It's on

[Seattle Husker]

From 2013:

Dear Mr. President,



We strongly urge you to consult and receive authorization from Congress before ordering the use of U.S. military force in Syria. Your responsibility to do so is prescribed in the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution of 1973.

While the Founders wisely gave the Office of the President the authority to act in emergencies, they foresaw the need to ensure public debate — and the active engagement of Congress — prior to committing U.S. military assets. 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.

Mr. President, in the case of military operations in Libya you stated that authorization from Congress was not required because our military was not engaged in “hostilities.” In addition, an April 1, 2011, memorandum to you from your Office of Legal Counsel concluded:

“…President Obama could rely on his constitutional power to safeguard the national interest by directing the anticipated military operations in Libya—which were limited in their nature, scope, and duration—without prior congressional authorization.”

We view the precedent this opinion sets, where “national interest” is enough to engage in hostilities without congressional authorization, as unconstitutional. If the use of 221 Tomahawk cruise missiles, 704 Joint Direct Attack Munitions, and 42 Predator Hellfire missiles expended in Libya does not constitute “hostilities,” what does?

If you deem that military action in Syria is necessary, Congress can reconvene at your request. We stand ready to come back into session, consider the facts before us, and share the burden of decisions made regarding U.S. involvement in the quickly escalating Syrian conflict.

Rep. Scott Rigell (VA-02) Republican Rep. Matt Salmon (AZ-05) Republican Rep. Mo Brooks (AL-05) Republican Rep. Scott Garrett (NJ-05) Republican Rep. Tom McClintock (CA-04) Republican Rep. Tom Marino (PA-10) Republican Rep. Dan Benishek (MI-01) Republican Rep. Tom Rooney (FL-17) Republican Rep. Steve Pearce (NM-02) Republican Rep. Tim Griffin (AR-2) Republican Rep. Justin Amash (MI-03) Republican Rep. Raul Labrador (ID-01) Republican Rep. Joseph Pitts (PA-16) Republican Rep. Trent Franks (AZ-08) Republican Rep. John Campbell (CA-45) Republican Rep. Paul Gosar (AZ-04) Republican Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (GA-03) Republican Rep. Joe Wilson (SC-02) Republican Rep. Charles Boustany (LA-03) Republican Rep. Tom Cole (OK-04) Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert (TX-01) Republican Rep. Austin Scott (GA-08) Republican Rep. Bill Posey (FL-8) Republican Rep. Randy Forbes (VA-04) Republican Rep. Phil Gingrey (GA-11) Republican Rep. David Roe (TN-01) Republican Rep. Mark Sanford (SC-01) Republican Rep. John J. Duncan, Jr. (TN-02) Republican Rep. Reid Ribble (WI-08) Republican Rep. James Lankford (OK-05) Republican Rep. Bill Cassidy (LA-06) Republican Rep. Stephen Fincher (TN-08) Republican Rep. Trey Radel (FL-19) Republican Rep. Chris Stewart (UT-02) Republican Rep. Lynn Jenkins (KS-02) Republican Rep. Jeff Duncan (SC-03) Republican Rep. David McKinley (WV-01) Republican Rep. Gus Bilirakis (Fl-12) Republican Rep. Joseph Heck (NV-03) Republican Rep. Dennis Ross (FL-15) Republican Rep. Billy Long (MO-07) Republican Rep. Randy Hultgren (IL-14) Republican Rep. Steven Palazzo (MS-04) Republican Rep. Kevin Yoder (KS-03) Republican Rep. Doug Collins(GA-09) Republican Rep. Michael Fitzpatrick (PA-08) Republican Rep. Beto O’Rourke (TX-16) Democrat Rep. Zoe Lofgren (CA-19) Democrat Rep. Peter DeFazio (OR-04) Democrat Rep. Kurt Schrader (OR-5) Democrat Rep. Rush Holt (NJ-12) Democrat Rep. William Enyart (IL-12) Democrat Rep. Timothy Walz (MN-01) Democrat Rep. Christopher Gibson (NY-19) Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy (SC-04) Republican Rep. Frank Wolf (VA-10) Republican Rep. Michael Capuano (MA-07) Democrat Rep. Michael Simpson (ID-02) Republican Rep. Michael McCaul (TX-10) Republican Rep. Thomas E. Petri (WI-06) Republican Rep. Robert Pittenger (NC-09) Republican Rep. Walter Jones (NC-03) Republican Rep. Tom Latham (IA-04) Republican Rep. Richard Nolan (MN-08) Democrat Rep. Jim McDermott (WA-07) Democrat Rep. Kerry Bentivolio (MI-11) Republican Rep. Mike Coffman (CO-06) Republican Rep. Sean Duffy (WI-07) Republican Rep. Bruce Braley (IA-01) Democrat Rep. Morgan Griffith (VA-09) Republican Rep. Brad Wenstrup (OH-02) Republican Rep. Mark Amodei (NV-02) Republican Rep. Roger Williams (TX-25) Republican Rep. Doug LaMalfa (CA-01) Republican Rep. Brett Guthrie (KY-02) Republican Rep. Sam Farr (CA-20) Democrat Rep. Steve Daines (MT) Republican Rep. Robert Hurt (VA-05) Republican Rep. Steve Southerland, II (FL-2) Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann (MN-06) Republican Rep. Ralph Hall (TX-04) Republican Rep. Randy Neugebauer (TX-19) Republican Rep. Robert Wittman (VA-01) Republican Rep. Anna Eshoo (CA-18) Democrat Rep. David Schweikert (AZ-06) Republican Rep. Todd Rokita (IN-4) Republican Rep. David Loebsack (IA-02) Democrat Rep. Scott Tipton (CO-03) Republican Rep. Frank LoBiondo (NJ-02) Republican Rep. Earl Blumenauer (OR-03) Democrat Rep. Sam Johnson (TX-03) Republican Rep. Tom Price (GA-06) Republican Rep. Mark Meadows (NC-11) Republican Rep. Paul Broun (GA-10) Republican Rep. Markwayne Mullin (OK-02) Republican Rep. Steve Stockman (TX-36) Republican Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner (WI-05) Republican Rep. Chris Collins (NY-27) Republican Rep. Diane Black (TN-06) Republican Rep. Daniel Webster (FL-10) Republican Rep. Peter Welch (VT) Democrat Rep. Lou Barletta (PA-11) Republican Rep. Tim Murphy (PA-18) Republican Rep. Gregg Harper (MS-03) Republican Rep. Jim Jordan (OH-04) Republican Rep. Ted S. Yoho (FL-03) Republican Rep. Bill Flores (TX-17) Republican Rep. Michael Burgess (TX-26) Republican Rep. Jim Matheson (UT-04) Democrat Rep. Cory Gardner (CO-04) Republican Rep. Alan Nunnelee (MS-01) Republican Rep. Jason Smith (MO-08) Republican Rep. Charles Fleischmann (TN-03) Republican Rep. Tim Walberg (MI-07) Republican Rep. Marsha Blackburn (TN-07) Republican Rep. Collin Peterson (MN-7) Democrat

