Rachel Maddow sounded as if she was on the verge of tears last night after President Trump's address to the nation on Syria. She was not nervous about another potential war, per se, but because she feared that our allies might think that America was destroying deadly chemical weapons and trying to save lives simply to distract from President Trump's allegedly ongoing scandals.
"Point of personal privilege here just for a second. You know it is, this is not personal. It's not just spectacle. It is not just political as we follow the news and these incredible days that we have been having recently in our country. It is worth considering on a night like tonight that there are there are national security consequences to having a presidency that is as chaotic as Mr. Trump's presidency, a presidency that is as consumed by scandal and criminal intrigue as his presidency is," Maddow said right after President Trump spoke.
To be fair, Maddow makes some good points here. A presidency awash in chaos and scandal does make for dangerous national security consequences. If the alleged ongoing internal struggle in the White House is even somewhat true, one could understand how and why hurried decisions could occur. However, her concern was not about the planning process of this strike.
"When the president orders missile strikes on Syria on a night like tonight, the strategic effect of that strike will be assessed by both our allies and our enemies....It will therefore affect the utility of this military strike if the President of the United States is believed to have issued the order to launch this strike tonight even in part because people think he wanted to distract from a catastrophic domestic scandal that is blowing up at home at the same time," Maddow warned.
"The perception that the president may have ordered these strikes in part because of scandal will affect the impact and the effectiveness of these military strikes. Unavoidably even if the tail is not wagging the dog," she continued, "Even if you give the president every benefit of the doubt even if his calculations about whether to launch this action against Syria tonight was taken with absolutely no regard for for what else is going on in the president's life right now, what else is going on in the president's life right now on the creates a real perception around the globe that that may have been part of the motivation both for what he did for and particularly for when he did it."
Far-left conspiracy theorist Rachel Maddow suggests President Donald Trump launched the strike against Syria to divert attention away from a "catastrophic domestic scandal."pic.twitter.com/sr81UnpryL— Ryan Saavedra ???? (@RealSaavedra) April 14, 2018
Based on her monologue, it seems as if Rachel Maddow actually believes that President Trump attacked Syria to distract from supposed scandals. But, she never actually provided any evidence other countries believe this. Plus, as Twitchy editor Sam Janney noted, it is not as if this was a unilateral strike. French and British forces played a major role. Israel assisted, too. Were they attacking Syria to help Trump distract from catastrophic domestic issues?
Sam poignantly summarized an appropriate response to Maddow's segment - "People watch this crap?"
This is pathetic.— Sam 'The??FOO' Janney (@PolitiBunny) April 14, 2018
In order to believe this you would have to accept that Trump somehow convinced France, the UK and Israel to ally with the US in order to divert attention from ‘scandal’.
People watch this crap? https://t.co/dk8PzFEIS3