The Briefing Room
General Category => Politics/Government => Topic started by: Chosen Daughter on April 08, 2017, 04:45:00 am
-
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.
-
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).
Where it becomes unConstitutional is if he does as Obama did, and never goes to Congress to explain his actions, his goals and to get their approval for continued actions to achieve those goals and just acts on his own authority - a precedent Obama has already set with the full and complete consent of Congress.
-
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).
Where it becomes unConstitutional is if he does as Obama did, and never goes to Congress to explain his actions, his goals and to get their approval for continued actions to achieve those goals and just acts on his own authority - a precedent Obama has already set with the full and complete consent of Congress.
What was done cannot be undone. But I think he must now take it to Congress. What is revealing in this story is his tweets which are opposite of his current reaction.
-
He already has briefed congress.
-
He already has briefed congress.
Trump himself did not brief Congress. The Joint Chiefs had a briefing with some select Senators yesterday but outlined no strategy or policy according to reports. Pence is supposed to reach out to members of Congress during the current recess and the admonition I have read is that they expect a strategy, goals and so forth to be presented by Trump with formal Congressional involvement before he can go any further.
A briefing is a far cry from obtaining congressional sanction and approval of military action in Syria. That has not happened at all yet.
-
What Trump should have done was he should have attacked Libya with an wholly illegal war, without Congressional authorization and without consultation or approval of the U.N. and without any coherent reason or justification. Which led to a leader of a sovereign nation being captured, and then having a knife stuck up his butt, before being hung by Al Qaida terrorists.
That would be something the idiot, lunatic, Liberals could really support and stand for.
-
Trump himself did not brief Congress. The Joint Chiefs had a briefing with some select Senators yesterday but outlined no strategy or policy according to reports. Pence is supposed to reach out to members of Congress during the current recess and the admonition I have read is that they expect a strategy, goals and so forth to be presented by Trump with formal Congressional involvement before he can go any further.
A briefing is a far cry from obtaining congressional sanction and approval of military action in Syria. That has not happened at all yet.
They briefed at least 2 dozen members of Congress prior to the action. Nothing else needs to happen.
-
They briefed at least 2 dozen members of Congress prior to the action. Nothing else needs to happen.
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.
-
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.
It's not a war and you know it.
-
It's not a war and you know it.
@driftdiver
Yeah, it's just a "police action".
And a semiautomatic isn't an arm.
And Islam isn't a religion.
And the Internet isn't the press or speech.
Tyranny loves playing with language.
-
@driftdiver
Yeah, it's just a "police action".
And a semiautomatic isn't an arm.
And Islam isn't a religion.
And the Internet isn't the press or speech.
Tyranny loves playing with language.
Not even that. Did you get so concerned when everything other recent President has done the same?
-
US has hit terrorists in Syria, under Obama and now under Trump in the form of ISIS, Al Qaeda. Were we all saying that was unconstitutional as well?
Looks like now, the Russians are indeed being implicated in the poisonous gas strike as well by ignoring or concealing it; this ups the ante.
-
[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).
Nor have I and I'm not seeing what it could possibly be.
-
Certainly looking like it may have been rushed and unwise.
-
US has hit terrorists in Syria, under Obama and now under Trump in the form of ISIS, Al Qaeda. Were we all saying that was unconstitutional as well?
Looks like now, the Russians are indeed being implicated in the poisonous gas strike as well by ignoring or concealing it; this ups the ante.
I could have sworn Trump campaigned on not getting us involved in Syria. I want that Trump back.
-
I could have sworn Trump campaigned on not getting us involved in Syria. I want that Trump back.
There is no Trump - "it" changes day by day.
-
Nor have I and I'm not seeing what it could possibly be.
National security interests is an extremely broad phrase. It sounds great and just about anything you want can be put into the bucket.
-
There is no Trump - "it" changes day by day.
If only someone had warned them. :whistle:
-
What was done cannot be undone. But I think he must now take it to Congress. What is revealing in this story is his tweets which are opposite of his current reaction.
The only action that would be unconstitutional is if he were to actually declare war.
-
I could have sworn Trump campaigned on not getting us involved in Syria. I want that Trump back.
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.
-
Read as far as "The Atlantic" in the link before I stopped!
-
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.
(http://inspectapedia.com/Building_Damage/Moisture_Meter_Study_131_DJFc.JPG)
-
:thud: 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.
-
If only someone had warned them. :whistle:
*****rollingeyes*****
-
When the mountain wouldn't come to Mohammad, he went to the mountain.
When the mountain wouldn't come to the Ne'reTrumps, they built a molehill.
This was a limited strike involving no additional ground troops. BFD, as Slow Joe might say.
-
:thud: 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. :laugh:
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
(http://inspectapedia.com/Building_Damage/Moisture_Meter_Study_131_DJFc.JPG)
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2017/04/07/msnbcs-odonnell-maybe-putin-masterminded-chemical-attack-so-trump-could-look-good-by-striking-syria/ (http://www.breitbart.com/video/2017/04/07/msnbcs-odonnell-maybe-putin-masterminded-chemical-attack-so-trump-could-look-good-by-striking-syria/)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
If only someone had warned them. :whistle:
Yeah, just think you could have had Hillary, with perhaps Susan Rice as her Chief of Staff.
