With National Security Council Shakeup, Steve Bannon Gets A Seat At The Table

A more serious concern than say Bannon and his EO Muslin Ban is the behavior of the two former Marine Generals Kelly with DHS and Mattis as SecDef…in their extremely poor performance in actually backing Trump/Bannon in their EO Muslim Ban……

Kelly’s DHS did in fact challenge the EO by stating their read of the EO was not to exclude Green Card holders and when it came back that Bannon stated to them that it covered GC holders…notice they simply backed down…WHY Kelly did not demand such a far reaching decision be vetted by DoJ is beyond me….??

Secondly, Mattis stood next to Trump in his signing of the EO Muslim Ban clapping his approval and saying not a single word AFTER stating the following…..

QUOTE
The former commander of the U.S. Central Command was sharply critical of Trump’s call to ban Muslim immigrants during his presidential campaign. In July 2016 he said such talk would lead U.S. allies to think “we have lost faith in reason” and said it was causing “great damage.”
UNQUOTE

So a former vet of AFG and Iraq who stated the above has basically quietly abandoned his own personal position and accepted that of white nationalists…ie racists….

QUOTE
Many groups had hoped that as someone with direct experience in Afghanistan and Iraq, who understands the reliance of U.S. forces on local employees, Mattis would be an ally in allocating more visas for them.
Instead, they said, he stood by as Trump signed the immigration order in the Pentagon’s Hall of Heroes.

“Secretary Mattis just stood there and smiled and clapped,” Friedman said. “He needs to figure out really quickly which side he’s on.”
UNQUOTE
http://www.stripes.com/news/us/many-us-veterans-angry-that-executive-order-keeps-iraqi-interpreters-out-1.451556

HERE is the core problem with former officers especially at the retired ranks of COL and higher…when they shift to the business world…..

They feel as if they must prove to their bosses they are 4000% behind them out of fear they could be seen as outsiders unwilling to bend to the demands of the business world as they entire career was not built around the actual demands of the business world…

They are in fact two completely different beasts and worlds…..

BUT this is critical both… Trump knew would follow his orders as CinC as that is what they are use to and as a General you serve at the pleasure of the President…..both were truly played by Trump and his merry band…

And they responded exactly as he assumed they would…..still today not a single comment out of both of them….strange is it not…..

JUST gets worse…

Baghdad Invest @baghdadinvest
Breaking: Iraqi parliament blocks visas for all Americans, including contractors & journalists
http://www.baghdadinvest.com/breaking-americans-banned-iraq-retaliation-measures/ 

STILL not a single comment from SecDef Mattis

BLUF….Trump…Bannon…Flynn…Miller…Manafort…Stone…Cage are actually actively building a parallel security and intelligence structure along side existing for years government structures…that have largely served the US well…

Core question is why are they doing that and for what reasons….????

There is an ongoing UK Parliament open questioning period where the words are being heavily directed against Trump and his inner circle……

“Fascist…..discriminatory…ignorant…racist….counterproductive………supports IS…..xenophobia…..anti Muslim………..and the other words just keep on rolling on…..”

“Our shared common relationship is based on the rule of law and common humanitarian values”…..

UK PM is complicit in the Trump policies by not making a single comment against the Trump EO for over 46 hours…..

Reference the Trump EOs being released……
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/most-of-trump%E2%80%99s-executive-orders-aren%E2%80%99t-actually-executive-orders-here%E2%80%99s-why-that-matters/ar-AAmoYIA?li=BBmkt5R&ocid=spartandhp

Most of Trump’s executive orders aren’t actually executive orders. Here’s why that matters.

