Trump's Syria Strike Was Unconstitutional and Unwise

[DCPatriot]

   Here  we go again, a headline good for 20 or 30 pages of Trump Haters vs. The Orange hoard. Maybe there is some intelligent  discussion going on over on the sports section.

There is that matter of that pitch in the dirt that bounced up and STUCK to St. Louis' catcher's (Molina) chest protector.

What made it more comical/sad was that he couldn't 'find' the ball for about 5 seconds.

....that 5 seconds was an eternity for the St. Louis dugout.   

[txradioguy]

It's not a war and you know it.

The Marine artillery battery conducting fire missions and the SF A teams would disagree with you.

[Chosen Daughter]

Read as far as "The Atlantic" in the link before I stopped!

You know that is too bad because it contained Trumps own tweets saying we should not get involved when there was a chemical attack in 2013.  Which is the reason I posted it.  I believe that Trump bombed to deflect his Russian ties mess only:

And a bitter Obama Administration critic, Donald Trump, took to Twitter to weigh in. “If Obama attacks Syria and innocent civilians are hurt and killed, he and the U.S. will look very bad!” the real estate developer wrote. “What I am saying is stay out of Syria,” Trump added days later. “AGAIN, TO OUR VERY FOOLISH LEADER,” he emphasized, “DO NOT ATTACK SYRIA - IF YOU DO MANY VERY BAD THINGS WILL HAPPEN & FROM THAT FIGHT THE U.S. GETS NOTHING!”
Most importantly, Trump Tweeted this:


What will we get for bombing Syria besides more debt and a possible long term conflict? Obama needs Congressional approval.




Retweets
28,944
 
Likes
17,641


11:14 AM - 29 Aug 2013

Bashar Assad is way better than ISIS or some of the Rebels who are known to be Extremists.  Today there is a story of ISIS killing dozens and hanging them from Electricity lines.  I would not condone chemical attack in any way but Trump did not even verify if it was Assad before launching.  Secondly he has to weigh who he is helping by bombing in Syrian.  Syria used to be a secular country.  People were free to follow whatever religion they like.  The women were unveiled and the cities bustled with free people.  Now look at it.  Then imagine what it will be if any one of these extremist groups become leader of the country.

BTW.  I read a couple stories on Assad and his wife.  They do not seem like people who want to kill children.  If he did it of course the civilized world needs to hold him accountable.  Reason for Nikki Haley bringing it to the attention of the UN.  But to launch an attack so soon without really investigating leads me to believe he used it to deflect the attention from himself and his ties to Russia.

[Chosen Daughter]

Frankly, I don't understand the legal/Constitutional standing issues well enough to comment on that aspect, but I do have a "What If" scenario rattling around between my ears.

Let's say Saddam had sent Syria his chemical weapons prior to the half-assed "inspections", but Assad had already used those up long ago.  He then turned to Iran to replace them, who happily obliged.  These most recent gas attacks would have therefore been rooted in Iranian-based WMD's.

Far fetched?  Not at all.

And it changes the lens from which we view this single event.  Instead of placing the focus on Assad it switches the viewpoint to Iran, and therefore Russia by association.  And just for sh*ts and grins, it also ties back to plane loads of cold hard cash supplied by none other than Barack Hussein Obama.

If it were not for history books packed full of similar examples this single event could be viewed as an isolated action not interconnected to much of anything.  Horrible, yes, but an isolated action.  Which is exactly the way most people seem to be viewing this gas attack, a single action that occurred essentially in a vacuum.  But history tells us that is highly unlikely.

Which, for me personally, increases the pucker factor exponentially.  For the time being, however, I'll go with the prevailing view and try to ignore those voices in my head.

Iran coalition with Russia and Syria really bothers me.  Iran stands to gain much control in Syria if Assad is ousted.  They could be a Trojan horse in Syria.  Same thing has happened in Iraq.  Could be the attacks were Iranian.  Being that Obama was trying to replace Assad I find it plausible.

[edpc]

There is no Trump - "it" changes day by day.

The man is duplicity personified.  Just read things he's written or said since the 80s.

[Cripplecreek]

Iran coalition with Russia and Syria really bothers me.  Iran stands to gain much control in Syria if Assad is ousted.  They could be a Trojan horse in Syria.  Same thing has happened in Iraq.  Could be the attacks were Iranian.  Being that Obama was trying to replace Assad I find it plausible.

Iran already has considerable control over the Syrian military with Assad being a Baathist puppet of Russia. (Baathists are Arab communists)

Its really hard to qualify how bad he is as a dictator largely because he is so secretive and he doesn't appear to have a personal interest in torturing or terrorizing they way Saddam Hussein did. He wasn't groomed for the position. His older brother was the one who was groomed for the position but died in a car crash. He was trained as an Optometrist. They were a fairly westernized family like King Hussein of Jordan.