- See more at: http://www.rollcall.com/news/policy/87-house-members-sign-syria-letter-to-obama#sthash.TwiV6puI.dpuf

At the time I thought the Obama administration simply wanted CYA, knowing there was no support for military action in Syria. I don't really believe that Obama wanted any part of Syria or he would have followed a course more like Libya. Of course, Libya didn't have Russian military assets there as a shield.

Still, Congress is on record as explicitly prohibiting military action in 2013 thus it's pretty hypocritical to now criticize the Obama administration for not taking action then. If Trump and company want to blame anyone...blame Congress. The same ones that are in power now were in power then.

 

[Seattle Husker]

From 2013:

Dear Mr. President,



We strongly urge you to consult and receive authorization from Congress before ordering the use of U.S. military force in Syria. Your responsibility to do so is prescribed in the Constitution and the War Powers Resolution of 1973.

While the Founders wisely gave the Office of the President the authority to act in emergencies, they foresaw the need to ensure public debate — and the active engagement of Congress — prior to committing U.S. military assets. 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.

Mr. President, in the case of military operations in Libya you stated that authorization from Congress was not required because our military was not engaged in “hostilities.” In addition, an April 1, 2011, memorandum to you from your Office of Legal Counsel concluded:

“…President Obama could rely on his constitutional power to safeguard the national interest by directing the anticipated military operations in Libya—which were limited in their nature, scope, and duration—without prior congressional authorization.”

We view the precedent this opinion sets, where “national interest” is enough to engage in hostilities without congressional authorization, as unconstitutional. If the use of 221 Tomahawk cruise missiles, 704 Joint Direct Attack Munitions, and 42 Predator Hellfire missiles expended in Libya does not constitute “hostilities,” what does?

If you deem that military action in Syria is necessary, Congress can reconvene at your request. We stand ready to come back into session, consider the facts before us, and share the burden of decisions made regarding U.S. involvement in the quickly escalating Syrian conflict.