The flood of executive directives flowing from the White House — or from other photogenic signing spots — was a notable part of President Donald Trump’s first week in office.
There will be plenty to analyze as the administration continues — many more such directives have been promised, and rumored. But a preliminary primer seems in order.
Some of the actions taken would have been tempting to any president — for instance, the freeze on the prior administration’s regulatory agenda. Others have been partisan constants — such as the renewal of the so-called Mexico City Policy, called by its opponents the “global gag rule.”
Most, though, have checked off President Trump’s most salient campaign promises — complete with press release-friendly “purpose” sections making extravagant claims not usually found in executive orders. “Sanctuary jurisdictions,” for example, are said to “have caused immeasurable harm to the American people and to the very fabric of our Republic.” The order cracking down on refugees starts with three long paragraphs seeking to blame the 9/11 attacks on the visa process. And crafting an emergency budget amendment for military readiness does not require a formal signing ceremony — a phone call to the Office of Management and Budget would do the trick.
Do these executive actions actually do everything that Trump claims they do?
Thus one role of these directives is to permit Trump to take a public, symbolic stand: For instance, signaling that refugees and oppressive environmental regulations and the Affordable Care Act are bad, while new factories and American-made steel pipelines and big border walls are good.
But another goal, of course, is to spur substantive change. What might these executive actions achieve, in the agencies and (literally) in and on the ground?
The answer varies by the kind of authority each directive assumes. Withdrawing from a trade pact that was not in effect is easy enough. But anything needing new appropriations will in turn need legislative action. There is probably some money in the Homeland Security budget that can be reprogrammed toward construction of a few feet of wall between the United States and Mexico, for instance. But to build more than that — or to hire the 5,000 new Border Patrol agents or 10,000 immigration enforcement officers also “ordered” by the president — Congress will have to approve funding.
Other orders also rely on other actors. However eager Trump may be to fast-track the Keystone XL oil pipeline, for instance, that project still faces state-level hurdles. Efforts to use federal money to browbeat states and localities probably will run up against Supreme Court decisions protecting federalism — law professor Ilya Somin, for example, recently argued that the “sanctuary city” order is likely to be found unconstitutional. Friday’s order on visas, immigrants and refugees has already been challenged in court, and part of it temporarily suspended.
Still other of Trump’s directives create a new process, rather than a new outcome. For instance, the order “Expediting Environmental Reviews and Approvals for High Priority Infrastructure Projects” puts the chair of the White House’s Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) in charge of identifying such projects and working with departments to speed up permitting. It’s safe to say CEQ does not have a reputation as a bureaucratic powerhouse, and there’s no guarantee that its chair — who hasn’t yet been named in any case — will have the clout needed to browbeat Cabinet secretaries.
More generally, several of the memos ask departments to review existing laws and regulations and to produce new plans. These sorts of assigned tasks can easily sink to the bottom of a new secretary’s long to-do list without sustained White House attention.
Issuing orders without consultation may undermine implementation
The fact that many of the directives issued seem to have been drafted without input from the departments they affect will probably not help with their implementation. Normally executive orders go through a central clearance process managed by OMB. This is both to produce buy-in from the wider bureaucracy, and to protect the president against unintended policy consequences (and/or from the effects of sloppy or misleading language.)
Orders are also supposed to be reviewed by the Justice Department for “form and legality,” ensuring that they are consistent with existing law and presidential authority.
Still, presidential direction matters
As a result, some observers have dismissed the directives as “memos to his advisers.”  Yet any presidential signal to the bureaucracy needs to be taken seriously. This is especially true where presidents use such tools to inform those advisers how vagueness in statutory language should be interpreted.
For example, President Barack Obama used the discretion he read in the Immigration and Nationality Act to try to shield specific groups from deportation. Trump now seeks to use the same principle to broaden deportation priorities, expanding the definition of criminality and giving immigration officials wider latitude in assessing who counts as “a risk to public safety or national security.”  The wall order goes back to a 2006 law authorizing border security measures (although not everyone sees building a wall as legally “necessary and appropriate” under that statute.)
It is less clear what specific actions department heads will or will not be able to take under the order urging them to undermine the Affordable Care Act. Even so, the order makes clear the direction of action the president expects.
They’re not all executive orders. They’re mostly presidential memoranda.
One last point — on vocabulary. Though nearly every headline (and White House staffer for that matter) has trumpeted a spate of “executive orders,” so far these directives are mostly not executive orders but “presidential memoranda.”
Does this matter? Yes. Executive orders (EOs) and presidential memoranda (PMs) have slightly different purposes, though they blend together at the margins and have equivalent legal effect.
Orders do just that: they order people in the executive branch to act a certain way, normally by changing structure or process. They might delegate presidential power, or set up an interagency committee, or a process by which the costs and benefits of regulatory proposals should be evaluated, or conditions with which federal contractors must comply.
Memoranda tend to prompt action rather than to direct it. A president might use one to “suggest” to an agency with its own statutory power over a given area how that power should be used — that the agency should issue certain guidance about how a law should be implemented, or that it should come up with an action plan to review extant regulations and come up with new ones.
Executive orders, which are numbered and published in the Federal Register, are easy to count. As a result, they often are used as a proxy for assessing the scale of presidential unilateralism overall. But if that’s how the batting average is calculated, presidents have an incentive to pad their stats.
When accused of executive overreach, for example, Obama and his allies responded by pointing to the small number of EOs he had issued relative to his predecessors. Their count was accurate enough — but their implication was misleading. Obama was a frequent user of other tools, like PMs, that provided new policy guidance, prompted new regulation, and generated new interpretations of old statutes in ways that matched presidential preferences. On Friday the Trump administration invented the Presidential National Security Memorandum — again, something that won’t be in the count of executive orders.
So taking a full inventory of the toolbox of directives available to presidents helps us better understand the scope of executive authority more generally. And judging by Trump’s first week as president, that will be something we want to understand.

