Many of President Donald Trump's staunchest supporters — the very people who put him in the White House — expressed feelings of anger and betrayal following the administration's illegal military attack on Syria. Among the prominent Trump backers who have spoken out so far are conservative pundit Ann Coulter, one of Trump's earliest and fiercest supporters, along with radio host Michael Savage, one of America's most popular talk-show personalities, who is credited by some analysts with putting Trump in the White House. Also speaking out was former U.K. Independence Party (UKIP) leader and Brexiteer Nigel Farage, along with his successor Paul Nuttall. In France, National Front Leader Marine Le Pen also condemned the attack. And in Congress, true constitutionalists such as Senator Rand Paul pointed out that Trump's attacks were unconstitutional.
Among those who seemed most hurt by what they viewed as Trump's betrayal was conservative commentator Coulter, who was campaigning for Trump back when virtually everyone was ridiculing him as a joke. In fact, she was so pro-Trump, she wrote a book entitled In Trump We Trust. At this point, though, she said it may have to be changed to "In Trumpism We Trust" instead. On social media, Coulter expressed frustration immediately. “Those who wanted us meddling in the Middle East voted for other candidates,” she said on in a post shortly after the attack began. “Trump campaigned on not getting involved in Mideast. Said it always helps our enemies & creates more refugees. Then he saw a picture on TV.”
Speaking of Trump's attack on Syria in an interview with New York City radio personality Mark Simone, Coulter sounded close to tears. “The magnitude of this catastrophe cannot be underestimated,” she said. “I've had a knot in my stomach since he's been filling up his administration with these warmongers and Wall Street types. If we wanted meddling in the Middle East, there were other candidates to vote for. Trump was very clear and he was very right, and that's why Trumpism will live on whether he believes in it anymore, but Trump was right.”
In the war, she continued, there are no “good guys,” and so Trump is making a mistake by choosing sides. “This [Syria] is a tribal society, there are savages on both sides, we're not exactly on the side of the angels here — we're helping ISIS and al-Qaeda in Syria,” she explained, highlighting a point that Trump trumpeted repeatedly as he accused Obama and Hillary of helping to create ISIS. “Nobody is good over there, but at least Assad is secular and he protects the Christians — nobody's checked with the Christians on the ground in Syria, they're terrified that they're just going to be wiped out if Assad is gone.” Indeed, if Assad falls, it is very likely that what remains of Syria's ancient Christian community would be exterminated, as occurred in Iraq after the U.S. invasion toppled Saddam Hussein.
Meddling in Syria is also not what Trump campaigned on. “The main point is, as he said over and over again including in that beautiful State of the Union address, he is running to be president of America, not to be president of the world,” Coulter continued. “And when you see how thrilled the media are at Trump destroying his presidency over this, it just makes you sick — it's everything his opponents warned us about: He's impulsive, he'll get us in a war, he's led by his advisors. Wow, this is not what people voted for.”
When the radio host brought up the chemical weapons attack allegedly perpetrated by Assad, Coulter shot back: “The rest of the world is not our problem,” she said, adding that she had been reading the British press that was highly skeptical of the claim that Assad had used the chemical weapons. “It doesn't make any sense, it's like the Trump conspiracy theory, why would Assad do this to kill 75 people? He's winning against al-Qaeda insurgents, whom we are now performing the Air Force service for. He's winning against them, and he's going to use chemical weapons to bring international condemnation on himself, and kill 75 people? And moreover and separately, I've never understood, what is the difference if they're killed with chemical weapons or standard military armaments? You're dead just the same.”
Coulter also suggested that now that Trump was distracted with a war in Syria, the wall on the Southern border Trump promised throughout his campaign may not come about. “Can we use all the money we spent on those Tomahawks for the wall? We don't have money for the wall but we sure have money to meddle in the Middle East,” she said. “No president's meddling in the Middle East has ever turned out well. Have we learned nothing from Iraq?” She could also have pointed to Libya, which Obama bombed without congressional approval, based on lies, citing a United Nations resolution instead of the Constitution. Today, Libya is in ruins, ISIS is running wild, and slaves are being openly traded once again.
“We may have just as well had Jeb,” Coulter added, referring to failed GOP contender and known establishment globalist Jeb Bush.
Aside from Coulter, radio powerhouse Savage was another key Trump supporter. But after the attacks began, Savage made his displeasure very clear in a monologue on his show and later posted online and linked by the influential Drudge Report. “Who got to you, Mr. President? Who is whispering in your ear and could have made you make this dramatic of a change towards Russia in just three days?” Savage asked Trump, who regularly appeared on Savage's show throughout his campaign. The radio host also noted that by attacking Syria, “we just helped ISIS.”
