Assad: America's 'Deep State' – Not Trump – Blew Up Airbase in Syria= the military-industrial complex.[WHO RULES USA? 'Deep State?]

Assad: America's 'Deep State' – Not Trump – Blew Up Airbase in Syria

Breitbart News - ‎2 hours ago‎
In his lengthy interview with AFP on Thursday, Syrian President Bashar Assad mused that the American “Deep State” was more responsible for pelting his Sharyat airbase with 59 cruise missiles than President Donald Trump.
The Great Reversal — for now

In his lengthy interview with AFP on Thursday, Syrian President Bashar Assad mused that the American “Deep State” was more responsible for pelting his Sharyat airbase with 59 cruise missiles than President Donald Trump.

When the interviewer proposed that the retaliatory missile strike marked a drastic change in Trump’s position on Syria, Assad insisted the U.S. and Syria could still be partners in fighting terrorism, once Trump wrested control of Washington away from the military-industrial complex.
“If they are serious in fighting terrorists, we’re going to be partners, and I said not only the United States. Whoever wants to fight the terrorists, we are partners,” said Assad, in the transcript provided by Syria’s SANA news service.
“This is basic for us, basic principle, let’s say,” he continued:
Actually, what has been proven recently, as I said earlier, that they are hand in glove with those terrorists, the United States and the West, they’re not serious in fighting the terrorists, and yesterday some of their statesmen were defending ISIS. They were saying that ISIS doesn’t have chemical weapons. They are defending ISIS against the Syrian government and the Syrian Army. So, actually, you cannot talk about partnership between us who work against the terrorists and who fight the terrorism and the others who are supporting explicitly the terrorists.
Assad said the American missile strike was “the first proof that it’s not about the President of the United States — it’s about the regime and the Deep State, or the deep regime in the United States.”
He said the Deep State “is still the same, it doesn’t change.”
“The president is only one of the performers on their theatre, if he wants to be a leader, he cannot, because as some say he wanted to be a leader, Trump wanted to be a leader, but every president there, if he wants to be a real leader, later he’s going to eat his words, swallow his pride if he has pride at all, and make a 180 degree U-turn, otherwise he would pay the price politically,” said Assad.
Asked if he anticipated another U.S. attack, Assad replied:
As long as the United States is being governed by this military-industrial complex, the financial companies, banks, and what you call deep regime, and works for the vested interest of those groups, of course. It could happen anytime, anywhere, not only in Syria.
Assad lamented that his military could not retaliate against the American ships that fired cruise missiles at Syria but expressed hope the Russians might do it for him.
“For us, as a small country, yeah, of course it is, everybody knows that. It’s out of reach. I mean, they can have missiles from another continent. We all know that. They are a great power, we’re not a great power. Talking about the Russians, this is another issue,” he said.

Related news:-

Caucuses of the United States Congress - Wikipedia
A congressional caucus is a group of members of the United States Congress that meets to pursue common legislative objectives. Formally, caucuses are ...

This provocative book makes a compelling case for a hidden “deep state” that influences and often opposes official U.S. policies. Prominent political analyst Peter Dale Scott begins by tracing America’s increasing militarization, restrictions on constitional rights, and income disparity since the Vietnam War. He argues that a significant role in this historic reversal was the intervention of a series of structural deep events, ranging from the assassination of President Kennedy to 9/11. He does not attempt to resolve the controversies surrounding these events, but he shows their significant points in common, ranging from overlapping personnel and modes of operation to shared sources of funding. Behind all of these commonalities is what Scott calls the deep state: a second order of government, behind the public or constitutional state, that has grown considerably stronger since World War II. He marshals convincing evidence that the deep state is partly institutionalized in non-accountable intelligence agencies like the CIA and NSA, but it also includes private corporations like Booz Allen Hamilton and SAIC, to which 70 percent of intelligence budgets are outsourced.  Behind these public and private institutions is the traditional influence of Wall Street bankers and lawyers, allied with international oil companies beyond the reach of domestic law. With the importance of Gulf states like Saudi Arabia to oil markets, American defense companies, and Wall Street itself, this essential book shows that there is now a supranational deep state, sometimes demonstrably opposed to both White House policies and the American public interest.

Deep state in the United States - Wikipedia
The idea of a deep state in the United States is a conspiracy theory whose adherents assert .... "CIA report is a strike back against America's deep state".

Use of the term under the Trump administration

Donald Trump supporters have used the term to refer to intelligence officers and executive branch officials guiding policy through leaking or other internal means,[12][11] especially after leaks from government officials to The Washington Post and The New York Times precipitated the resignation of Michael Flynn, then Trump's National Security Advisor.[13] The term's conspiratorial undertone has made it popular on conservative and far-right news outlets sympathetic to the Trump administration, especially Breitbart News,[14] but it has been discussed widely across the media spectrum.[15][16]
Members of the Trump White House reportedly refer to a "deep state" routinely, which they believe is undermining the president's authority.[17] White House chief strategist Stephen K. Bannon "has spoken with Trump at length about his view that the 'deep state' is a direct threat to his presidency," The Washington Post reported.[18] Some Trump allies and right-wing media outlets have claimed, without evidence, that former president Barack Obama is coordinating a deep state resistance to Trump.[17][19] The growth of this narrative within the White House has been linked to Trump's unproven[20][21] allegation that Obama wiretapped his telephone.
While popular among Trump allies, critics of use of the term in the U.S. argue that the leaks frustrating the Trump administration lack the organizational depth of deep states in other countries, and that use of the term in the U.S. could be used to justify suppressing dissent.[22][17]

The Quiet Coup: No, Not Egypt. Here.

