Doug Watt Member
    Doug Watt
    @DougWatt

    CarolJoy (View Comment):

    @dougwatt

    Hopefully you will first read my earlier reply, right above this one.

    But I did a quick google search and here is something of value that came up: it is a piece relating Seynmour Hersh’s very astute remarks and insights on how Hillary was behi9nd the earlier Sarin gas attacks (maybe circa 2012 or 2013?)

    https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2016/04/28/seymour-hersh-hillary-approved-sending-libya-sarin-syrian-rebels.html

    from the article:

    However, now, for the first time, Hersh has implicated Hillary Clinton directly in this «rat line». In an interview with Alternet.org, Hersh was asked about the then-US-Secretary-of-State’s role in the Benghazi, Libya US consulate’s operation to collect weapons from Libyan stockpiles and send them through Turkey into Syria for a set-up sarin-gas attack, to be blamed on Assad in order to ‘justify’ the US invading Syria, as the US had invaded Libya to eliminate Gaddafi.

    Hersh said: «That ambassador who was killed, he was known as a guy, from what I understand, as somebody, who would not get in the way of the CIA. As I wrote, on the day of the mission he was meeting with the CIA base chief and the shipping company. He was certainly involved, aware and witting of everything that was going on. And there’s no way somebody in that sensitive of a position is not talking to the boss, by some channel».

    This was, in fact, the Syrian part of the State Department’s Libyan operation, Obama’s operation to set up an excuse for the US doing in Syria what they had already done in Libya.

    Full article at above link.

    Hersh is one of the few journalists that I have respect for. As an indie reporter (now retired) I gathered more than enough evidence about how controlled the media has been for the last several decades. Even before this brouhaha relating to how the Mainstream media only reports stories against Trump, I knew first hand how controlled it is.

    Please do not trouble yourself with any more research on my account. The website you linked to is a Moscow based think tank. It includes articles blaming the Mossad for 9/11, blames Poland for not resisting the Germans, written by a Russian. It is definitely an anti-Zionist website, which is a code word for anti-Semites. I scrolled through the authors they list as contributors, read many of the articles, and there are some amazing conspiracy theories.

    Link

     

    • #41
  12. Larry3435 Inactive
    Larry3435
    @Larry3435

    Doug Watt (View Comment):
    It is definitely an anti-Zionist website, which is a code word for anti-Semites.

    Yeah, and it’s not much of a code at that.  But then, neither is the word neo-con as used in many circles.  Those who want a fig leaf to cover anti-Semitism don’t seem to care if it is a very small leaf indeed.

    • #42
  13. Larry3435 Inactive
    Larry3435
    @Larry3435

    Bob Thompson (View Comment):

    Larry3435 (View Comment):

    Whatever “message” Trump decides to send in Syria is actually addressed to North Korea. If that message is that the US talks tough but then folds it tents and goes home at the first sign of trouble, little rocket man will take notice.

    Won’t little rocket man take notice regardless, for example, tough talk followed by tough action.

    Oh yes indeed, I believe he will.

    • #43
  14. Dan Hanson Thatcher
    Dan Hanson
    @DanHanson

    I think the message was meant more for Putin than Kim Jon Un.  Putin is the person cureently flexing his muscles around the world.  He’s the one with armies of internet trolls trying to sow confusion and turmoil among his enemies.  He’s the one using nerve agents and radioactive poisons in other countries.  He’s the one who is a big risk for invading his neighbors.  He’s still raising hell in the Ukraine, and he’s up to no good in the middle east.

    I suspect that the attack on the American base and the gas attack have Putin’s fingerprints on them.  He’s using Syria to test American resolve and fighting spirit, so that he can better calibrate his actions in Europe.

    He may have thought that if he could manage an attack on an American base (a deniable attack using ‘mercenaries’), he could create another Beirut type situation and America would pull out.

    He knew America attacked the regime in Syria after their first gas attack, but he also knew the Americans were under no risk as Syria didn’t have the ability to fight back.  But then he moved S-400 missiles into the country and stepped up other air defense operations.  He also moved some guided missile cruisers and attack subs into the region.  This raised the stakes dramatically for the U.S.

    You could imagine Obama’s response to this after having his coterie of idiot advisors weigh in.  Attacking Syria would risk having a confrontation with Russia.  What if Russia responds by sinking an American ship, or shooting down a bomber?  It could start a war between nuclear powers!  Can’t have that, so we best bluster and bluff, but ultimately do nothing.

    Putin might have wanted to test the new administration to see if they were really made of sterner stuff or if they would back off given the risks.

    If so, he got his answer.  And if this was a test by Putin, the answer made the world a safer place.

    • #44
  15. Arizona Patriot Member
    Arizona Patriot
    @ArizonaPatriot

    Carlson at 2:14: “Universal bipartisan agreement on anything is usually the first sign that something deeply unwise is about to happen.”

    Wow.  I usually like and respect Carlson, but this seems ridiculous.

    Let’s get this straight.  Say that everybody agrees that you shouldn’t drink arsenic, or shoot yourself in the head.  So, according to Carlson, this is the first sign that it is deeply unwise to . . . not drink arsenic, or not shoot yourself in the head.