Like many other analysts, Savage warned that the conflagration in Syria could lead to an even broader war if the U.S. government intervenes. “Do you want war with Russia, all of you idiots, all of you fools who are pounding the war drums?” he asked. The host, one of America's most popular radio personalities with many millions of daily listeners, also compared Trump to Woodrow Wilson. “Like Trump, Woodrow Wilson ran on an America First platform. He was elected largely because he kept us out of the war in Europe. But someone got to him, too.” Referring to himself as a “conservative peacenick,” Savage suggested it was “the generals” who got to Trump.
The day after the attack, Savage blasted what he called “a limp-wristed attack in order to gain the attention of the fools in the media and the fools amongst the so-called republican voters who think this was a real great military action.” The fact that the establishment media, the Democrats, and establishment Republicans supported the illegal strike was further proof that Trump was in the wrong. “You know you’re on the wrong side if that cesspool of filth supports your actions,” he said.
Echoing Coulter and many other prominent pro-Trump voices, Savage also said the attack on Syria in response to the chemical attack was based on a “false flag” operation. “This was a complete false flag event,” he said. “Assad had nothing to gain by gassing his own people.” But with the “establishment GOP” having “handcuffed” loyal Trump advisors such as Attorney General Jeff Sessions, White House strategist Steve Bannon, and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Devin Nunes, Savage said Trump was getting bad advice and information.
Conservative commentator Pat Buchanan was similarly harsh in his assessment. “Trump’s missile attack was unconstitutional,” Buchanan observed. “Assad had not attacked or threatened us, and Congress, which alone has the power to authorize war on Syria, has never done so. Indeed, Congress denied President Obama that specific authority in 2013.”
Buchanan also suggested a false-flag may have been at work. “Are we certain Assad personally ordered a gas attack on civilians?” he asked. “For it makes no sense. Why would Assad, who is winning the war and had been told America was no longer demanding his removal, order a nerve gas attack on children, certain to ignite America’s rage, for no military gain? Like the gas attack in 2013, this has the marks of a false flag operation to stampede America into Syria’s civil war.”
However, it is not too late to stop a broader war, Buchanan said. “If the president has thrown in with the neocons and War Party, and we are plunging back into the Mideast maelstrom, Trump should know that many of those who helped to nominate and elect him — to keep us out of unnecessary wars — may not be standing by him,” he said. “If, after Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and Yemen, we do not want America in yet another Mideast war, the time to stop it is before the War Party has us already in it. That time is now.”
On the other side of the Atlantic, Trump's strongest allies also recoiled in horror. Former UKIP boss Farage, who led the Trump-backed Brexit from the European Union, said he was “very surprised” by Trump's attack on Syria. “Think a lot of Trump voters will be waking up this morning and scratching their heads and saying 'where will it all end?'" "As a firm Trump supporter, I say, yes, the pictures were horrible, but I’m surprised,” Farage added. “Whatever Assad’s sins, he is secular.” The loyal Trump ally also urged against U.K. involvement in Syria. “Previous interventions in the Middle East have made things worse rather than better,” he said. Current UKIP leader Paul Nuttall was much firmer in condeming Trump. “The U.S. bombing of Syria last night was rash, trigger happy, nonsensical and will achieve nothing,” he said. “I hoped for better.”
On the other hand, the unconstitutional attack on Syria earned Trump widespread praise among the neoconservative globalists, warmongers, and establishment hacks who fought him every step of the way during his election campaign. Writing in the neocon Weekly Standard, globalist Elliot Abrams, a leading member of the subversive Council on Foreign Relations, praised Trump's illegal attack as the true start of the administration. “The president has been chief executive since January 20, but this week he acted also as Commander in Chief,” wrote Abrams, widely ridiculed as a neocon “chicken hawk” by conservative critics. “And more: He finally accepted the role of Leader of the Free World.” Another neocon "chicken hawk," Bill Kristol, who spewed vitriol against Trump during the campaign, wrote: “Punishing Assad for use of chemical weapons is good. Regime change in Iran is the prize.” To neocon globalists, launching illegal wars in violation of the Constitution is a sign of good leadership.
A different approach to Trump's illegal bombings was taken by some of his other supporters, such as radio powerhouse Alex Jones and his Infowars media empire, which supported Trump and has been lavishly praised by the president. Infowars reporter Kit Daniels, for example, while noting the attack was illegal, suggested it may be another example of Trump's cunning. “Trump responded to a False Flag with a False Retaliation,” he said. However, Infowars editor Paul Joseph Watson was less kind on social media. “I guess Trump wasn't Putin's puppet after all, he was just another deep state/Neo-Con puppet,” he said. “I'm officially OFF the Trump train.”
As The New American reported the day after Trump's attack on Syria, there are good reasons to suspect the chemical strike that allegedly justified it was a false-flag operation. It is also a fact that the Trump attack was a violation of the U.S. Constitution and the president's own statements and pledges over a period of years. However, with many of his staunchest allies speaking out, and his most vicious enemies cheering him on, Trump may yet decide to do the right thing going forward — especially if the American people speak out in massive numbers.