Congressional Reactions to Tonight’s Airstrikes in Syria

[Formerly Once-Ler]

https://www.redstate.com/sarah-rumpf/2018/04/13/congressional-reactions-tonights-airstrikes-syria/

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY):

    Tonight, the administration notified me of the president’s decision to use military action to deter Bashar al-Assad and respond to the Syrian regime’s use of chemical weapons against its own people. I support both the action and objective.

    The tactics employed by the Assad regime to consolidate gains and terrorize the people of Syria defied the U.S. position that the use of chemical weapons is unacceptable.

    Last year, we undertook cruise missile strikes against the Shayrat airfield — from which aircraft used in a chemical weapons attack had been launched — and against assets of importance to the regime such as aircraft, hardened shelters, and air defense systems. These actions were intended to make clear to Assad that the use of chemical weapons would be met with a response.

    Assad ignored that warning. He ignored the declaratory policy of the United States. He chose to terrorize the people of Douma.

    The planning for this robust operation by the United States and our allies was clearly well-considered. It is evident that the President was provided with a number of options, and that our forces executed a challenging mission.

    As I noted following last year’s action, our gratitude goes out to the world’s most capable military. Americans have become used to flawless execution on the part of our uniformed military — but of course, none of this could occur without years of training and investment, or the professionalism and dedication of our service members.

Much more at link

[Stevensr123]

THERE IS ALWAYS A TWEET:

Donald J. Trump
‏
Verified account
 
@realDonaldTrump 5 Sep 2013
AGAIN, TO OUR VERY FOOLISH LEADER, DO NOT ATTACK SYRIA - IF YOU DO MANY VERY BAD THINGS WILL HAPPEN & FROM THAT FIGHT THE U.S. GETS NOTHING!

[Chosen Daughter]

Ted Cruz on Syrian strikes

https://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=3732

Laura Ingraham on Syrian strikes

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/watch-sebastian-gorka-clashes-with-laura-ingraham-over-us-strike-on-syria

I want to know what is the next step?  What are we getting ourselves into and what will we do to assure extremists don't benefit from our actions?

[libertybele]

Ted Cruz on Syrian strikes

https://www.cruz.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=3732

Laura Ingraham on Syrian strikes

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/watch-sebastian-gorka-clashes-with-laura-ingraham-over-us-strike-on-syria

I want to know what is the next step?  What are we getting ourselves into and what will we do to assure extremists don't benefit from our actions?

Ted Cruz's response was absolutely wonderful and he is absolutely correct!

[Chosen Daughter]

Ted Cruz's response was absolutely wonderful and he is absolutely correct!

I agree with him on the Iran deal for sure.  What I don't understand is what is this going to do?  We struck last year and he does it again this year. 

[libertybele]

I agree with him on the Iran deal for sure.  What I don't understand is what is this going to do?  We struck last year and he does it again this year.

What's the alternative?  At least until next time he's knocked down a few pegs. 

[Chosen Daughter]

I honestly do not know.  I have to refrain from any serious discussion because it is hard to discern what is right in the ME.  The different sects and opposition groups.  Who could be sure which one is on your side?  It sickens me to see women and children killed by chemical weapons.  Saddam did it also.  It is horrible to see ISIS round up people put them in cages and set them on fire too.  It is horrible to hear that there were bombing at this mosque or that.  In my opinion Islam is horrible and a sickness to the world.

[Stevensr123]

I honestly do not know.  I have to refrain from any serious discussion because it is hard to discern what is right in the ME.  The different sects and opposition groups.  Who could be sure which one is on your side?  It sickens me to see women and children killed by chemical weapons.  Saddam did it also.  It is horrible to see ISIS round up people put them in cages and set them on fire too.  It is horrible to hear that there were bombing at this mosque or that.  In my opinion Islam is horrible and a sickness to the world.

it is, which is why I'm sickened  once again my couture (Britain ) is getting involved.


Why get involved ? We should be isolating the  countries ,. Not getting involved in them!!!


Trump himself said thsat. Why can't we look after ourself, isolation them and deal with each other's

Sorry for the drunk rant lol

[Chosen Daughter]

it is, which is why I'm sickened  once again my couture (Britain ) is getting involved.


Why get involved ? We should be isolating the  countries ,. Not getting involved in them!!!


Trump himself said thsat. Why can't we look after ourself, isolation them and deal with each other's

Sorry for the drunk rant lol

Its OK, nice to hear from you.