Trump continues to believe that those against his Muslim Ban are only the dishonest and fake news media and the Democrats…..not the entire globe and a large amount of normal Americans across the boards…..

THEN he deliberately lashes out via tweet to side step and deflect…..

Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump
protesters and the tears of Senator Schumer. Secretary Kelly said that all is going well with very few problems. MAKE AMERICA SAFE AGAIN!

Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump
There is nothing nice about searching for terrorists before they can enter our country. This was a big part of my campaign. Study the world!

Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump
If the ban were announced with a one week notice, the “bad” would rush into our country during that week. A lot of bad “dudes” out there!

TRUMP is now trying to deflect…distort…dismiss…the anger at his EO Muslim Ban…..ALL elements of the Russian SIX Ds of propaganda…..

Donald J. Trump ‏@realDonaldTrump
Where was all the outrage from Democrats and the opposition party (the media) when our jobs were fleeing our country?

This article crosses this thread nicely with the sidelining of the JCoS and DNI in the NSC….as well as it goes to the Putin dream of a Yalta 2.0 that he has been preaching since 2006…that he wants a zone of influence political and economic running from Portugal to the Russian Far East…..

http://windowoneurasia2.blogspot.de/2017/01/solovey-on-shape-of-emerging…

Monday, January 30, 2017
Solovey on the Shape of the Emerging Putin-Trump ‘Big Deal’ on Ukraine and Much Else

Staunton, January 30 – Valery Solovey, one of the best connected and most thoughtful of Moscow’s foreign policy commentators, says that the telephone call between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin was the “first step toward ‘a big deal’” between the two not only over bilateral ties but also over a re-division of the world that will leave many countries at Russia’s mercy.
            The MGIMO professor outlines what he sees as the seven most important aspects of such a deal in a Facebook post that subsequently has been picked up by other outlets (facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=1842744842662560&id=100007811864378&pnref=story, echo.msk.ru/blog/vsolovej/1918678-echo/  and  hvylya.net/news/exclusive/ssha-blizki-k-zaklyucheniyu-s-rf-bolshoy-sdelki-kasayushheysya-ukrainyi-solovey.html).
            Solovey’s seven points of a possible “deal” between Putin and Trump are:
1.      “Moscow considers that a personal meeting of Putin and Trump will be marked by mutual understanding and can lay the groundwork for a strategic deal.”
2.      “In the new American administration there are influential people who think that agreement with Russia corresponds to the national interests of the US. Expert workups of these agreements have already begun.”
3.      “For the US, the main themes of the deal are the destruction of ISIS and restraining Iran and China. For Russia, they are the de facto recognition of a new geopolitical status quo, a recognition of the post-Soviet space (except for the Baltics) as a zone of Russian influence, a normalization of relations with NATO, and a decisive easing of sanctions.”
4.      “A mass joint operation of the US and Russia against ISIS (the theater of military operations in addition to Syria would include two or three additional countries) would prove capable of removing the objections of the Congress against a deal with Russia.”
5.      “Regarding the policy of post-sanctions Iran, Moscow now has poorly concealed objections so that a firm base for a future agreement exists.”
6.      “For Russia, it is critically important to avoid complications with china, therefore the potential model of agreement with the US regarding China may be formed not on a military-political but on a geo-economic basis involving massive economic cooperation in Siberia and the Far East, with the involvement of South Korea and Japan.”
7.      “Regarding Ukraine, the position is the following: to give guarantees that the Russians will not seize Ukraine, and in the future to allow the two neighboring sides to agree among themselves. The US has other priorities.”
It is important to remember that Solovey’s conclusions, however accurate they may be as a statement about where Putin and Trump are now, may not be what any final “deal” will look like: There are simply too many players in both Russia and the US to be certain of that. But they do point to two disturbing possibilities in the former Soviet space.
On the one hand, if Solovey is right, Trump is prepared to leave the 11 former Soviet republics to face Russian power on their own, something that will represent a betrayal of what has been American policy since 1991. Moscow apparently is prepared to recognize that the Baltic countries are out of its zone, but any Putin promise to not try to take Ukraine is worthless.
And on the other, in the MGIMO analyst’s view, Trump and Putin are prepared to launch a major military campaign against ISIS not because it would really defeat Islamist radicalism – the experience of Syria shows how unlikely that is — than because it could serve as a means for Trump to marginalize critics in the Congress of his all-too-obvious tilt toward Russia.
Given the gratitude that Trump would likely have for such additional Russian assistance in US domestic politics, it would be most unlikely that the US president would do anything to block Putin’s authoritarianism and imperial pretensions in Eurasia, guaranteeing not only more violence there but destroying what is left of US credibility more generally.
 And tragically, if Solovey is right, Trump apparently is only concerned about containing Islamic radicalism and China and is prepared to yield to Russia on everything else. Thus his constant promise to “make America great again” will in the first instance contribute to making Russia great again even as it diminishes America’s influence and standing in the world.

