Just which mission did President Trump accomplish?
deepened. It sent the President, who is increasingly concerned by porn star Stormy Daniels’ claims they had an affair, into a feverish Twitter frenzy.
It led to the obvious comparison with one of his predecessors.
Once the heat of the airstrikes cools, the question will be: was the Syrian raid by Trump the same as Bill Clinton’s bombing in Khartoum the day his alleged mistress Monica Lewinsky was set to testify in his sex scandal case?
The Pentagon said the success of the weekend’s assault on three Syrian targets would set Assad’s chemical weapons programme “back years”. We can only hope that’s the case, given the limited scope of the action.
The attack was designed to rightly minimise civilian casualties and damage to Russian assets amid fears of a much wider conflict.
Trump, May and French President Macron were right to order the strike, and also to focus it on chemical and biological facilities.
But what is troubling is if Trump’s decision to attack was in any way affected by the domestic troubles he continues to face in the US.
He is well known for his attempts to deflect attention away from the real issues that trouble him with unfathomable outbursts coming out of a clear blue, or his case, dark sky.
His use of the phrase “mission accomplished” would back up claims he is not truly engaged with the entire situation in the Middle East.
Trump used those words despite there being no greater symbol of American misjudgment and mistakes in war.
No one could forget how in May 2003 George W Bush uttered the phrase in his “victory speech” following the Iraq invasion.
What followed was one of the longest and most expensive conflicts in American history.
At the time he spoke 139 US soldiers had been killed. Since then the death toll is more than 4,000.
President Trump’s choice of words was poor but then again, he doesn’t seem that clued up on history and foreign affairs – just weeks ago he announced America was getting out of Syria.
Together with Trump’s growing problems at home it begs the question, just which mission was accomplished? MEGHAN Markle’s estranged halfsister, Samantha Grant, has been on the warpath.
The author, who openly attacked the royal-brideto-be when news of her relationship with Harry broke, has again gone on the offensive, this time over her lack of an invitation to the wedding.
Furious Samantha took to Twitter to unleash a series of messages after Harry and Meghan came up with a list of 600 guests for the ceremony at Windsor Castle on May 19. A further 2,500 will attend an event in the evening.
Samantha accused the couple of inviting “complete strangers” while claiming “no one” from the Markle clan had made the coveted guest list.
“Out of respect and humanitarianism, the Markles should be invited if 2,000 complete strangers are,” she wrote.
“Our uncle, brother, me, best friend of 30 years, nephews. Our issue is not a matter of closeness. Family is family.”
Given her previous attacks, I’m unsure as to why she is so clueless about her lack of invitation.
Why would anyone want someone there who had previously said they would not fit in with the Royal family because of her behaviour and that they are driven by “social climbing”.
“Meghan is narcissistic and selfish, I think the Royal family would be appalled,” Samantha once said adding she had a “soft spot for gingers”.
Just because you may share some genes with each other, doesn’t give you a right to a seat at one of the most special days of someone’s life.
The President’s choice of words was poor but then again, he doesn’t seem that clued up on history