Rep. Scott Rigell (VA-02) Republican Rep. Matt Salmon (AZ-05) Republican Rep. Mo Brooks (AL-05) Republican Rep. Scott Garrett (NJ-05) Republican Rep. Tom McClintock (CA-04) Republican Rep. Tom Marino (PA-10) Republican Rep. Dan Benishek (MI-01) Republican Rep. Tom Rooney (FL-17) Republican Rep. Steve Pearce (NM-02) Republican Rep. Tim Griffin (AR-2) Republican Rep. Justin Amash (MI-03) Republican Rep. Raul Labrador (ID-01) Republican Rep. Joseph Pitts (PA-16) Republican Rep. Trent Franks (AZ-08) Republican Rep. John Campbell (CA-45) Republican Rep. Paul Gosar (AZ-04) Republican Rep. Lynn Westmoreland (GA-03) Republican Rep. Joe Wilson (SC-02) Republican Rep. Charles Boustany (LA-03) Republican Rep. Tom Cole (OK-04) Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert (TX-01) Republican Rep. Austin Scott (GA-08) Republican Rep. Bill Posey (FL-8) Republican Rep. Randy Forbes (VA-04) Republican Rep. Phil Gingrey (GA-11) Republican Rep. David Roe (TN-01) Republican Rep. Mark Sanford (SC-01) Republican Rep. John J. Duncan, Jr. (TN-02) Republican Rep. Reid Ribble (WI-08) Republican Rep. James Lankford (OK-05) Republican Rep. Bill Cassidy (LA-06) Republican Rep. Stephen Fincher (TN-08) Republican Rep. Trey Radel (FL-19) Republican Rep. Chris Stewart (UT-02) Republican Rep. Lynn Jenkins (KS-02) Republican Rep. Jeff Duncan (SC-03) Republican Rep. David McKinley (WV-01) Republican Rep. Gus Bilirakis (Fl-12) Republican Rep. Joseph Heck (NV-03) Republican Rep. Dennis Ross (FL-15) Republican Rep. Billy Long (MO-07) Republican Rep. Randy Hultgren (IL-14) Republican Rep. Steven Palazzo (MS-04) Republican Rep. Kevin Yoder (KS-03) Republican Rep. Doug Collins(GA-09) Republican Rep. Michael Fitzpatrick (PA-08) Republican Rep. Beto O’Rourke (TX-16) Democrat Rep. Zoe Lofgren (CA-19) Democrat Rep. Peter DeFazio (OR-04) Democrat Rep. Kurt Schrader (OR-5) Democrat Rep. Rush Holt (NJ-12) Democrat Rep. William Enyart (IL-12) Democrat Rep. Timothy Walz (MN-01) Democrat Rep. Christopher Gibson (NY-19) Republican Rep. Trey Gowdy (SC-04) Republican Rep. Frank Wolf (VA-10) Republican Rep. Michael Capuano (MA-07) Democrat Rep. Michael Simpson (ID-02) Republican Rep. Michael McCaul (TX-10) Republican Rep. Thomas E. Petri (WI-06) Republican Rep. Robert Pittenger (NC-09) Republican Rep. Walter Jones (NC-03) Republican Rep. Tom Latham (IA-04) Republican Rep. Richard Nolan (MN-08) Democrat Rep. Jim McDermott (WA-07) Democrat Rep. Kerry Bentivolio (MI-11) Republican Rep. Mike Coffman (CO-06) Republican Rep. Sean Duffy (WI-07) Republican Rep. Bruce Braley (IA-01) Democrat Rep. Morgan Griffith (VA-09) Republican Rep. Brad Wenstrup (OH-02) Republican Rep. Mark Amodei (NV-02) Republican Rep. Roger Williams (TX-25) Republican Rep. Doug LaMalfa (CA-01) Republican Rep. Brett Guthrie (KY-02) Republican Rep. Sam Farr (CA-20) Democrat Rep. Steve Daines (MT) Republican Rep. Robert Hurt (VA-05) Republican Rep. Steve Southerland, II (FL-2) Republican Rep. Michele Bachmann (MN-06) Republican Rep. Ralph Hall (TX-04) Republican Rep. Randy Neugebauer (TX-19) Republican Rep. Robert Wittman (VA-01) Republican Rep. Anna Eshoo (CA-18) Democrat Rep. David Schweikert (AZ-06) Republican Rep. Todd Rokita (IN-4) Republican Rep. David Loebsack (IA-02) Democrat Rep. Scott Tipton (CO-03) Republican Rep. Frank LoBiondo (NJ-02) Republican Rep. Earl Blumenauer (OR-03) Democrat Rep. Sam Johnson (TX-03) Republican Rep. Tom Price (GA-06) Republican Rep. Mark Meadows (NC-11) Republican Rep. Paul Broun (GA-10) Republican Rep. Markwayne Mullin (OK-02) Republican Rep. Steve Stockman (TX-36) Republican Rep. F. James Sensenbrenner (WI-05) Republican Rep. Chris Collins (NY-27) Republican Rep. Diane Black (TN-06) Republican Rep. Daniel Webster (FL-10) Republican Rep. Peter Welch (VT) Democrat Rep. Lou Barletta (PA-11) Republican Rep. Tim Murphy (PA-18) Republican Rep. Gregg Harper (MS-03) Republican Rep. Jim Jordan (OH-04) Republican Rep. Ted S. Yoho (FL-03) Republican Rep. Bill Flores (TX-17) Republican Rep. Michael Burgess (TX-26) Republican Rep. Jim Matheson (UT-04) Democrat Rep. Cory Gardner (CO-04) Republican Rep. Alan Nunnelee (MS-01) Republican Rep. Jason Smith (MO-08) Republican Rep. Charles Fleischmann (TN-03) Republican Rep. Tim Walberg (MI-07) Republican Rep. Marsha Blackburn (TN-07) Republican Rep. Collin Peterson (MN-7) Democrat

- See more at: http://www.rollcall.com/news/policy/87-house-members-sign-syria-letter-to-obama#sthash.TwiV6puI.dpuf

Time to call out the hyperpartisans from that letter in 2013:

Rep Mike McCaul (TEX) said this today:

Rep. Michael McCaul, the chairman of the House Homeland Security committee, said the strikes "are a signal to the world that the days of blank threats are long gone and under this administration credibility will be restored."

Of course, I'm sure there are also some Democrats that also have reversed course.

 

[OUBubba]

At the time I thought the Obama administration simply wanted CYA, knowing there was no support for military action in Syria. I don't really believe that Obama wanted any part of Syria or he would have followed a course more like Libya. Of course, Libya didn't have Russian military assets there as a shield.

Still, Congress is on record as explicitly prohibiting military action in 2013 thus it's pretty hypocritical to now criticize the Obama administration for not taking action then. If Trump and company want to blame anyone...blame Congress. The same ones that are in power now were in power then.

 

[I35]

So were you on board with going into Rwanda? I don't remember you supporting action against Assad after the first chemical attack. Why is that?

