Be interesting to see how Trump and the UN address the nightmare of chemical weapons, Russia is obviously the wildcard in all this.

Trump says he's changing his attitude on Syria, Assad what where they before he changed we know he loves Strong men

PRESIDENT TRUMP: Thank you very much. Your Majesty, thank you for being with us today. Very much appreciate it.

OMG what if Obama said that Maybe thats his flexibility

Obama punted Syria (and many other things) to the next admin.

Lots of increasingly lousy options to chose from for the last and current admins

Uh oh....... Trump just upped the ante. Launched a strike against Syria

So, question... Where is the "America First" in an air strike against a foreign military airfield in response to a foreign government's use of chemical weapons on their own people?

Don't get me wrong, I kind of agree that something needed to be done, but Trump basically said he was going to be making uncomfortable and non traditional decisions on the world stage to put America first in EVERY (not most, or when convenient) decision.

I hope this ends up sending the right message and Russia and other world powers just let the punishment rain down... otherwise this feels like the beginning of some very anxious times for the world
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

50 cruise missiles 1 air base.. been saying he was dangerous and seems he cant take his own advice?

Donald J. Trump‏Verified account
@realDonaldTrump

Follow
More
The only reason President Obama wants to attack Syria is to save face over his very dumb RED LINE statement. Do NOT attack Syria,fix
U.S.A.

Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
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!

Donald J. Trump ✔ @realDonaldTrump
What will we get for bombing Syria besides more debt and a possible long term conflict? Obama needs Congressional approval.
2:14 PM - 29 Aug 2013

Where was the outrage when Barry drew the line in the sand and looked away?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

50-60 TLAMs will send a few messages. It won't cripple Assad but it will let him (and Norks / Iran) know he is not going to look the other way.

The world cannot let Chem use persist. Really bad options to choose from

its all cool until they start shooting back.. I guess we should be thankful no Russian personal were killed that we know of

I am curious is our allies were informed of our intent

why he acted so quickly ( putting on a show for the china's president ?)

or was it to change the headlines about his administration

not saying that use of force should never be used

but acting Unilateral and with in the time frame Raises some red flags for me



You put your right foot in
You take your right foot out
You put your right foot in
And you shake it all about
You do the hokey pokey
And you turn yourself around
That's what it's all about

if it was that easy saw this post this AM on FB

If you voted for Trump and you are glad he did this, you are just as stupid as the liberals. It's an obvious kneejerk reaction.. I was hoping the deep state and neocons wouldn't get to Mr. Trump. This is very disappointing if they did.

This is the liberal gibberish I could have predicted considering the source. Damned if you do...or don't. I am not opposed, but not sure what motivated this attack. A sackless commentary that would have been spewed in some form regardless of aggression or lack there of.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Obama punted Syria (and many other things) to the next admin.

Lots of increasingly lousy options to chose from for the last and current admins

Punting is exactly what Obama did. And last night, trump refused to call fair catch and instead took that punt right up the middle even though it would be easer to do otherwise. The world now knows that Obama is gone
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Hopefully took out the planes that dropped the gas. Generally in favor of these types of actions but worried about mission creep, putting our soldiers at risk, etc.

But also indicative of the zigging and zagging on policies.

its all cool until they start shooting back.. I guess we should be thankful no Russian personal were killed that we know of

I am curious is our allies were informed of our intent

why he acted so quickly ( putting on a show for the china's president ?)

or was it to change the headlines about his administration

not saying that use of force should never be used

but acting Unilateral and with in the time frame Raises some red flags for me




I hope no Russian personnel were killed though in fairness, they would care less for our people

Allies were reportedly informed, Russia prepped (which of course means Assad knew)

All in all, I don't think it was a bad response. And it showed there will be penalty for using Chem weapons, as there must be.

Hopefully took out the planes that dropped the gas. Generally in favor of these types of actions but worried about mission creep, putting our soldiers at risk, etc.

But also indicative of the zigging and zagging on policies.

The other scary thing (which really makes these problems almost impossible to solve) is that as bad a guy as Assad is, he is also ruthlessly fighting ISIS, which helps us.

So while some of the people he is slaughtering are innocents who we all would like to help, others he is fighting are even worse than he is. As we learned in Iraq, if we just had him killed, there's a real chance that he could be replaced with someone a million times worse than he is. How do you deal with that? Beats me.