Understand I'm not excusing him, he's just a very different animal than Saddam Hussein which is kind of a problem. We can talk tough about removing him but Iran and Russia will be the ones who pick his successor. Despite any fantasies to the contrary, we aren't going to be driving Russia and Iran out.

[DCPatriot]

http://www.breitbart.com/video/2017/04/07/msnbcs-odonnell-maybe-putin-masterminded-chemical-attack-so-trump-could-look-good-by-striking-syria/

[XenaLee]

You know that is too bad because it contained Trumps own tweets saying we should not get involved when there was a chemical attack in 2013.  Which is the reason I posted it.  I believe that Trump bombed to deflect his Russian ties mess only:

And a bitter Obama Administration critic, Donald Trump, took to Twitter to weigh in. “If Obama attacks Syria and innocent civilians are hurt and killed, he and the U.S. will look very bad!” the real estate developer wrote. “What I am saying is stay out of Syria,” Trump added days later. “AGAIN, TO OUR VERY FOOLISH LEADER,” he emphasized, “DO NOT ATTACK SYRIA - IF YOU DO MANY VERY BAD THINGS WILL HAPPEN & FROM THAT FIGHT THE U.S. GETS NOTHING!”
Most importantly, Trump Tweeted this:


What will we get for bombing Syria besides more debt and a possible long term conflict? Obama needs Congressional approval.




Retweets
28,944
 
Likes
17,641


11:14 AM - 29 Aug 2013

Bashar Assad is way better than ISIS or some of the Rebels who are known to be Extremists.  Today there is a story of ISIS killing dozens and hanging them from Electricity lines.  I would not condone chemical attack in any way but Trump did not even verify if it was Assad before launching.  Secondly he has to weigh who he is helping by bombing in Syrian.  Syria used to be a secular country.  People were free to follow whatever religion they like.  The women were unveiled and the cities bustled with free people.  Now look at it.  Then imagine what it will be if any one of these extremist groups become leader of the country.

BTW.  I read a couple stories on Assad and his wife.  They do not seem like people who want to kill children.  If he did it of course the civilized world needs to hold him accountable.  Reason for Nikki Haley bringing it to the attention of the UN.  But to launch an attack so soon without really investigating leads me to believe he used it to deflect the attention from himself and his ties to Russia.

It's called "wag the dog" .... and one of Trump's good (former?) buddies, Bill Clinton, used the tactic masterfully to deflect from his many domestic scandals.

[Emjay]

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/04/president-trumps-syria-strike-was-unconstitutional-and-unwise/522228/

It also may show President Trump how your twitter account comes back to haunt you.

Trump haters have already used Trump's tweets that spoke against intervention but it is not proving to be that effective.

He was in a far different position then.

If tweets can haunt one, Trump would never sleep another night, but I suspect it doesn't bother him that much.

[Emjay]

Oh, so now the President can simply 'brief' congress whenever he wages wars or military actions without any kind of Congressional approval whatsoever??

"Hey guys, I nuked Shanghai... bigly... at dinner time - okay?  Oh, and I'm sending troops into Pyongyang to waste that fat twerp shooting off missiles he claims are nukes tomorrow at lunchtime.   Thanks".

Gives a whole new meaning to the term Imperial Presidency.

Is there any way to get you to shut up?

[driftdiver]

Trump haters have already used Trump's tweets that spoke against intervention but it is not proving to be that effective.

He was in a far different position then.

If tweets can haunt one, Trump would never sleep another night, but I suspect it doesn't bother him that much.

Children who have been killed by poison gas have a way of changing people's perspectives.

[Emjay]

I was never a huge Trump supporter, but I don't recall staying out of Syria as one of his campaign promises. I think he was a little hasty in his decision to launch missiles at Syria, but, I of course didn't have the intel, nor was privy to the briefings from Mattis and McMasters. Tillerson was also quite confident that Asaad was the one who released chemical weapons.

It's one thing to comment on what you would or would not do on a particular issue and quite another when a situation on that issue arises and smacks you directly in the face.

As for his actions being unconstitutional ... definitely not.

Thanks for a little sanity. 

It's one thing to hate Trump.  It is also a useless thing at this point.  But allowing Trump hatred to color every opinion you have and every thing that Trump does is annoying and stupid.

It weakens every legitimate argument they may have if Trump actually does something wrong.

[truth_seeker]

If only someone had warned them. 

Yeah, just think you could have had Hillary, with perhaps Susan Rice as her Chief of Staff.

Frigging Code Pink Republicans.

[andy58-in-nh]

I believe the attack on Syria was proportionate, limited and justified. The use of poison gas against non-combatants and combatants alike is a violation of international law. I do not think we need to further involve American military forces unless it is justified by further atrocities on the part of Assad. Trump acted in a manner that many of us wished that Obama had, and he did so within the scope of his powers.  But any future action ought to be sanctioned by Congress first.

Our national interests in the Middle East are not non-existent, but they are limited to the protection of our allies and of innocent human life.

