this doesn't go quite as she planned

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3ua...ature=youtu.be

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.

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/articl...egal-pointless

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.

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.

"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.