Wow!!! Let's not talk about the substance if the move was right or wrong from last night and argue if I quoted you right or discuss that you didn't see if I was on board with Rwanda when I wasn't even on Hornfans when Clinton was President.

Just keep your desire in keeping America a pussification nation and listen to all the snowflakes whine that we will be starting a war now. Most everyone agrees that this was a great move that had to be done.

 

[Musburger1]

Wow!!! Let's not talk about the substance if the move was right or wrong from last night and argue if I quoted you right or discuss that you didn't see if I was on board with Rwanda when I wasn't even on Hornfans when Clinton was President.

Just keep your desire in keeping America a pussification nation and listen to all the snowflakes whine that we will be starting a war now. Most everyone agrees that this was a great move that had to be done.

Sounds like the words of a true chicken hawk. Let's show how tough we are as long as I'm in front of the TV and not on the front line.

 

[BevoBeef]

I do think that "It's ON", .... but there is something going on besides a war against Syria (Russia) and a protest against chemical warfare being inhumane. There is some suspicious timing that is happening. Trump has been intent in the first 100 days to keep some key promises that he made during the campaign. One of those promises was to wipe out ISIS. The key question is "How do you do that?" Also, one of the things that I have come to believe about Trump is that he is a master at distracting you. In deal making he tends to come from several directions at the same time in order to confuse the person making a deal so that it is not clear what Trump will compromise upon. Look at what has happened.

1. To wipe out ISIS, you have to attack them in Syria and not let them them keep a base of operations there after they have been pushed out of Iraq. That means that you have to drive them out of towns and populated centers while they do not have an escape route into Iraq. Their hope for a caliphate has to disappear.

2. He gives an order for our generals to come up with a plan in 30 days to accomplish that goal. That 30 days is now over from that undiscussed piece of news.

3. He sends out some dumb tweet about being wiretapped by Obama. That soaks up all the air and focus by the MSM while troop movements are happening within Syria. In the last 30 days he has sent in airborne, Rangers, and Marines to help in Syria to dislodge ISIS from one of the key occupied towns. At the same time US soldiers are becoming more intimately involved in the ground fighting in Iraq. Trump has done this without drawing news attention that he is increasing US ground troops in Syria.

4. Within 24 hours Trump has created sympathetic news from some of our normally allied countries. By the missiles coming from two destroyers, Trump has drawn some key focus of attention by the Russian and Assad's military towards the west and the Med. sea. What do you think will come next while their missile defense is concentrated more towards that direction?

5. The media has said that there are 1K US troops in Syria and 6K US troops in Iraq. I would bet that is increasing as we speak -- probably more going into Syria in order to help isolate about 3 key towns. One of our major concerns now is the protection of US forces that are in Syria . You do that by controlling the air and not allowing the enemy to out-flank you (with more of our own soldiers). Now look for more air flights by our bombers towards the targeted population centers. Start to identify where the key destination is for our bombers and see what ground forces are surrounding those areas. Our military will have to flush out the "quail" from their concentrated deployment and out in the open so that our jet fighters can effectively make them "disappear".

 

[UTChE96]

It's hard to see a good outcome for us in Syria. It would be nice to hear an end game strategy articulated by the administration.

 

[djimaplon]

listen to all the snowflakes whine that we will be starting a war now.

When did the Alt right become snowflakes? They seem to be doing all the whining. Infowars turning on the Donald True to form, Alex ringing the false flag alarm bells.

 

[OUBubba]

I do think that "It's ON", .... but there is something going on besides a war against Syria (Russia) and a protest against chemical warfare being inhumane. There is some suspicious timing that is happening. Trump has been intent in the first 100 days to keep some key promises that he made during the campaign. One of those promises was to wipe out ISIS. The key question is "How do you do that?" Also, one of the things that I have come to believe about Trump is that he is a master at distracting you. In deal making he tends to come from several directions at the same time in order to confuse the person making a deal so that it is not clear what Trump will compromise upon. Look at what has happened.

1. To wipe out ISIS, you have to attack them in Syria and not let them them keep a base of operations there after they have been pushed out of Iraq. That means that you have to drive them out of towns and populated centers while they do not have an escape route into Iraq. Their hope for a caliphate has to disappear.

2. He gives an order for our generals to come up with a plan in 30 days to accomplish that goal. That 30 days is now over from that undiscussed piece of news.

3. He sends out some dumb tweet about being wiretapped by Obama. That soaks up all the air and focus by the MSM while troop movements are happening within Syria. In the last 30 days he has sent in airborne, Rangers, and Marines to help in Syria to dislodge ISIS from one of the key occupied towns. At the same time US soldiers are becoming more intimately involved in the ground fighting in Iraq. Trump has done this without drawing news attention that he is increasing US ground troops in Syria.

4. Within 24 hours Trump has created sympathetic news from some of our normally allied countries. By the missiles coming from two destroyers, Trump has drawn some key focus of attention by the Russian and Assad's military towards the west and the Med. sea. What do you think will come next while their missile defense is concentrated more towards that direction?

5. The media has said that there are 1K US troops in Syria and 6K US troops in Iraq. I would bet that is increasing as we speak -- probably more going into Syria in order to help isolate about 3 key towns. One of our major concerns now is the protection of US forces that are in Syria . You do that by controlling the air and not allowing the enemy to out-flank you (with more of our own soldiers). Now look for more air flights by our bombers towards the targeted population centers. Start to identify where the key destination is for our bombers and see what ground forces are surrounding those areas. Our military will have to flush out the "quail" from their concentrated deployment and out in the open so that our jet fighters can effectively make them "disappear".