My hope is that Trump sent Assad a message by firing a shot across the bow, the message being "as long as you are killing ISIS jihadists, we will tolerate quite a bit from you, but not chemical attacks on civilians, so knock it off or I'll kill you and take my chances".

Politically, it also seems to reject the notion that Trump doesn't care about Syrian civilians, as well as the notion that Trump is working for Putin.

This is what happens when you sign useless agreements with countries that have no inkling of following through. In 2013 President Obama signed an agreement with Russia to dispose of Syrians chemicals ... Trump just put a little backbone behind that agreement for once .
Iran might take heed with that message
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

So it would be fair (and logical) to presume that the arguments against this action are geared toward the fact that it was Trump and not the use of chemical weapons that people are opposed to?

That's what it seems....

So it would be fair (and logical) to presume that the arguments against this action are geared toward the fact that it was Trump and not the use of chemical weapons that people are opposed to?

That's what it seems....


More like 80 deaths by bombs or chemical agent are not sure how one is worse than the other

59 missiles in response with out a coherent policy could easily lead to thousands of US troop in danger are 500 US KIA worth 80 ? I say NO

Where was the outrage when Barry drew the line in the sand and looked away?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not outraged, just curious... I'm not sure whether I hate someone ever NOT taking military action in a political hotspot
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not outraged, just curious... I'm not sure whether I hate someone ever NOT taking military action in a political hotspot
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That is all the evidence need to let you know how critical these decisions are
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not outraged, just curious... I'm not sure whether I hate someone ever NOT taking military action in a political hotspot
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

That was a bad precedent. Before then it was fairly understood that use of chemical weapons would have significant consequence but that issue diluted that. A look with minimum consequence into one of Pandora's little boxes.

Hard to believe that things would not be better than they are today if the response was made when they first crossed the red line. It was only a matter of time before Assad started on Idlib, still a surprise he went for the chemicals.

That was a bad precedent. Before then it was fairly understood that use of chemical weapons would have significant consequence but that issue diluted that. A look with minimum consequence into one of Pandora's little boxes.

Yeah, I see that side pretty clearly... but I still think things get very muddy when you talk about the relationship between Assad and Putin... hard to tell if retaliating in those conditions would/will kick off WWIII... although things have been quieter than I would have expected since the attack, so that's a good thing
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I do find an irony that the GOP establishment is supporting this one but weren't singing the same song in 2013. Not that I think this was the wrong decision...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

More like 80 deaths by bombs or chemical agent are not sure how one is worse than the other

59 missiles in response with out a coherent policy could easily lead to thousands of US troop in danger are 500 US KIA worth 80 ? I say NO

Actually I agree with you. A murdered child is a murdered child.

I do find an irony that the GOP establishment is supporting this one but weren't singing the same song in 2013. Not that I think this was the wrong decision...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Agreed, it seems appallingly hypocritical.

But if Obama so chose, he could have done it himself (as Trump did). As we know well, Obama was quite at ease bypassing congress when he felt like it.

Agreed, it seems appallingly hypocritical.

But if Obama so chose, he could have done it himself (as Trump did). As we know well, Obama was quite at ease bypassing congress when he felt like it.

Embroiled in two wars made him gun shy, I think, about going in with Congress backing him.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I do find an irony that the GOP establishment is supporting this one but weren't singing the same song in 2013. Not that I think this was the wrong decision...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Obama , Kerry and Susan Rice repeatedly assured us that 100% of the chemical weapons in Syria had been disposed of . As a matter fact they bragged about it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Obama , Kerry and Susan Rice repeatedly assured us that 100% of the chemical weapons in Syria had been disposed of . As a matter fact they bragged about it.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Turns out they,and the rest of the coalition was wrong. Or Assad brought some back in to Syria.

See, I voted for him, but I don't think he was infallable...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Turns out they,and the rest of the coalition was wrong. Or Assad brought some back in to Syria.

See, I voted for him, but I don't think he was infallable...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Maybe he just had to send over 150 billion to sweeten the deal
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Nothing to upset the Iranians of course

this doesn't go quite as she planned

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3uaf1NFxXc&feature=youtu.be

Where was the outrage when Barry drew the line in the sand and looked away?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

did some research it seems congress looked away as well


President Obama abruptly changed course on Saturday and postponed a military strike against the Syrian government in retaliation for a chemical weapons attack so he could seek authorization first from a deeply skeptical Congress.