I really don't know what to think.  My heart said it was the wrong thing too unless we are actually going to follow through.  But do we want to involve ourselves in a war with Russia?  They are also fighting ISIS.  It seems very complicated unless we are ready to also to take control.  Iran also.......... seems messy.  And can we accept what happens in a vacuum situation if Assad is removed from power? 

And then again everything I say is as a citizen who's only knowledge comes from news I read on the internet.

[libertybele]

I honestly do not know.  I have to refrain from any serious discussion because it is hard to discern what is right in the ME.  The different sects and opposition groups.  Who could be sure which one is on your side?  It sickens me to see women and children killed by chemical weapons.  Saddam did it also.  It is horrible to see ISIS round up people put them in cages and set them on fire too.  It is horrible to hear that there were bombing at this mosque or that.  In my opinion Islam is horrible and a sickness to the world.

It sickens me as well. You are absolutely correct, it is very hard to discern what exactly is going on.  What information that are we being fed is true or false.  From my understanding when Assad used chemical weapons back in 2013, Bammy went to Congress for approval of a military strike and was going to proceed but then cancelled the strike and made a deal with Russia and the Syrian government to destroy chemical weapons. Obviously he still has chemical weapons.  What can be derived from that?  IMHO that agreement made was either broken by Assad and Putin did nothing or broken by both Assad and Putin.  Either way it allowed Putin to obtain a greater presence over in the ME.  In 2015 Bammy also made a nuke deal with the Iranians. Keep in mind, that it has been 'rumored' (and I believe the rumor) that the Clintons sold uranium (the Uranium One deal) to Putin who in turned sold the uranium to Iran allowing then to expand their nuclear capabilities.

Don't forget the Benghazi disaster. We do know that the Bammy administration (including Clinton) lied about the incident and the 4 dead Americans. We also know as a result  Bammy allowed a caliphate to form and the presence of ISIS grew as did Putin's presence.

Also keep in mind that Bammy made agreements to allow millions of supposed Muslim refugees into this country which at last I've read has been somewhat curtailed by Trump

I believe Trump is doing the right thing. He's trying to halt the use of chemical weapons, the infiltration of Muslim refugees into this country and trying to curtail the growing presence of Putin over in the ME. 

Romney was so correct; Russia is our biggest geo-political foe. Bammy didn't listen.  Trump is reacting.

[Chosen Daughter]

It sickens me as well. You are absolutely correct, it is very hard to discern what exactly is going on.  What information that are we being fed is true or false.  From my understanding when Assad used chemical weapons back in 2013, Bammy went to Congress for approval of a military strike and was going to proceed but then cancelled the strike and made a deal with Russia and the Syrian government to destroy chemical weapons. Obviously he still has chemical weapons.  What can be derived from that?  IMHO that agreement made was either broken by Assad and Putin did nothing or broken by both Assad and Putin.  Either way it allowed Putin to obtain a greater presence over in the ME.  In 2015 Bammy also made a nuke deal with the Iranians. Keep in mind, that it has been 'rumored' (and I believe the rumor) that the Clintons sold uranium (the Uranium One deal) to Putin who in turned sold the uranium to Iran allowing then to expand their nuclear capabilities.

Don't forget the Benghazi disaster. We do know that the Bammy administration (including Clinton) lied about the incident and the 4 dead Americans. We also know as a result  Bammy allowed a caliphate to form and the presence of ISIS grew as did Putin's presence.

Also keep in mind that Bammy made agreements to allow millions of supposed Muslim refugees into this country which at last I've read has been somewhat curtailed by Trump

I believe Trump is doing the right thing. He's trying to halt the use of chemical weapons, the infiltration of Muslim refugees into this country and trying to curtail the growing presence of Putin over in the ME. 

Romney was so correct; Russia is our biggest geo-political foe. Bammy didn't listen.  Trump is reacting.

No, not going to forget Benghazi.  I think that Hillary should have gone to jail for that one.  And Obama was a complete failure if not an enabler for ISIS with his Arab Spring.  Part of my confusion about this because many of our weapons and vehicles ended up in the hands of ISIS.

[libertybele]

No, not going to forget Benghazi.  I think that Hillary should have gone to jail for that one.  And Obama was a complete failure if not an enabler for ISIS with his Arab Spring.  Part of my confusion about this because many of our weapons and vehicles ended up in the hands of ISIS.

Bammy/Clinton armed the Syrian rebels.