Frigging Code Pink Republicans.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
(http://i.imgur.com/QtAARmU.gif)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
(http://www.telesurtv.net/__export/1488738886747/sites/telesur/img/news/2017/03/05/code_pink_stop_war_demo.jpg_1718483346.jpg)
-
@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..
-
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.
-
@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.
-
@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.
-
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..
-
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.
Excuses, excuses for everything. This Syria strike was major wag the dog!
-
Is there any way to get you to shut up?
Your just plain rude. 22222frying pan
-
Your just plain rude. 22222frying pan
Your You are, or You're
-
I support President Trump on this. Nothing unconstitutional about it either. There once was a day when America stood against chemical warfare. It is good to see that America return. I hope it holds.
-
Your You are, or You're
Oh thank you so much.
-
What Trump should have done was he should have attacked Libya with an wholly illegal war, without Congressional authorization and without consultation or approval of the U.N. and without any coherent reason or justification. Which led to a leader of a sovereign nation being captured, and then having a knife stuck up his butt, before being hung by Al Qaida terrorists.
That would be something the idiot, lunatic, Liberals could really support and stand for.
I believe Syria was to be the last in the string of destabilized governments around the Med for the 'Arab Spring', a Hillary/Obama production. The Egyptian military and people broke that up a little by ousting Mursi, and the American people themselves didn't want to start anything in Syria (Their civil war, let them settle it themselves).
The Liberals, considering the above objective, effectively pushing the Caliphate and generating 'refugees' to spread into Europe, would be ecstatic at Assad being deposed. That sort of chaos brings opportunity.
-
@driftdiver
Yeah, it's just a "police action".
And a semiautomatic isn't an arm.
And Islam isn't a religion.
And the Internet isn't the press or speech.
Tyranny loves playing with language.
"It's a beautiful thing, the destruction of words."
George Orwell 1984
-
I believe Syria was to be the last in the string of destabilized governments around the Med for the 'Arab Spring', a Hillary/Obama production. The Egyptian military and people broke that up a little by ousting Mursi, and the American people themselves didn't want to start anything in Syria (Their civil war, let them settle it themselves).
The Liberals, considering the above objective, effectively pushing the Caliphate and generating 'refugees' to spread into Europe, would be ecstatic at Assad being deposed. That sort of chaos brings opportunity.
The Case Against Another Intervention in Syria
By Daniel Larison • April 6, 2017, 6:56 PM
The destruction of Syria: made in America? (Volodymyr Borodin / Shutterstock.com)
The case for attacking the Syrian government remains as weak and unpersuasive as ever, and the reasons not to do it make much more sense. Regardless, Trump appears to be seriously considering launching an illegal attack on the Syrian government on the dubious grounds that “something should happen.” I have talked about the potential dangers of such an attack for years, so regular readers will already be very familiar with what I’m going to say, but I will offer a quick summary of why the attack shouldn’t happen.
The U.S. has no authority or right to strike at the Syrian government without U.N. authorization, and that authorization won’t be forthcoming. Despite the conceit that the U.S. is the world’s “policeman,” our government has no right to launch a war against another government because of its alleged war crimes. Possible strikes are being described as a punitive measure, but our government is not the world’s appointed executioner and our military should not be used for that purpose. Put simply, attacking the Syrian government would be illegal, which would be all the more ridiculous when the attack is being carried out ostensibly in the name of upholding international order.
The U.S. cannot pretend that it is enforcing any U.N. resolutions, and it is not acting in self-defense or the defense of a treaty ally. An attack on the Syrian government would also be difficult to justify in other terms. There is little likelihood that an attack would deter further use of chemical weapons, and it is more likely to help drag out and intensify the current conflict rather than hasten its end. If the ultimate goal is or becomes regime change, that will produce even greater evils than the ones the attack is supposed to prevent. Even if regime change is not the goal, it is difficult to see how killing more Syrians makes anything better. Joining in the carnage in Syria will not help the civilian population, but will most likely subject them to additional suffering. Insofar as an attack significantly weakens the regime, it would benefit only jihadists and their allies, and doing that makes no sense.
No U.S. interests are threatened by the Syrian government, and at present the Syrian government’s patrons are to some degree on the same side as our government in their hostility to ISIS. Attacking the Syrian government would be a boon to jihadists, the start of a new and unnecessary war for the U.S., possible direct confrontation with Iran and its proxies in Iraq and Syria, and a potentially disastrous provocation of a nuclear-armed major power. Trump is always emphasizing how the U.S. gets nothing from its foreign wars, so it bears repeating that the U.S. would most certainly get nothing from picking another fight in the region except increased costs and new enemies.
End excerpt
http://www.theamericanconservative.com/larison/the-case-against-another-intervention-in-syria/
Seems like it is mainly liberals that support Trumps bombing. And McLame who likes to give arms to terrorists in Syria. There are news stories out that indicate the administration are thinking that Assad has no place in Syria now. Regime change. America just say no.
BTW Assad is supported by the Christians in Syria. They fear McLames rebels.