How Donald Trump Could Build an Autocracy in the U.S. – The Atlantic

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/03/how-to-build-an-autocracy/513872/

The use of the word “autocracy” can be interchanged with the say kleptocracy and even the American concept of “smiling fascism”…..

That is really what we are seeing in it’s early stages….already one week in….. 

Bannon is leaving no paper trail….

http://foreignpolicy.com/2017/01/30/steve-bannon-is-making-sure-theres-no-white-house-paper-trail-trump-president/

If there was any question about who is largely in charge of national security behind the scenes at the White House, the answer is becoming increasingly clear: Steve Bannon, the former head of Breitbart News, a far-right media outlet, and now White House advisor.

Even before he was given a formal seat on the National Security Council’s “principals committee” this weekend by President Donald Trump, Bannon was calling the shots and doing so with little to no input from the National Security Council staff, according to an intelligence official who asked not to be named out of fear of retribution.

“He is running a cabal, almost like a shadow NSC,” the official said. He described a work environment where there is little appetite for dissenting opinions, shockingly no paper trail of what’s being discussed and agreed upon at meetings, and no guidance or encouragement so far from above about how the National Security Council staff should be organized.

The intelligence official, who said he was willing to give the Trump administration the benefit of the doubt when it took office, is now deeply troubled by how things are being run.

“They ran all of these executive orders outside of the normal construct,” he said, referring to last week’s flurry of draft executive orders on everything from immigration to the return of CIA “black sites.”

After the controversial draft orders were written, the Trump team was very selective in how they routed them through the internal White House review process, the official said.

Under previous administrations, if someone thought another person or directorate had a stake in the issue at hand or expertise in a subject area, he or she was free to share the papers as long as the recipient had proper clearance.

With that standard in mind, when some officials saw Trump’s draft executive orders, they felt they had broad impact and shared them more widely for staffing and comments.

That did not sit well with Bannon or his staff, according to the official. More stringent guidelines for handling and routing were then instituted, and the National Security Council staff was largely cut out of the process.

By the end of the week, they weren’t the only ones left in the dark. Retired Marine Gen. John Kelly, the secretary of homeland security, was being briefed on the executive order, which called for immediately shutting the borders to nationals from seven largely Muslim countries and all refugees, while Trump was in the midst of signing the measure, the New York Times reported.

The White House did not respond in time to a request for comment.

The lack of a paper trail documenting the decision-making process is also troubling, the intelligence official said. For example, under previous administrations, after a principals or deputies meeting of the National Security Council, the discussion, the final agreement, and the recommendations would be written up in what’s called a “summary of conclusions” — or SOC in government-speak.