    This is troubling rhetorical excess.

     

    • #45
  16. Arizona Patriot Member
    Arizona Patriot
    @ArizonaPatriot

    Also troubling is Carlson’s repeating what appears to be a deceptive, Left-wing talking point about Defense Sec. Mattis supposedly admitting that we have no proof that Assad used sarin gas last year.  This seems to have come from a Newsweek article on Feb. 8, reporting on a press conference on Feb. 2.  I’ve looked at the transcript (here), and it is not completely clear, but seems to be referring to new reports by the State department the prior day of different allegations regarding chemical weapons, not the sarin attack that led to the cruise missile attack in 2017.  Mattis stated

    Q:  Can you talk a little bit about the chemical weapons that were — the State Department was talking about just a little bit yesterday, that mentioned chlorine gas?  Is this something you’re seeing that’s been weaponized or – just give us a sense.

    SEC. MATTIS:  It has.

    Q:  It has.  Okay.

    SEC. MATTIS:  It has.  We are more — even more concerned about the possibility of sarin use, the likelihood of sarin use, and we’re looking for the evidence.  And so that’s about all the more I can say about it right now, but we are on the record, and you all have seen how we reacted to that, so they’d be ill-advised to go back to violating the chemical convention.

    And later:

    Q:  Can I ask a quick follow up, just a clarification on what you’d said earlier about Syria and sarin gas?

    SEC. MATTIS:  Yeah.

    Q:  Just make sure I heard you correctly, you’re saying you think it’s likely they have used it and you’re looking for the evidence?  Is that what you said?

    SEC. MATTIS:  That’s — we think that they did not carry out what they said they would do back when — in the previous administration, when they were caught using it.  Obviously they didn’t, cause they used it again during our administration.

    And that gives us a lot of reason to suspect them.  And now we have other reports from the battlefield from people who claim it’s been used.

    We do not have evidence of it.  But we’re not refuting them; we’re looking for evidence of it.  Since clearly we are using — we are dealing with the Assad regime that has used denial and deceit to hide their outlaw actions, okay?

    In context, Mattis seems to be saying: we have new reports of chemical weapons use; we don’t have evidence of it yet (meaning of the new reports); but we know they did it before during our administration, and we’re taking it seriously, because you all remember what we did the last time (i.e. launched the cruise missile attacks).

    It strikes me as deliberate misinterpretation to consider this an admission that Mattis did not have evidence of Syrian sarin gas use to support the cruise missile attacks last year.

    • #46
  17. CarolJoy Coolidge
    CarolJoy
    @CarolJoy

    Arizona Patriot (View Comment):

    Also troubling is Carlson’s repeating SNIP a deceptive, Left-wing talking point about Defense Sec. Mattis supposedly admitting that we have no proof that Assad used sarin gas last year.SNIP  from a Newsweek article on Feb. 8, reporting on a press conference on Feb. 2. I’ve looked at the transcript (here), and it is not completely clear, but seems to be referring to new reports by the State department the prior day of different allegations regarding chemical weapons, not the sarin attack that led to the cruise missile attack in 2017. Mattis stated

    Q: Can you talk a little bit about the chemical weapons that were — the State Department was talking about just a little bit yesterday, that mentioned chlorine gas? Is this something you’re seeing that’s been weaponized or – just give us a sense.

    SEC. MATTIS: It has.

    Q: It has. Okay.

    SEC. MATTIS: It has. We are more — even more concerned about the possibility of sarin use, the likelihood of sarin use, and we’re looking for the evidence. SNIP we are on the record, and you all have seen how we reacted to that, so they’d be ill-advised to go back to violating the chemical convention.

    And later:

    Q: Can I ask a quick follow up, just a clarification on what you’d said earlier about Syria and sarin gas?

    SEC. MATTIS: Yeah.

    Q: Just make sure I heard you correctly, you’re saying you think it’s likely they have used it and you’re looking for the evidence? Is that what you said?

    SEC. MATTIS: SNIP  Obviously they didn’t, cause they used it again during our administration.

    And that gives us a lot of reason to suspect them. SNIP other reports from the battlefield from people who claim it’s been used.

    We do not have evidence of it. But we’re not refuting them; we’re looking for evidence of it. Since clearly we are using — we are dealing with the Assad regime that has used denial and deceit to hide their outlaw actions, okay?

    In context, Mattis seems to be saying: we have new reports of chemical weapons use; we don’t have evidence of it yet (meaning of the new reports); but we know they did it before during our administration, and we’re taking it seriously, because you all remember what we did the last time (i.e. launched the cruise missile attacks).

    It strikes me as deliberate misinterpretation to consider this an admission that Mattis did not have evidence of Syrian sarin gas use to support the cruise missile attacks last year.

    There was a team of people looking into the Sarin gas attacks of Spring 2017, and their conclusions were about to be released to the public. I didn’t pay attention to who was doing investigation, as the gas attack was so last year. Then the new attack occurred, and qui bono is my reply to it…

    • #47
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.