Trump has ordered strikes against Syria

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/13/world/middleeast/trump-strikes-syria-attack.html?action=Click&contentCollection=BreakingNews&contentID=66818117&pgtype=Homepage

This is the President who said "America First", who was against intervention, and just said yesterday or the day before that we would be out of Syria very soon.

But I guess James Comey won't be the biggest story this weekend. 

Hopefully they will be just as successful at deterring Syria as the year ago strikes.

Murica!

I wonder what Trump would do if he saw pictures of the children we kill in Afghanistan and Yemen and wherever else the flock we're bombing today.

what a ****

I bet he really caught them by surprise.  No way they saw this one coming.

https://youtu.be/CpdT79rm1ts

Jesus.  Watching the Pentagon briefing.  They don't even know what chemical weapons were used. 

Where does Article 2 provide the President the Authority to wage war?  WTF is Mattis talking about?

terp said:
Where does Article 2 provide the President the Authority to wage war?  WTF is Mattis talking about?

He must have a different version from the one you and I read.

This is the version that shows up when I Google

https://www.google.com/search?source=hp&ei=tGbRWoKGKsbq_AbPlrzQDw&q=article+2+of+the+constitution&oq=Article+2&gs_l=psy-ab.1.0.0l10.2532.8714.0.12487.9.8.0.1.1.0.152.702.6j2.8.0....0...1c.1.64.psy-ab..0.9.719...0i131k1j0i10k1.0.zxoKnkNMd2c

I'm assuming they're saying that he's the Commander in Chief which means he can do whatever he wants.  By any objective measure they are wrong.  

It makes me wonder if General Mattis ever read Article 1. 

I guess Mattis is not quite the level-headed adult in the room they've been telling us he is.

it's wingnuts all the way down.

goodie.

Too bad he's let in practically ZERO refugees from Syria to go along with this.

Come on! Isn't this a known item in the playbook (when sh!t gets real domestically (like, say, your lawyer under criminal investigation), invent a conflict / invade / strike a regime / escalate a Cold War with a country to detract from the issue)? 

This is a bi-partisan tactic - even Clinton used this repeatedly.

Edit: just found this:

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/255784560904773633?s=19

The possible question is: did Russia help Trump in setting the stage for these Syrian strikes and how many months / years ago did this 'if / then' planning occur?

The attack on Syria was joined by the UK and France. It was supported by such diverse nations as Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and others, all in a grand collusion to divert attention from Stormy Daniels.

There are in fact some sane voices calling for a debate, now that hopefully this will go no further and we can come to some agreement on the President's ability to authorize military action.

BCC said:
The attack on Syria was joined by the UK and France. It was supported by such diverse nations as Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and others, all in a grand collusion to divert attention from Stormy Daniels. There are in fact some sane voices calling for a debate, now that hopefully this will go no further and we can come to some agreement on the President's ability to authorize military action.

There's not much room for debate on the President's authority to wage war in this case.  It is wholly unconstitutional.  The last time we commenced hostilities legally without a declaration of war of 12/7/1941.  And a declaration of war followed as soon as Congress could convene.

tjohn said:

BCC said:
The attack on Syria was joined by the UK and France. It was supported by such diverse nations as Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and others, all in a grand collusion to divert attention from Stormy Daniels. There are in fact some sane voices calling for a debate, now that hopefully this will go no further and we can come to some agreement on the President's ability to authorize military action.

There's not much room for debate on the President's authority to wage war in this case.  It is wholly unconstitutional.  The last time we commenced hostilities legally without a declaration of war of 12/7/1941.  And a declaration of war followed as soon as Congress could convene.

There seems to be at least some precedent for Presidents waging war without congressional approval...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-administration-libya-action-does-not-require-congressional-approval/2011/06/15/AGLttOWH_story.html?noredirect=on&utm_term=.6dd127cfc9b6

https://www.cfr.org/blog/obamas-final-drone-strike-data

There's plenty of precedent and none of it constitutional.

Plenty of precedent. That does not make it right. It is largely the fault of Congress for being too afraid to do its job, defaulting to the POTUS.

tjohn said:

There's plenty of precedent and none of it constitutional.

Unfortunately for you , Senator  Schumer, said the attack was appropriate. His concern was that we not get involved further in that mess.

ETA for correction

I’m no Trump fan but I think this action was reasonable. 

Question for the knee-jerk Trump haters who would criticize the way he walks down the street : did you support obama when he drew the “red line” regarding Syria using chemical weapons in 2012, but then let it slide afterwards?  

as with virtually all other geopolitical trouble spots, Syria is fragile and complex with no easy answers. I’m just wondering if people think Obama made better choices in this specific situation. I do not.