“Under [President George W. Bush], the National Security Council was quite strict about recording SOCs,” said Matthew Waxman, a law professor at Columbia University who served on Bush’s National Security Council. “There was often a high level of generality, and there may have been some exceptions, but they were carefully crafted.”

These summaries also provided a record to refer back to, especially important if a debate over an issue came up again, including among agencies that needed to implement the conclusions reached.
If someone thought the discussion was mischaracterized, he or she would call for a correction to be issued to set the record straight, said Loren DeJonge Schulman, who previously served in former President Barack Obama’s administration as a senior advisor to National Security Advisor Susan Rice. Schulman is now a senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security.

“People took the document seriously,” she said.

During the first week of the Trump administration, there were no SOCs, the intelligence official said. In fact, according to him, there is surprisingly very little paper being generated, and whatever paper there is, the NSC staff is not privy to it. He sees this as a deterioration of transparency and accountability.

“It would worry me if written records of these meeting were eliminated, because they contribute to good governance,” Waxman said.

It is equally important that NSC staff be the ones drafting the issue papers going into meetings, too, said Schulman. “The idea is to share with everyone a fair and balanced take on the issue, with the range of viewpoints captured in that document,” she said.

If those papers are now being generated by political staff, she added, it corrupts the whole process.

It could also contribute to Bannon’s centralization of power.
“He who has the pen has the authority to shape outcomes,” the intelligence official said.

Now Bannon’s role in the shadows is being formalized thanks to an executive order signed Saturday by Trump that formally gives Bannon a seat on the National Security Council’s principals committee. The same executive order removed from that group the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the director of national intelligence, and the secretary of energy. Their new diminished role is not unprecedented, but some still find it a troubling piece of this larger picture.

For example, former Defense Secretary Robert Gates — who served under both Bush and Obama — told ABC News this weekend that sidelining the chairman of the Joint Chiefs and the director of national intelligence was a “big mistake.”

Every president can benefit from their “perspective, judgment, and experience,” Gates said.

Bannon’s new role is unprecedented. Under Obama, it wasn’t unheard of for his chief political advisors, John Podesta and David Axelrod, to attend NSC meetings, but they were never guaranteed a seat at the table. Under Bush, the line between national security and domestic political considerations was even clearer. Top aides have said they never saw Karl Rove or “anyone from his shop” in NSC meetings, and that’s because Bush told him explicitly not to attend.

The signal Bush “especially wanted to send to the military is that, ‘The decisions I’m making that involve life and death for the people in uniform will not be tainted by any political decisions,’” former White House Chief of Staff Josh Bolten said last September.

Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) called Bannon’s appointment to the council as a permanent member a “radical departure” from how the decision-making body was organized in the past, adding that he found the change “concerning.”

Inside and outside of government, there are also deep reservations about Bannon’s alignment with the far right and white nationalism, thanks to his previous leadership of Breitbart. One Bannon quote making the rounds this weekend: “Lenin wanted to destroy the state, and that’s my goal, too. I want to bring everything crashing down and destroy all of today’s establishment.”

There are new questions about where retired Army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, Trump’s national security advisor, fits into all of this. Internally, it remains unclear what his role is, the intelligence official said. “He has a voice at the table, but he’s overshadowed by Bannon.”

Meanwhile, Tom Bossert, a former Bush national security aide whom Trump picked to serve as the White House’s homeland security advisor, is not “one of Bannon’s,” so he is also on the outside looking in, according to the official. However, in Saturday’s executive order, Bossert was also given a permanent seat on the NSC principals committee.

But there is not a lot of infighting right now, because to have infighting, there needs to be a power struggle, and there is no struggle, the intelligence official said.

However, there is an effort to crack down on leaking. Last week, a draft executive order, which raised the prospect of bringing back CIA “black sites” and reopening the debate on torture, leaked to the press. White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer said it was “not a White House document” and that he had “no idea where it came from.” But according to the New York Times, “the White House had circulated it among National Security Council staff members for review on Tuesday morning.” The Times was even provided with the details of the email chain that showed “the draft order’s movements through the White House bureaucracy.”

“They’re doing a witch hunt now to find out how that got out,” the intelligence official said. “There is zero room for dissenting opinion.”

Trump did say publicly that he would defer to Defense Secretary James Mattis for now on the question of torture, which would suggest that disagreement is OK.