From your fingertips to God's ear. I hope he's crazy like a fox, and not just crazy. In my podcasts that I listen to John McCain was nothing short of gushing over his military/national security selections. That meant a lot to a lefty like me.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Wow!!! Let's not talk about the substance if the move was right or wrong from last night and argue if I quoted you right or discuss that you didn't see if I was on board with Rwanda when I wasn't even on Hornfans when Clinton was President.

So what if you were on Hornfans? The point is that you're applying a rationale for this action that you'd never apply consistently, and if you did we'd be at war every day. That's why it can't be the sole rationale for war.

And the substance of the move can't be discussed in detail because nobody knows what the plan is. That hasn't been shared with us.

Just keep your desire in keeping America a pussification nation and listen to all the snowflakes whine that we will be starting a war now. Most everyone agrees that this was a great move that had to be done.

Pussification? We're not in a sports bar arguing over cock size. We're talking about acts of war and American lives on the line. Not sending them into a danger zone without a good reason and without careful deliberation doesn't make one a *****. It makes one a mature adult who considers the consequences of his actions.

 

[Statalyzer]

The question is not if, in a vacuum, gassing civilians is something bad that should be stopped. We all agree: it ought to be. The real issue is if we should be intervening even more aggressively on behalf of al Qaeda in Syria under the legal authority of an act of Congress declaring war on al Qaeda 16 years ago?"

When are we going to learn?! STOP ALLYING WITH BAD GUY #1 JUST BECAUSE HE IS LESS BAD THAT BAD GUY #2 OR BECAUSE BAD GUY #1 IS MORE PRO-USA THAN THE OTHER. Follow this and not only will less of the world hate us and we'll breed fewer terrorists, but we'll stop funding people who later use that funding to fight us.

The governor of the province we stuck,said that the strikes serve the goals of armed terrorist groups and ISIS, and will fail to change leadership or policy.

Our arms sales to Gulf allies and training/arming of jihadi groups to fight Assad have found their way into ISIS hands - for example, they have supply lines from the Saudis who buys weapons galore from us. Our foolishness in training and arming the Iraqi army as well as the destruction of Libya provided ISIS with much of their arsenal. It doesn't make sense to risk lives fighting an enemy when at the same time you are implementing policy that strengthens that same enemy.

I'm just addressing this action which was a minimal, proportional response to make a statement.

That's the part of the problem. We should either be at war, or not. Our string of half-assed "minimal proportional responses" have continued to mostly not accomplish anything except to help delude Team America World Police supporters into thinking you can just go from peace to war to peace and back as long as you fire a few missiles or drop a few bombs and then stop and say it's over now.

Ok first off he struck airfields and runways. Just that alone has us leaving the pussification that we had become the last 8 years.

We haven't been in multiple undeclared wars the past 8 years?

We had to send a message to help protect the women and children of Syria. That can't be tolerated.

We aren't protecting anyone. We have decades of history that says this. If we were actually stopping civilians from being murdered, and if this followed the proper Constitutional channels, I'd be all for it.

This move probably just prevented future aggressions against us.

The explanation is simple and just...in addition to chemical attacks grossly violating international law, we have troops on the ground in Syria and future usage of such weapons places them in grave danger.

That's such circular logic. We put troops into a volatile situation that warrants protecting them, and then we take military action because the troops are in a volatile situation.

It's almost like we needed to be able to have a "But we're actually doing this to protect OURSELVES" out since we're aware that people are mistreated and killed all over the earth, and so "we're stopping bad guys from killing people" by itself doesn't justify why we're messing around in this one at this time.

If we were really protecting ourselves and doing this in the name of national security, we'd stop taking actions that first fuel the fires of anti-US terrorists and then help those same forces gets supplies and armaments.

 

[Mr. Deez]

The question is not if, in a vacuum, gassing civilians is something bad that should be stopped. We all agree: it ought to be. The real issue is if we should be intervening even more aggressively on behalf of al Qaeda in Syria under the legal authority of an act of Congress declaring war on al Qaeda 16 years ago?"

That's the part of the problem. We should either be at war, or not. Our string of half-assed "minimal proportional responses" have continued to mostly not accomplish anything except to help delude Team America World Police supporters into thinking you can just go from peace to war to peace and back as long as you fire a few missiles or drop a few bombs and then stop and say it's over now.



We haven't been in multiple undeclared wars the past 8 years?



We aren't protecting anyone. We have decades of history that says this. If were actually stopping civilians from being murdered, and if this followed the proper Constitutional channels, I'd be all for it.




That's such circular logic. We put troops into a volatile situation that warrants protecting them, and then we take military action because the troops are in a volatile situation.

It's almost like we needed to be able to have a "But we're actually doing this to protect OURSELVES" out since we're aware that people are mistreated and killed all over the earth, and so "we're stopping bad guys from killing people" by itself doesn't justify why we're messing around in this one at this time.

Stat, you're thinking too much. Don't be a *****. Just bomb stuff.