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/218248-senate-approves-obama-request-to-arm-train-syrian-rebels

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-33997408

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/u-s-strategy-arming-syrian-rebels-didnt-work

[Chosen Daughter]

Bammy/Clinton armed the Syrian rebels.

http://thehill.com/policy/finance/218248-senate-approves-obama-request-to-arm-train-syrian-rebels

http://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-33997408

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/u-s-strategy-arming-syrian-rebels-didnt-work

Which is my confusion.  Who are the right rebels fighting Assad?  Don't get me wrong.  It is always wrong to use chemical weapons.  It is also wrong to support rebels with ties and loyalties to Extremist groups.  Al Qaeda, ISIS......etc.  What is the goal?  What is it we are expecting to attain.  Because at one time Syria was secular.



https://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2010/0713/Syrian-secularism-a-model-for-the-Middle-East 

[Chosen Daughter]

Homeland Security


SHOCKING ADMISSION: 'Secular' Syrian Rebels Don't Actually Believe in Secular Democracy

 
By Patrick Poole November 27, 2016
 

A stunning admission last week by a French academic about the true nature of the so-called "secular" elements of the Syrian rebels exposes the lies behind the official media and foreign policy establishment narratives pushing for regime change in Syria.

As first noticed by Professor Max Abrams of Northeastern University, a study published by the Washington Institute for Near East Policy and authored by French professor Fabrice Balanche on the status and composition of the Syrian "rebels" admits that the vaunted "secular" rebels are anything but.

Discussing the religious composition of the rebels based on estimates provided by the Institute for the Study of War (ISW), Balanche says:


The ISW usefully classified the various rebel groups into four ideological categories: transnational Salafi-jihadists (i.e., al-Qaeda-linked fighters), national Salafi-jihadists, political Islamists, and secularists. The difference between national jihadists and political Islamists is more or less akin to the difference between Salafists and the Muslim Brotherhood -- in simplified terms, the former seek strict application of Islamic law, while many of the latter tend to favor a state with an Islamic civil constitution but protections for religious freedom. As for the "secularists," the term is used very loosely because most of the fighters in this category are conservative Muslims who do not actually want a secular government.


The fact that Balanche admits that the ISW's estimates of so-called "secularists" are built upon the fiction that they are actually secular exposes the false narrative that ISW has long peddled in support of regime change.

This lie about large numbers of "secular" rebels that the U.S. needed to support is one that  the ISW has been pushing for a while.

Rewind to September 2013, when considerable pressure was being placed upon President Obama to directly involve the U.S. in the Syrian war.

At that time the ISW's resident Syria "expert," Elizabeth O'Bagy, was opining in the Wall Street Journal about her travels to Syria and purported discovery that the Syrian "rebels" really weren't bloodthirsty jihadists, but moderates worthy of U.S. financial and military support -- in particular, heavy weapons. Her claims about the Syrian rebels, particularly the FSA, were cited and praised by Secretary of State John Kerry and Senator John McCain.

That view, of course, quickly came crashing down as O'Bagy came under fire for failing to disclose that she was also a paid contractor for a Syrian rebel front. (She had also lied about her academic credentials.) Within two weeks of her op-ed appearing, she was fired from the Institute for the Study of War, though she was hired two weeks later by Senator McCain as a Senate staffer.

https://pjmedia.com/homeland-security/2016/11/27/shocking-admission-secular-syrian-rebels-dont-actually-believe-in-secular-democracy/

So OK, I have already stated that I believe Saddams weapons made their way to Syria.  Still I am torn about Arab Spring and what kind of vacuum could be created and allow extreme Islamist take control in Syria.  Is an ISIS Syria more appealing?

[Chosen Daughter]

Meet Aleppo’s ‘Moderate,’ ‘Secular’ ‘Rebels’: Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood



By Andrew C. McCarthy

August 19, 2016 8:00 AM

Let’s support moderate Muslims. But that means figuring out which ones are the real deal.

As the invaluable David Pryce-Jones notes, Syria’s second-most important city, Aleppo, is the locus of heavy combat, pitting Russia and Iran, the forces propping up the Bashar Assad, against anti-regime fighters, also known as the “rebels.” David refers to reports that, as he summarizes them, “secular rebels appear to have liberated most of [Aleppo], maybe all of it.” Meanwhile, the estimable Charles Krauthammer observes that Russia is operating out of an air base in Iran (probably yet another violation of Obama’s disastrous nuclear deal with the mullahs). And who does Charles say Vladimir Putin’s air force is targeting? “It’s hitting a lot of the moderate rebels . . . in Aleppo.”