But while publicly the president is allowing for different opinions, there is unhappiness about what is permitted behind the scenes, according to the official. If you take a stand against the White House, you might find yourself frozen out of future meetings, he said.

The NSC staff is mostly in shock after last week, the intelligence official said. For now, no one knows what each day will bring. There is no organizational chart yet for the NSC, meaning there has been no internal guidance yet about which portfolios still exist and to whom they report, the official said.

The Washington Post reported Sunday on some of the changes being made, including that “some offices such as cyber have been expanded, while others have been collapsed.” The directorates on Europe and Russia, which were separate under Obama, have now been combined.

It’s possible that the current chaos and lack of bureaucratic process is a result of the Trump administration still going through growing pains and figuring out how best to run things.

But former NSC officials said an organizational chart for the NSC is the kind of thing you have in place weeks before taking office.

Only time will tell if the way things are currently being done is deliberate or part of a new administration learning on the job how best to provide advice to the president and communicate with the relevant agencies.
Trump’s management style is known to be highly unstructured, if not chaotic.

The Post reported in May that he was running his presidential campaign like he ran his business — “fond of promoting rivalries among subordinates, wary of delegating major decisions, scornful of convention and fiercely insistent on a culture of loyalty around him.”

“While this may have worked for his company, it is certainly not a way to run a country,” the official said.

Appears that the Bannon led NSC seems to be spinning out of control….hiring out Congressmen to write EOs when the NSC cannot do it….

They COULDN’T TELL THEIR OWN BOSSES because Trump poached them & had them sign NDAs. Amazing.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/01/congressional-aides-secretly-helped-craft-travel-ban-report.html?mid=twitter-share-di 

Trump EO Muslim Ban written outside the NSC process…HOW can that be????

Foreign Policy
✔
@ForeignPolicy
Trump cutting a deal with Putin would sell America’s hard-won leadership, and sell it for cheap, writes @danbbaer
http://atfp.co/2kcm36q

What we do not see are Americans attempting to place this Trump…Bannon…Miller NSC EO Muslim ban into perspective…….why is that?

Number of Americans killed by……for 2016

Islamic jihadist immigrants 2
Far right wing terrorists 5
All Islamic terrorists including Americans 9
So called “armed toddlers” 21
Lighting 31
Lawnmowers 69
Being hit by a bus 264
Falling out of bed 737
Being shot by another American 11,737

BUT anyone killed in the US recently by a 5 year old handcuffed immigrant with a US embassy issued valid immigrant visa…….ZERO

Good read on Bannon from @Fahrenthold. Odd he compares himself to Cromwell, famously executed for treason.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/bannon-explained-his-worldview-well-before-it-became-official-us-policy/2017/01/31/2f4102ac-e7ca-11e6-80c2-30e57e57e05d_story.html?postshare=1421485961396127&tid=ss_tw&utm_term=.c463fd7dd086 

National Security Advisor Michael Flynn says Iran ballistic missile launch violated UN resolution 2231.
“Condemn actions [&]..we are putting Iran on notice”

Of note: Russia had said it didn’t.

AND that Trump ordered Yemen ST6 raid and ended badly in failure….

NOTICE he has not said anything nor has Bannon and Flynn….who lead the NSC…..

Intelligence Community defy @realDonaldTrump, say he didn’t sufficiently think through Yemen operation that led to civ

NOW IC and DoD investigating why a high number of civilians were killed……

Long before fakenews was a term, Hannah Arendt warned about the consequences of spreading lies
http://dw.com/p/2Wo5L
 

WHY was the recording of the Trump Putin telephone call turned off and for what reasons….and there was not a detailed readout of the call and is customary……

Foreign policy insider: ‘No readout of Trump-Putin call because White House turned off recording’
http://ow.ly/1UIv308Cbw0

Find it extremely interesting that Trump…Bannon…Flynn..work themselves into a frenzy over a cruise missile test….even to the Trump natsec doing a press conference….

BUT THEN somehow overlook the actions of the IRGC and their terrorists attacks against Sunni’s in Syria and support the Assad genocide an war crimes…There is suddenly silence on the part of those above….

Senator Bob Corker
✔
@SenBobCorker
Today’s sanctions make clear that it is a new day in U.S.-Iran relations and that we will no longer tolerate Iran’s destabilizing behavior.

NOTICE even he fails to mention Iranian actions in Syria and Yemen….