 

[4th_floor]

From 2013:

Dear Mr. President,

............
- See more at: http://www.rollcall.com/news/policy/87-house-members-sign-syria-letter-to-obama#sthash.TwiV6puI.dpuf

Obama could have acted without Congress, just as Trump did. But he didn't have the stones to do it.

 

[Statalyzer]

Obama did act without Congress plenty of times. For neither Trump nor Obama does it have anything to do with "having stones". I guess Mr Deez's last comment wasn't even parody, it was more of a copy-and-paste.

 

[4th_floor]

Obama did act without Congress plenty of times, just not in Syria. For neither Trump nor Obama does it have anything to do with "having stones". I guess Mr Deez's last comment wasn't even parody, it was more of a copy-and-paste.

If Obama hadn't drawn the "line in the sand" about chemical weapons, I wouldn't accuse him of being "stoneless". But he did and he is.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I guess Mr Deez's last comment wasn't even parody, it was more of a copy-and-paste.

The nutty thing about it is that I'm not totally against the strike. I'm just asking for an explanation of our rationale and the game plan. And apparently that makes me a contributor to the nation's "pussification."

 

[Musburger1]

Radio Interview yesterday prior to cruise missile response:

https://www.libertarianinstitute.or...i-says-ic-military-doubt-assad-gas-narrative/

Philip Giraldi, former CIA officer and Director of the Council for the National Interest, says that “military and intelligence personnel,” “intimately familiar” with the intelligence, say that the narrative that Assad or Russia did it is a “sham,” instead endorsing the Russian narrative that Assad’s forces had bombed a storage facility. Giraldi’s intelligence sources are “astonished” about the government and media narrative and are considering going public out of concern over the danger of worse war there. Giraldi also observes that the Assad regime had no motive to do such a thing at this time.​

 

[Musburger1]

Robert Parry on his sources:
https://consortiumnews.com/2017/04/07/trumps-wag-the-dog-moment/

By Robert Parry

Just two days after news broke of an alleged poison-gas attack in northern Syria, President Trump brushed aside advice from some U.S. intelligence analysts doubting the Syrian regime’s guilt and launched a lethal retaliatory missile strike against a Syrian airfield.


The guided-missile destroyer USS Porter conducts strike operations while in the Mediterranean Sea, April 7, 2017. (Navy photo by Petty Officer 3rd Class Ford Williams)

Trump immediately won plaudits from Official Washington, especially from neoconservatives who have been trying to wrestle control of his foreign policy away from his nationalist and personal advisers since the days after his surprise victory on Nov. 8.

There is also an internal dispute over the intelligence. On Thursday night, Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said the U.S. intelligence community assessed with a “high degree of confidence” that the Syrian government had dropped a poison gas bomb on civilians in Idlib province.

But a number of intelligence sources have made contradictory assessments, saying the preponderance of evidence suggests that Al Qaeda-affiliated rebels were at fault, either by orchestrating an intentional release of a chemical agent as a provocation or by possessing containers of poison gas that ruptured during a conventional bombing raid.

One intelligence source told me that the most likely scenario was a staged event by the rebels intended to force Trump to reverse a policy, announced only days earlier, that the U.S. government would no longer seek “regime change” in Syria and would focus on attacking the common enemy, Islamic terror groups that represent the core of the rebel forces.

The source said the Trump national security team split between the President’s close personal advisers, such as nationalist firebrand Steve Bannon and son-in-law Jared Kushner, on one side and old-line neocons who have regrouped under National Security Adviser H.R. McMaster, an Army general who was a protégé of neocon favorite Gen. David Petraeus.

White House Infighting

In this telling, the earlier ouster of retired Gen. Michael Flynn as national security adviser and this week’s removal of Bannon from the National Security Council were key steps in the reassertion of neocon influence inside the Trump presidency. The strange personalities and ideological extremism of Flynn and Bannon made their ousters easier, but they were obstacles that the neocons wanted removed.

Though Bannon and Kushner are often presented as rivals, the source said, they shared the belief that Trump should tell the truth about Syria, revealing the Obama administration’s CIA analysis that a fatal sarin gas attack in 2013 was a “false-flag” operation intended to sucker President Obama into fully joining the Syrian war on the side of the rebels — and the intelligence analysts’ similar beliefs about Tuesday’s incident.

Instead, Trump went along with the idea of embracing the initial rush to judgment blaming Assad for the Idlib poison-gas event. The source added that Trump saw Thursday night’s missile assault as a way to change the conversation in Washington, where his administration has been under fierce attack from Democrats claiming that his election resulted from a Russian covert operation.

If changing the narrative was Trump’s goal, it achieved some initial success with several of Trump’s fiercest neocon critics, such as neocon Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham, praising the missile strike, as did Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. The neocons and Israel have long sought “regime change” in Damascus even if the ouster of Assad might lead to a victory by Islamic extremists associated with Al Qaeda and/or the Islamic State.

Wagging the Dog

Trump employing a “wag the dog” strategy, in which he highlights his leadership on an international crisis to divert attention from domestic political problems, is reminiscent of President Bill Clinton’s decision to attack Serbia in 1999 as impeachment clouds were building around his sexual relationship with intern Monica Lewinsky.


President Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu at joint press conference on Feb. 15. 2017. (Screen shot from Whitehouse.gov)

Trump’s advisers, in briefing the press on Thursday night, went to great lengths to highlight Trump’s compassion toward the victims of the poison gas and his decisiveness in bombing Assad’s military in contrast to Obama’s willingness to allow the intelligence community to conduct a serious review of the evidence surrounding the 2013 sarin-gas case.

