Tucker Carlson Is Questioning Legitimacy of Reported Syrian Chemical Weapon Attacks
MEDIA, 16 Apr 2018
9 Apr 2018 –Fox News host Tucker Carlson is questioning the legitimacy of reports Syrian President Bashar Assad used chemical weapons against his own citizens, the latest claim of its kind in the country’s ongoing civil war.
“All the geniuses tell us that Assad killed those children, but do they really know that? Of course they don’t really know that, they are making it up,” Carlson said during his opening monologue. “They have no real idea what happened. Actually, both sides in the Syrian civil war possess chemical weapons.”
The conservative firebrand’s comments come just after President Trump declared on Monday he will make a decision in the near future on if the U.S. will launch a military response to Assad’s attack.
“We can’t let that happen in our world, especially when we’re able to — because of the power of the United States — we’re able to stop it,” the president said to reporters.
Carlson, however, is less convinced the U.S. should strike Syria in response, questioning if the chemical weapons report was part of a larger plan to throw the nation into another war.
“Please keep in mind this is the same story they told us last April. Do you remember that? It was almost exactly a year ago,” he argued. “The new administration announced it was no longer seeking to depose Assad from power. Regime change was no longer our policy. The usual war chorus in Washington starting yelping, and he used sarin gas. There was video. We bombed a Syrian air base in response to that.”
As he noted, Carlson questioned the legitimacy of similar reports last year and Trump’s decision to respond to those reports. He further expounded on his intuition, which seemed to hold more weight after the administration admitted they lacked solid evidence of the chemical attack.
“Propaganda,” he claimed. “We have seen this movie before and know how it ends.”
He went on to argue that even if the latest reports out of Syria are true, the U.S. should heavily consider not entering in a war with the Assad regime citing the heavy costs and safety and stability of the region.
While Trump said that he will make his decision on Syria in the near future, United Nations Secretary Nikki Haley said the U.S. “will respond” to the attack earlier on Monday.
DISCLAIMER: In accordance with title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. TMS has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is TMS endorsed or sponsored by the originator. “GO TO ORIGINAL” links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the “GO TO ORIGINAL” links. This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.
Join the discussion!
We welcome debate and dissent, but personal — ad hominem — attacks (on authors, other users or any individual), abuse and defamatory language will not be tolerated. Nor will we tolerate attempts to deliberately disrupt discussions. We aim to maintain an inviting space to focus on intelligent interactions and debates.