When is a coup d’etat a coup d’etat? A silly debate about the Egyptian military’s complete undoing of the state (presidency, constitution, etc.) is grabbing some attention, mainly because those who applaud the military takeover don’t want to describe it accurately. But it nonetheless is an interesting question. And it has resonance not just in the beleaguered Middle East. It has high relevance, sadly, to our own battered republic.
The revelations about spying by the National Security Agency (NSA) on American citizens, foreign governments, and just about everyone in between have been aptly treated as a scandal, although the objects of scorn vary. Edward Snowden, the whistleblower or traitor, depending on your predilections, and Glenn Greenwald, the columnist for The Guardian to whomSnowden revealed most of his information, have shaken the complacent status quo in Washington by revealing the massive, years-long programs to gather data in the name of national security. It’s very doubtful that such spying is necessary to protect U.S. security, but that’s a topic for another day. So is the media attention to the actions of Snowden and Greenwald (which I believe are brave and necessary).
What is vastly more important is how the spying has been conducted and justified. It comprises nothing less than a coup d’etat.
It’s not the kind of coup we are accustomed to, where the CIA prompts thugs to murder a democratically elected president (Chile, 1973), or oust a democratically elected prime minister for challenging oil interests (Iran, 1953) or other U.S. corporate interests (Guatemala, 1954), or gives the green light to a military for security interests (Turkey, 1980; Egypt, 2013?). The generals aren’t marching into the presidential palace; the president doesn’t have an airplane waiting to fly him to exile in the south of France. No, this coup d’etat has been accomplished by an accretion of power unchecked by any institutions that are empowered by the Constitution. It is not just a coup d’etat (a “blow to the state”), but a blow to the tradition and authority of constitutional government, the sine qua non of the American political experience.
How so? The revelations and subsequent reporting, what press critic Jay Rosen calls the “Snowden Effect,” expose a parallel state, one dedicated to massive surveillance and covert operations, with an untouchable judicial structure that approves the spying. Enabled by the USA Patriot Act that President George W. Bush pushed through Congress in the shadow of 9/11, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court operates by its own rules and procedures, ones not subject to anything resembling constitutionality. The Supreme Court, the Fourth Amendment, citizen petitioning — none of what we have taken for granted as comprising the legal, national state has the power to stop it.
Snowden’s and the others’ revelations should not be completely surprising, given the work of Dana Priest and William Arkin in their 2011 book, Top Secret America. Many of the most shocking bits were excerpted in the Washington Post, where Priest is a reporter. They uncovered a vast, opaque security bureaucracy, extremely inefficient but aggressively intrusive. “The federal-state-corporate partnership has produced a vast domestic intelligence apparatus that collects, stores, and analyzes information about tens of thousands of U.S. citizens and residents, many of whom have not been accused of any wrongdoing,” they wrote. It involved, they calculated, nearly 4,000 organizations in the United States, “each with its own counterterrorism responsibilities and jurisdictions.”
So we have had now for at least a dozen years the growth of a parallel state that operates by its own rules, in secret, and in ways that would be considered unconstitutional. (I know we needn’t remind our readers of what the Fourth Amendment guarantees, but just to refresh your memories: “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”) Again, what’s important here is not the mere incidence of the government violating the Constitution, but the creation, nurturing, shielding, and rapid growth of structures that institutionalize an alternative authority, set of rules, and permissible action.
When, years ago, I was researching a book on Turkey, then under the sway of its military, observers would often speak darkly of “the deep state” — those hidden, powerful, extralegal agencies and cadres that would act on their own authority. Other countries would have them too, usually enabled by police ministries or intelligence agencies. Dissidents, out-of-line newspaper editors, priests and nuns speaking truth to power, union organizers — these types would come under the scrutiny and often the harsh reprisals of the deep state.
Now we know: the United States of America is partially governed by a deep state, undemocratic, secret, aligned with intelligence agencies, spying on friend and foe, lawless in almost every respect.
If this doesn’t constitute a coup d’etat, it’s hard to imagine what would. People we barely know of — the director of NSA, the eleven judges on FISC, who knows who else — are running the deep state. The actual president seems just fine with everything it’s doing, or is so weak-kneed he can’t see fit to put an end to it. I’m not sure which is worse.
We have known for many years that corporate money in politics had essentially bought Congress at the expense of the middle class, the environment, and other popular causes. The Israel Lobby owns U.S. policy in the Middle East. Other lobbies — Big Pharma, military contractors, agribusiness — have corrupted policy for profiteering through campaign spending and other old tricks of the Washington trade. But the deep state is a different phenomenon — less about money or corporate privilege, far more about a security pathology that has become embedded, empowered, and rogue, constitutional governance be damned. The seduction of policymakers by corporate money is sad. The psychotic, parallel state is terrifying.