Ultimately, Obama listened to his intelligence advisers who told him there was no “slam-dunk” evidence implicating Assad’s regime and he pulled back from a military strike at the last minute – while publicly maintaining the fiction that the U.S. government was certain of Assad’s guilt.

In both cases – 2013 and 2017 – there were strong reasons to doubt Assad’s responsibility. In 2013, he had just invited United Nations inspectors into Syria to investigate cases of alleged rebel use of chemical weapons and thus it made no sense that he would launch a sarin attack in the Damascus suburbs, guaranteeing that the U.N. inspectors would be diverted to that case.

Similarly, now, Assad’s military has gained a decisive advantage over the rebels and he had just scored a major diplomatic victory with the Trump administration’s announcement that the U.S. was no longer seeking “regime change” in Syria. The savvy Assad would know that a chemical weapon attack now would likely result in U.S. retaliation and jeopardize the gains that his military has achieved with Russian and Iranian help.

The counter-argument to this logic – made by The New York Times and other neocon-oriented news outlets – essentially maintains that Assad is a crazed barbarian who was testing out his newfound position of strength by baiting President Trump. Of course, if that were the case, it would have made sense that Assad would have boasted of his act, rather than deny it.

But logic and respect for facts no longer prevail inside Official Washington, nor inside the mainstream U.S. news media.

Intelligence Uprising

Alarm within the U.S. intelligence community about Trump’s hasty decision to attack Syria reverberated from the Middle East back to Washington, where former CIA officer Philip Giraldi reported hearing from his intelligence contacts in the field that they were shocked at how the new poison-gas story was being distorted by Trump and the mainstream U.S. news media.


Former CIA officer Philip Giradi. (Photo credit: Gage Skidmore)

Giraldi told Scott Horton’s Webcast: “I’m hearing from sources on the ground in the Middle East, people who are intimately familiar with the intelligence that is available who are saying that the essential narrative that we’re all hearing about the Syrian government or the Russians using chemical weapons on innocent civilians is a sham.”

Giraldi said his sources were more in line with an analysis postulating an accidental release of the poison gas after an Al Qaeda arms depot was hit by a Russian airstrike.

“The intelligence confirms pretty much the account that the Russians have been giving … which is that they hit a warehouse where the rebels – now these are rebels that are, of course, connected with Al Qaeda – where the rebels were storing chemicals of their own and it basically caused an explosion that resulted in the casualties. Apparently the intelligence on this is very clear.”

Giraldi said the anger within the intelligence community over the distortion of intelligence to justify Trump’s military retaliation was so great that some covert officers were considering going public.

“People in both the agency [the CIA] and in the military who are aware of the intelligence are freaking out about this because essentially Trump completely misrepresented what he already should have known – but maybe he didn’t – and they’re afraid that this is moving toward a situation that could easily turn into an armed conflict,” Giraldi said before Thursday night’s missile strike. “They are astonished by how this is being played by the administration and by the U.S. media.”

One-Sided Coverage

The mainstream U.S. media has presented the current crisis with the same profound neocon bias that has infected the coverage of Syria and the larger Middle East for decades. For instance, The New York Times on Friday published a lead story by Michael R. Gordon and Michael D. Shear that treated the Syrian government’s responsibility for the poison-gas incident as flat-fact. The lengthy story did not even deign to include the denials from Syria and Russia that they were responsible for any intentional deployment of poison gas.


The Arleigh Burke-class guided-missile destroyer USS Ross fires a tomahawk land attack missile from the Mediterranean Sea, April 7, 2017. (Navy photo by Petty Officer 3rd Class Robert S. Price)

The article also fit with Trump’s desire that he be portrayed as a decisive and forceful leader. He is depicted as presiding over intense deliberations of war or peace and displaying a deep humanitarianism regarding the poison-gas victims, one of the rare moments when the Times, which has become a reliable neocon propaganda sheet, has written anything favorable about Trump at all.

According to Syrian reports on Friday, the U.S. attack killed 13 people, including five soldiers at the airbase.

Gordon, whose service to the neocon cause is notorious, was the lead author with Judith Miller of the Times’ bogus “aluminum tube” story in 2002 which falsely claimed that Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was reconstituting a nuclear-weapons program, an article that was then cited by President George W. Bush’s aides as a key argument for invading Iraq in 2003.

Regarding this week’s events, Trump’s desperation to reverse his negative media coverage and the dubious evidence blaming Assad for the Idlib incident could fit with the “Wag the Dog” movie from 1997 in which an embattled president creates a phony foreign crisis in Albania.


A fake war scene in the dark 1997 comedy “Wag the Dog,” which showed a girl and her cat fleeing a bombardment in Albania.

In the movie, the White House operation is a cynical psychological operation to convince the American people that innocent Albanian children, including an attractive girl carrying a cat, are in danger when, In reality, the girl was an actor posing before a green screen that allowed scenes of fiery ruins to be inserted as background.

Today, because Trump and his administration are now committed to convincing Americans that Assad really was responsible for Tuesday’s poison-gas tragedy, the prospects for a full and open investigation are effectively ended. We may never know if there is truth to those allegations or whether we are being manipulated by another “wag the dog” psyop.

