Here's a direct quote from the AP's latest article on Syria and the chemical weapons attack there:
"The United States fired missiles on a Syrian air base a year ago in response to the killing of dozens of civilians in a sarin gas attack in an opposition-held town. The missile strikes did little long-term damage to Syrian government forces"
That's not just wrong; it's wildly wrong. The attack a year ago by the USA took out about 25% of the operational planes of the Syrian air force. These are not minor problems that could be repaired; the planes in question were destroyed. Nevertheless, the AP says the attack "did little long term damage." Are they kidding?
It is true that the Syrian fighting has not focused on air attacks. Still, when Assad loses a quarter of his planes, that has got to hurt a great deal in both the short and long terms.
Why must the AP try to belittle what President Trump did a year ago by lying about the effects of that action?
UPDATE -- writing in The New Yorker, Robin Wright repeats the phony claim that last year's American attack in response to the use of sarin gas by Assad did little damage. She goes further to quote an "expert" who suggests that the USA should attack Assad's aircraft because that would eventually stop these attacks. It's a bizarre bit of Fake News because the attack in March of 2017 took out about a quarter of all of Syria's planes. It seems that Wright is prepared to write about what needs to be done in Syria without ever learning the true facts of what has been done in the past. Admittedly, she is writing in The New Yorker, so facts are not that important, but still she ought to be at least close to the truth. She's not.
"The United States fired missiles on a Syrian air base a year ago in response to the killing of dozens of civilians in a sarin gas attack in an opposition-held town. The missile strikes did little long-term damage to Syrian government forces"
That's not just wrong; it's wildly wrong. The attack a year ago by the USA took out about 25% of the operational planes of the Syrian air force. These are not minor problems that could be repaired; the planes in question were destroyed. Nevertheless, the AP says the attack "did little long term damage." Are they kidding?
It is true that the Syrian fighting has not focused on air attacks. Still, when Assad loses a quarter of his planes, that has got to hurt a great deal in both the short and long terms.
Why must the AP try to belittle what President Trump did a year ago by lying about the effects of that action?
UPDATE -- writing in The New Yorker, Robin Wright repeats the phony claim that last year's American attack in response to the use of sarin gas by Assad did little damage. She goes further to quote an "expert" who suggests that the USA should attack Assad's aircraft because that would eventually stop these attacks. It's a bizarre bit of Fake News because the attack in March of 2017 took out about a quarter of all of Syria's planes. It seems that Wright is prepared to write about what needs to be done in Syria without ever learning the true facts of what has been done in the past. Admittedly, she is writing in The New Yorker, so facts are not that important, but still she ought to be at least close to the truth. She's not.
No comments:
Post a Comment