I have been arguing for years (and as recently as last weekend) that there are simply not enough moderate, secular rebels in Syria to overthrow the regime, much less to defeat both Assad and ISIS simultaneously. Suggestions to the contrary are wishful thinking. More important, such suggestions are counterproductive: The illusion of a vibrant secular, pro-Western opposition in Syria is the basis for urging that America throw its weight behind the “rebels,” on the theory that we would be undermining radical Islam.


In truth, we’d simply be empowering one set of anti-American Islamists against another.

At The Long War Journal, Tom Joscelyn, who for my money does the best job in America of analyzing the factions involved in the global jihad, takes a careful look at who is fighting against Assad in Syria. To what should be no one’s surprise — but will apparently be very surprising to many — the bulk of the opposition consists of Islamists.

As Tom explains, two coalitions are spearheading the campaign that has enjoyed recent success against the regime in Aleppo. The first is headed up by al-Qaeda and goes by the name Jaysh al-Fath (Army of Conquest). The al-Qaeda franchise in Syria, until recently known as al-Nusrah, has rebranded itself as Jabhat Fath al-Sham (JFS). It has a close alliance with a group called Ahrar al-Sham (Ahrar), which includes many al-Qaeda veterans and (as Tom notes) models itself after the Taliban (al-Qaeda’s close ally in Afghanistan). JFS and Ahrar run the Jaysh al-Fath coalition, which includes sundry other jihadist militias long affiliated with the al-Qaeda terror network.

Al-Qaeda is well aware of the West’s myopic focus on ISIS (the Islamic State — the al-Qaeda splinter group that began as al-Qaeda in Iraq). This myopia has the U.S. government and much of the commentariat turning a blind eye to other anti-American Islamists, even absurdly labeling them “moderates,” as long as they are not part of ISIS. The leaders of al-Qaeda realize that a great deal of financial and materiel support is to be had in the “moderate rebel” business but that the al-Qaeda brand could be problematic in maintaining the façade. So they have encouraged their franchises to obscure and soft-peddle their al-Qaeda connections — particularly by not brandishing “al-Qaeda” in their names.........................

https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/08/aleppo-syria-moderate-secular-rebels-al-qaeda-muslim-brotherhood-russia-iran/

Al Qaeda and Taliban.  Those guys that force women to wear burqa.  Throw people off buildings.  Burry the women up to their heads and stone them to death.  The same ones that many of our soldiers lost their lives fighting.

[Emjay]

Ted Cruz's response was absolutely wonderful and he is absolutely correct!

Ted Cruz is nearly always correct and he expresses it beautifully.

[Emjay]

What's the alternative?  At least until next time he's knocked down a few pegs.

The Trump approved attacks on Syria were perfect.  Facilities destroyed, no civilian casualties.

Watch Darkest Hour if you think appeasement works.

[Emjay]

Meet Aleppo’s ‘Moderate,’ ‘Secular’ ‘Rebels’: Al-Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood



By Andrew C. McCarthy

August 19, 2016 8:00 AM

Let’s support moderate Muslims. But that means figuring out which ones are the real deal.

As the invaluable David Pryce-Jones notes, Syria’s second-most important city, Aleppo, is the locus of heavy combat, pitting Russia and Iran, the forces propping up the Bashar Assad, against anti-regime fighters, also known as the “rebels.” David refers to reports that, as he summarizes them, “secular rebels appear to have liberated most of [Aleppo], maybe all of it.” Meanwhile, the estimable Charles Krauthammer observes that Russia is operating out of an air base in Iran (probably yet another violation of Obama’s disastrous nuclear deal with the mullahs). And who does Charles say Vladimir Putin’s air force is targeting? “It’s hitting a lot of the moderate rebels . . . in Aleppo.”

I have been arguing for years (and as recently as last weekend) that there are simply not enough moderate, secular rebels in Syria to overthrow the regime, much less to defeat both Assad and ISIS simultaneously. Suggestions to the contrary are wishful thinking. More important, such suggestions are counterproductive: The illusion of a vibrant secular, pro-Western opposition in Syria is the basis for urging that America throw its weight behind the “rebels,” on the theory that we would be undermining radical Islam.


In truth, we’d simply be empowering one set of anti-American Islamists against another.

At The Long War Journal, Tom Joscelyn, who for my money does the best job in America of analyzing the factions involved in the global jihad, takes a careful look at who is fighting against Assad in Syria. To what should be no one’s surprise — but will apparently be very surprising to many — the bulk of the opposition consists of Islamists.

This had nothing to do with taking sides.  I don't think we should ever make a futile attempt to take sides in the Middle East and certainly not send troops in.

However, a carefully targeted strike on a facility that was making chemical weapons and killing citizens was exactly the right thing to do.