On Aug. 28 of that year, then-Rep. Cory Gardner, Rep. Scott Tipton, and Rep. Mike Coffman signed on to a House letter to Obama that urged the president to “consult and receive authorization from Congress before ordering the use of U.S. military force in Syria.”

“Engaging our military in Syria when no direct threat to the United States exists and without prior congressional authorization would violate the separation of powers that is clearly delineated in the Constitution,” the letter said.

The letter the three Colorado Reps. signed onto said they viewed the bypass of Congress when ordering military strikes as “unconstitutional.”

“Tonight’s actions in Syria come after Assad’s horrific actions against his own people,” he said in a statement. “America must show leadership and I’m thankful for what appears to be an effective response by our military.”

Seems republicans love wearing Flops Flops when it moves them

did some research it seems congress looked away as well


President Obama abruptly changed course on Saturday and postponed a military strike against the Syrian government in retaliation for a chemical weapons attack so he could seek authorization first from a deeply skeptical Congress.

On Aug. 28 of that year, then-Rep. Cory Gardner, Rep. Scott Tipton, and Rep. Mike Coffman signed on to a House letter to Obama that urged the president to “consult and receive authorization from Congress before ordering the use of U.S. military force in Syria.”

“Engaging our military in Syria when no direct threat to the United States exists and without prior congressional authorization would violate the separation of powers that is clearly delineated in the Constitution,” the letter said.

The letter the three Colorado Reps. signed onto said they viewed the bypass of Congress when ordering military strikes as “unconstitutional.”

“Tonight’s actions in Syria come after Assad’s horrific actions against his own people,” he said in a statement. “America must show leadership and I’m thankful for what appears to be an effective response by our military.”

Seems republicans love wearing Flops Flops when it moves them

So when Trump can't get Congress to pass one of his initiatives (health care reform), he is ineffective. When Obama can't get Congress to pass one of his (retaliation against Assad), it's Congress that is ineffective.

When Trump keeps his promise re Assad and goes around Congress and possibly around the Constitution in order to do so, his action is questionable.

When Obama disregards Congress and the Constitution (which he did several times) in order to keep his promises, he is brilliant, and gets things done in spite of Congress and in spite of the Constitution. (which he could have done when Assad crossed his "red line).

So, when Obama and Trump act in similar ways, for Obama it's win, win. For Trump, it's lose, lose.

Nice.

So when Trump can't get Congress to pass one of his initiatives (health care reform), he is ineffective. When Obama can't get Congress to pass one of his (retaliation against Assad), it's Congress that is ineffective.

When Trump keeps his promise re Assad and goes around Congress and possibly around the Constitution in order to do so, his action is questionable.

When Obama disregards Congress and the Constitution (which he did several times) in order to keep his promises, he is brilliant, and gets things done in spite of Congress and in spite of the Constitution. (which he could have done when Assad crossed his "red line).

So, when Obama and Trump act in similar ways, for Obama it's win, win. For Trump, it's lose, lose.

Nice.


Seems your creating a narrative thats not there .. some may think that .. not I

I am just pointing out that Most conservatives wanted him (Obama) to seek congressional approval..prior to mil action in syria as did Trump as seen in his many tweets .. but conservatives as a whole do not no seek such requirement today

a conservative view.....

"Why is Donald Trump making war on Syria? Congress ought to ask him to explain that, and also to explain from where he believe he derives the authority to do so without legal authorization."

Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/446563/trump-syrian-bombing-illegal-pointless

Seems your creating a narrative thats not there .. some may think that .. not I

You often contradict yourself without realizing that you do. As is the case here--saying that I'm creating a narrative that is not there while at the same time saying "some may think that". If some do think that, then the narrative is there. Whether you think that or not does not discount the narrative. The narrative doesn't have to include you. I wasn't referring just to you. Although, whether you think so or not, you feed into it. As you did here by minimizing the comparison to Trump taking action on his promise regarding lines crossed to Obama's lack of response to a crossing of his red line. Obama could have carried out his threat, regardless of Congress, just as Trump did. It was HIS red line, not Congress's red line. Not enforcing HIS threat emboldens the enemy. Don't make threats, red lines, if you can't, or won't enforce them. That is not good foreign policy.

I am just pointing out that Most conservatives wanted him (Obama) to seek congressional approval..prior to mil action in syria as did Trump as seen in his many tweets .. but conservatives as a whole do not no seek such requirement today

As Scottw's article points out, there is no "conservatives as a whole" on this issue, as on many others, regarding Trump.