I have been a critic of Donald Trump, but he is our President and he has acted reasonably and with restraint in this matter. And to that extent, I support him.         

[INVAR]

Is there any way to get you to shut up?

Put me on ignore then lady if you do not like reading my opinions.

I have no intention of ever shutting up.  Not to placate people like you, that is for certain.

[Cripplecreek]

Put me on ignore then lady if you do not like reading my opinions.

I have no intention of ever shutting up.  Not to placate people like you, that is for certain.

[Emjay]

Put me on ignore then lady if you do not like reading my opinions.

I have no intention of ever shutting up.  Not to placate people like you, that is for certain.

It was a rhetorical question.

[geronl]

Horsepucky.  Trump's actions are not unConstitutional given the War Powers Act that gives him authority to act in cases deemed in our national security interests (which he has to make a case for - which I have yet to hear). 

Not that any of us care but does violate the UN charter, which the US is a party to. A country has attacked another sovereign nation (not in self-defense). So under so-called "international law", the US has military operations ongoing in a country where the legitimate authority (such as it is) has not invited them in. They did invite the Russians.

So the rest of the world will probably see this as a criminal action eventually.

[Emjay]

Not that any of us care but does violate the UN charter, which the US is a party to. A country has attacked another sovereign nation (not in self-defense). So under so-called "international law", the US has military operations ongoing in a country where the legitimate authority (such as it is) has not invited them in. They did invite the Russians.

So the rest of the world will probably see this as a criminal action eventually.

The UN has proven as useful as a sprinkler in a rain forest.  And the rest of the world??  Who is the rest of the world? 

[truth_seeker]

The UN has proven as useful as a sprinkler in a rain forest.  And the rest of the world??  Who is the rest of the world?

UN much loved by Code Pink Republicans, however. 

[kevindavis007]

@ReaganWorld
The reason my father didn't go to Congress prior to Grenada was he knew one them would leak the info.Trump was wise..

[Maj. Bill Martin]

I believe the attack on Syria was proportionate, limited and justified. The use of poison gas against non-combatants and combatants alike is a violation of international law. I do not think we need to further involve American military forces unless it is justified by further atrocities on the part of Assad. Trump acted in a manner that many of us wished that Obama had, and he did so within the scope of his powers.  But any future action ought to be sanctioned by Congress first.

Our national interests in the Middle East are not non-existent, but they are limited to the protection of our allies and of innocent human life.

I have been a critic of Donald Trump, but he is our President and he has acted reasonably and with restraint in this matter. And to that extent, I support him.       

Agreed.

And it doesn't get much press, but the truth is that at least in Syria/Iraq, the problem wasn't that Obama didn't want to get Congressional authorization.  The problem was that the GOP Congress didn't want to get put on record one way or the other, and so wouldn't even hold a vote on authorization.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/02/11/politics/isis-aumf-white-house-congress/

Constitutionally, this is kind of tough because the Constitution isn't sufficiently specific.  The problem with saying "just get a declaration of war" is that I think a "declaration of war" comes without strings.  It is essentially giving the President a black check to fully commit American troops into a conflict from which quick extrication isn't possible.  It implies "this doesn't end until we conquer the capital of the enemy."  And for perfectly legitimate reason, Congress may not want to do that.  So instead, they use more limited resolutions, or even just the power of the purse, to control more limited actions by the President.

I do think that some resolution should be issued -- the problem truly is that Congress just doesn't want to be put on the record, nor do they want to take the step of defunding.  So, we're in kind of a Constitutional gray area.  Especially given that there's a pretty decent argument that fighting ISIS/terrorists is actually already justified by prior resolutions.

[Maj. Bill Martin]

@ReaganWorld
The reason my father didn't go to Congress prior to Grenada was he knew one them would leak the info.Trump was wise..

Exactly.  Same thing applied to this.

The 2013 chemical attacks happened in March, and the U.N. was still "factfinding" in August.  By the time anything would happen there, the potential targets already would be moved.  And even if Congress was limited to a few weeks of debate, we'd be telegraphing when we'd strike, and perhaps what we'd strike as well.  We'd also be giving Syria/Russia a chance to draw redlines of their own by declaring no fly zones, etc..

For a limited, targeted, one-off strike as this was, you have to act quickly.

[truth_seeker]

@ReaganWorld
The reason my father didn't go to Congress prior to Grenada was he knew one them would leak the info.Trump was wise..

A Totally a valid concern.

[kevindavis007]

Exactly.  Same thing applied to this.

The 2013 chemical attacks happened in March, and the U.N. was still "factfinding" in August.  By the time anything would happen there, the potential targets already would be moved.  And even if Congress was limited to a few weeks of debate, we'd be telegraphing when we'd strike, and perhaps what we'd strike as well.  We'd also be giving Syria/Russia a chance to draw redlines of their own by declaring no fly zones, etc..

For a limited, targeted, one-off strike as this was, you have to act quickly.

Presidents in the past have done quick military strikes. What needs Congressional approval are for major military actions..