The problem with our actions is that we are not operating using anything resembling a consistent framework.  When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, instead of running a victory lap and acting as if we would be on top forever, we should have redoubled efforts to strengthen the framework of international law.  And the reason we need to do this is that while Russia will never eclipse us economically, China can and will.  And without a global framework, China will live by the golden rule and there will be less and less we can do about.

Meanwhile, the Syrian civil war will continue until Assad wins completely.

BCC said:

tjohn said:

There's plenty of precedent and none of it constitutional.

Unfortunately for you , Senator  Schumer, said the attack was appropriate. His concern was that we not get involved further in that mess. ETA for correction

You say that as if the words of Schumer have legal or moral standing.

tjohn said:

BCC said:

tjohn said:

There's plenty of precedent and none of it constitutional.

Unfortunately for you , Senator  Schumer, said the attack was appropriate. His concern was that we not get involved further in that mess. ETA for correction

You say that as if the words of Schumer have legal or moral standing.

Actually he says that as if you are a disciple or devotee of Schumer. Why should he think you care a wit about what Schumer says?

tjohn said:

BCC said:

tjohn said:

There's plenty of precedent and none of it constitutional.

First, what is a "knee-jerk Trump hater". Donald Trump is a despicable human being as anyone who has watched him over the last 30 years can objectively conclude. When a person has not done one meaningfully good thing in his life skepticism about anything he does is warranted.

I do not think there are many here on MOL who think Obama's actions regarding Syria were exemplary.  However I would refer you and everyone else to the OP-ED in today's NY Times by a research fellow of the libertarian Cato Institute. 

LOST, I’d define a knee-jerk Trump hater as someone whose loathing for Trump is such that that person is unable to detach that loathing from anything he does as president, and as a result every opinion or viewpoint on any issue is colored by the loathing. 

For example, if North Korea - US talks happen and go well and NK truly denuclearizes — a knee-jerk Trump hater would cite Stormy Daniels. If the US economy were to be strong for 4 or 8 years — a knee-jerk Trump hater would cite Trump’s response to Charlottesville. If trump   pressure results in China becoming a fairer trading partner — a knee-jerk trump hater would cite their opinion on the quality of his character (or lack thereof).

I believe there are a lot of knee-jerk trump haters on this board.  

I loathe Trump but I would give credit for all of those things although, with respect to the economy, the question does arise as to whether we are buying short term prosperity by ballooning our debt.

Smedley said:

LOST, I’d define a knee-jerk Trump hater as someone whose loathing for Trump is such that that person is unable to detach that loathing from anything he does as president, and as a result every opinion or viewpoint on any issue is colored by the loathing. 

For example, if North Korea - US talks happen and go well and NK truly denuclearizes — a knee-jerk Trump hater would cite Stormy Daniels. If the US economy were to be strong for 4 or 8 years — a knee-jerk Trump hater would cite Trump’s response to Charlottesville. If trump   pressure results in China becoming a fairer trading partner — a knee-jerk trump hater would cite their opinion on the quality of his character (or lack thereof).

I believe there are a lot of knee-jerk trump haters on this board.  

Smedley said:
I’m just wondering if people think Obama made better choices in this specific situation. I do not.

Yes. 

https://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/09/01/world/middleeast/syria.html

Frankly I would be surprised by any positive achievement by Trump. If it happens I will give credit but still despise him as I do Richard Nixon while allowing that his establishment of relations with China was a great accomplishment.

I understand that some have knee-jerk reactions to certain politicians. When, after many years of almost everyone saying that the capture or killing of Bin Laden was a monumentally important goal, Obama accomplished it the reaction from some quarters was "No big deal". Some of that was just partisan politics but much was "knee-jerk" antipathy.

If Hillary Clinton discovered an absolute cure for cancer how many would say "no big deal" or "she must have stolen the idea"?

LOST said:
Frankly I would be surprised by any positive achievement by Trump. If it happens I will give credit but still despise him as I do Richard Nixon while allowing that his establishment of relations with China was a great accomplishment.

And his creation of the EPA which has done so very much in cleaning our environment. I remember when one could not fish or swim in the Hudson and some rivers would at times alight with fires.

We now have the Orange Menace deconstructing the Nixon's EPA. How so very quickly we are regressing. 

I agree there are knee-jerk, visceral reactions to politicians on both sides. Unfortunately this seems to be a function of our increasingly polarized electorate. I think this ramped up with Bill Clinton and continued unabated through W, O, and now Trump.