And more response from Conservatives including Senator Ted Cruz
https://www.conservativereview.com/commentary/2017/04/gop-foreign-policy-factions-revealed-in-response-to-trump-and-syria-missile-strike
-
UN much loved by Code Pink Republicans, however.
(http://www.telesurtv.net/__export/1488738886747/sites/telesur/img/news/2017/03/05/code_pink_stop_war_demo.jpg_1718483346.jpg)
I would wager that if there are any Republicans in that image they are on horseback.
-
Presidents in the past have done quick military strikes. What needs Congressional approval are for major military actions..
What needs Congressional approval are continued military actions..
One-off, is one thing, but then subsequent action needs Congressional approval to continue.
-
What needs Congressional approval are continued military actions..
One-off, is one thing, but then subsequent action needs Congressional approval to continue.
He isn't going to get Conservative approvals for this:
Republican leaders in Washington, including Speaker John Boehner (R-OH), House Majority Leader Eric Cantor (R-VA), and Senators McCain (R-AZ), Graham (R-SC), and Corker (R-TN), are supporting President Obama’s call for an American attack on Syria, but Tea Party groups around the country are united in their opposition to such military action.
Tea Party activists appear to be virtually unanimous in their support for the position taken by Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX), who said on Tuesday the United States “should not serve as Al-Qaeda’s Air Force.”
Lynn Moss, co-organizer of the Mid-South Tea Party in Memphis, Tennessee, expressed a view held by many Tea Party activists around the country. Moss told Breitbart News on Thursday, “both sides of the conflict in Syria are enemies of the United States. It would be foolish,” she said, “and self-defeating to involve ourselves in this already volatile situation.”
Joanne Jones, vice chairman of the Charleston Tea Party in South Carolina, told Breitbart News Thursday that “conservatives of many stripes are opposed to U.S. military intervention in Syria. Particularly in light of today’s account of al Qaeda-linked rebels murdering residents of a Christian village, it is becoming increasingly difficult to convince us that the United States would indeed be helping the ‘right’ rebels.”
Bobby Alexander, chairman of the Central Kentucky Tea Party Patriots, told Mother Jones, “[c]onservatives in Kentucky do not want us involved in Syria.” John Kemper of the United Kentucky Tea Party added, “[t]he things I’m seeing and emails I’m getting from folks around the state, they’re not in favor of [an American attack on Syria.]”
Mark Kevin Lloyd, a Tea Party activist in Virginia, told Breitbart News that “the Obama administration and some in the Republican leadership seems overly concerned about the president’s credibility in the eyes of the world. Both President Obama and Speaker Boehner need to understand they each have the same credibility problems in the eyes of the American people.
“How can the president be so sure of the situation in Syria, and so clueless about Benghazi? Too many questions, not nearly enough answers.”
Bruce Carroll, chairman of Carolina Conservatives United, told Breitbart News, “we share the humanitarian concern for the Syrian people who have been killed and injured by conventional weapons and chemical weapons and the millions of refugees that are suffering due to that nation’s two-year civil war.
For Carroll, though, such concerns do not justify American intervention. “We strongly believe the situation in Syria will not improve, and could well deteriorate, due to American military involvement,” he said. “Additionally, we do not believe President Obama has adequately made the case that any national security interests are at stake, a minimum requirement for military actions abroad.”
Mark West, founder of the Chattanooga Tea Party in Tennessee told Breitbart News Thursday: “while Americans have come to expect flawed and disastrous foreign policy decisions from the Obama administration, what is alarming is the foolish part that Republicans are playing in embracing and facilitating Obama’s latest plan to attack Syria.”
According to West, “what should be painfully obvious to any alert American is that Obama’s plan (and now his Republican allies’) to launch “limited” attacks into a highly volatile war zone has the strong likelihood of
Tea Party Groups Nationwide Unite Against American Attack on Syria
escalating into a broader and protracted war. And if this occurs, Tennesseans will remember the fateful role that Senator Corker and other Republicans played in endorsing another one of Obama’s helter-skelter foreign policy initiatives.”
Though President Obama maintains he does not need Congressional authorization to conduct military action against Syria, he has nonetheless agreed to ask for Congressional support, without promising that he will be bound by votes taken in the House and Senate on the issue. On Wednesday, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted 10 to 7 to support President Obama’s call for an American air strike on Syria. Votes in the full Senate as well as in the House are expected to take place soon.
With those important votes looming, members of the Senate and the House are hearing from their constituents, the vast majority of whom oppose such action, according to recent polls. The virtually unanimous sentiment of Tea Party activists appears to be leading public opinion throughout the country in its opposition to American military attacks on Syria.
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2013/09/05/local-tea-party-groups-around-the-country-united-in-opposition-to-american-attack-on-syria/
-
Not that any of us care but does violate the UN charter, which the US is a party to.
Summary:
- Yes, it was illegal.
- It's not clear we struck the guilty party.
- It helps ISIS and al-Qaeda.
- But, it did successfully serve the Administration in demonstrating strength and resolve, and it defused the Russia-connection issue.
-
"It's a beautiful thing, the destruction of words."
George Orwell 1984
*****rollingeyes*****