As for me (I've already stated a few times that I'm more of a classical liberal with a "conservative" bent), there are arguments both ways whether Trump should have gotten Congressional approval to send missiles to Syria. Or, for that matter whether Obama would have needed to do so. I am mixed in opinion on it. The "message" sent by firing the Tomahawks sounds about right. But the notion of eventually removing Assad or weakening his ability to fight does not appeal to me in light of what would fill the vacuum.

I made the little "narrative" as you called it just to point out some apparent contradictions in politicized reactions to things Trump does, or doesn't do.

In this case, Trump specifically said he had a change of mind and heart when he saw the videos of dying and dead babies. Whether you believe that or not, he did say it. Maybe you don't think he should be allowed to change his mind. Maybe you don't trust someone who does rather than rigidly sticking to former positions. He also did specifically say a few times that he is flexible.

So you chime in about how he called for congressional approval before but didn't seek it in this instance. He may well have checked with his legal advisers who may have said that conditions and precedent didn't require the approval to do what he wanted in the cautious way (warning ahead) he did it. And maybe Obama really didn't want to bomb Assad and meekly acceded to Congress as a way to cop out of having to enforce his red line.

Don't know. But all of what has happened, action and inaction, point out a stark difference in making threats and enforcing them. And the politicized reactions to the difference. That's all the little "narrative" was about.

Turns out they,and the rest of the coalition was wrong. Or Assad brought some back in to Syria.

See, I voted for him, but I don't think he was infallable...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Except once again they knew they were lying when they stayed over and over again that the chemicals were gone .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Except once again they knew they were lying when they stayed over and over again that the chemicals were gone .
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Yes, the Obama administration knew that Assad still had chem weapons. The deal they made with Assad and the Russians would see to it that Assad would get rid of all of his DECLARED weapons. Of course, they must surely have known that he would not declare all of his stock. But that deception, making a deal which allowed Assad to keep WMDs, while at the same time the Obama administration could claim that it was able to broker a deal, without force, to make Assad get rid of his chemical weapons--that the administration was able to do it with diplomacy. In fact, one of them, I can't remember who, maybe Kerry, said that it was possible that Assad didn't declare everything and that he might have retained a stock of stuff, including sarin gas.

The sneaky word DECLARED was not noticed or not paid attention to by the American public nor by the media. No doubt the deception by the Obama administration was intentional. All we paid attention to was ALL the weapons, not to the more accurate all of the DECLARED weapons.

The deal with Iran and the supposed cessation of its nuclear program was a similar kind of deception. But with that, it was more widely understood that the deal was temporary, at best. And that Obama, as he did not with his Syrian "red line," would not enforce the Iranian deal. And Iran shortly after started breaking the agreement, and no retribution against it was made.

As Scottw's article points out, there is no "conservatives as a whole" on this issue, as on many others, regarding Trump.

As for me (I've already stated a few times that I'm more of a classical liberal with a "conservative" bent), there are arguments both ways whether Trump should have gotten Congressional approval to send missiles to Syria. Or, for that matter whether Obama would have needed to do so. I am mixed in opinion on it. The "message" sent by firing the Tomahawks sounds about right. But the notion of eventually removing Assad or weakening his ability to fight does not appeal to me in light of what would fill the vacuum.

I made the little "narrative" as you called it just to point out some apparent contradictions in politicized reactions to things Trump does, or doesn't do.

In this case, Trump specifically said he had a change of mind and heart when he saw the videos of dying and dead babies. Whether you believe that or not, he did say it. Maybe you don't think he should be allowed to change his mind. Maybe you don't trust someone who does rather than rigidly sticking to former positions. He also did specifically say a few times that he is flexible.

So you chime in about how he called for congressional approval before but didn't seek it in this instance. He may well have checked with his legal advisers who may have said that conditions and precedent didn't require the approval to do what he wanted in the cautious way (warning ahead) he did it. And maybe Obama really didn't want to bomb Assad and meekly acceded to Congress as a way to cop out of having to enforce his red line.

Don't know. But all of what has happened, action and inaction, point out a stark difference in making threats and enforcing them. And the politicized reactions to the difference. That's all the little "narrative" was about.

"the notion of eventually removing Assad or weakening his ability to fight does not appeal to me in light of what would fill the vacuum"

Exactly. There's areal chance he could be replaced with someone a million times worse. It's a very, very challenging situation.