 

[I35]

The nutty thing about it is that I'm not totally against the strike. I'm just asking for an explanation of our rationale and the game plan. And apparently that makes me a contributor to the nation's "pussificmyation."

And the back tracking begins. Why do you want everyone to know our plan? I like it better when the enemy doesn't know our next step. I would be completely comfortable if our Admin not tell Mr Deez what our next step is.

 

[Joe Fan]

This is the one question that must be answered. To express it another way, what is the endgame? It is incumbent on you to have one......

I noticed no one here answered this
Again, what is the endgame?
Tillerson said regime change. I am dubious. But, OK, lets say that happens, then what? If we have learned anything in the last 15 years, it should be that this question must always be answered before you jump

 

[Musburger1]

And the back tracking begins. Why do you want everyone to know our plan? I like it better when the enemy doesn't know our next step. I would be completely comfortable if our Admin not tell Mr Deez what our next step is.

I noticed no one here answered this
Again, what is the endgame?
Tillerson said regime change. I am dubious. But, OK, lets say that happens, then what? If we have learned anything in the last 15 years, it should be that this question must always be answered before you jump

No one in government has communicated an end game, nor will they, so we are left to deduce for ourselves. It's not difficult.

1. Take as much control of Syria as possible. This allows for gas pipelines to be constructed which would monetarily benefit our Sunni partners as well as Israel and perhaps a few American corporations. As a bonus it reduces the European energy market now dominated by Russia.

2. Second, would be to gain an even larger military footprint in the Middle East. Any sovereign country that acts independently of the United States is a potential threat and needs to be taken down. If Russia is too big to take down, maybe Iran is not.

I think that's about it. There are no other significant goals. ISIS and other radicals are a tool used to implement these goals and then to be discarded once they are either of no use or become to dangerous to keep around. Humanitarian concern was never an issue; just another excuse mechanism we use to justify policy.

 

[Joe Fan]

...1. Take as much control of Syria as possible. This allows for gas pipelines to be constructed which would monetarily benefit our Sunni partners as well as Israel and perhaps a few American corporations. ......

Maybe Europeans care about this, but hardly an issue or motivation for the US to go to war. In fact, the US wants to be an exporter of natty gas itself now, thus, in this light, such a move would be against our own interest. If you will recall, lots of people pimped this sort of conspiracy before and during Iraq. Was never true, as should be clear by now to even the thickest among us. You are going to have to do better than that

 

[Mr. Deez]

And the back tracking begins. Why do you want everyone to know our plan? I like it better when the enemy doesn't know our next step. I would be completely comfortable if our Admin not tell Mr Deez what our next step is.

It's not a back track. I can be sold on the operation depending on what that plan is. And don't be a tool. I'm not expecting specific details. I'm asking for the basics - like we've received in most wars we've engaged in the past. And let's cut the crap. You'd never be this deferential to a Democratic administration. You'd expect similar information.

I'd like to know why we're so sure Assad did this when it was absurdly against his interests to do so. Once we've established that he did (which might make him the dumbest political leader in the history of civilization), I want to know what the objective is. Are we going to force him out? While we're at it, are we also going to destroy ISIS? If so, what will we do differently to make this a success after multiple failures in the Middle East?

Those are fair questions to ask.

 

[UTChE96]

Maybe Europeans care about this, but hardly an issue or motivation for the US to go to war.

Reducing European dependence on Russian energy is in the US national interests. While the US is the largest natural gas producer, we are are a very minor player in the LNG export market right now but that will likely change. Even still, we could never service the European market as economically as the Russians given their proximity and that LNG is inherently more expensive to produce.

In any case, I do agree with you though that the logic of this attack is not very clear. I could have accepted that chemical weapons rationale but this is not news. Assad has used chemical weapons in the past yet Trump never seemed to mind Assad until a couple days ago. There are better ways to reduce Russian influence over Europe without risking a war.

 

[BevoBeef]

I'd like to know why we're so sure Assad did this when it was absurdly against his interests to do so. Once we've established that he did (which might make him the dumbest political leader in the history of civilization), I want to know what the objective is. Are we going to force him out? While we're at it, are we also going to destroy ISIS? If so, what will we do differently to make this a success after multiple failures in the Middle East?

Our intel people are almost 100% sure what aircraft did the bombing and exactly the track that they flew. The information came directly from US radar monitoring the flight of the fixed wing aircraft that was associated with the timing of the chemical drop. There are also aerial photos from satellite images as well. We also know where the chemicals are being stored, which is within a 30 minute transport of the airport where the flight originated and that was destroyed by our missiles.

From the interviews I heard, Assad is definitely being labeled a narcissist. I suspect that he just became accustomed to what he believed the USA would do based on the last eight years of Obama and his "red line". I feel sure that he thought he would have plenty of time to read the debate that would follow the chemical attack and have time to disperse the aircraft at the airport that was bombed. It was key that we surprised him within 48 hours of his attack and destroyed the aircraft in those hangars.

"While we're at it, are we also going to destroy ISIS?"
If I am correct that we have new plans that we have started to execute, then it is the other way around. We have got to destroy those chemical weapons because we have to protect our troops attacking within Syria. As long as we have soldiers on the ground in Syria, you will not be told by Trump what are his clear objectives until tactically we have our troops positioned. The key to understand what is happening is knowing what type of US forces are being moved into Syria. We have more than doubled US boots on the ground in Syria in the last 30 days. It seems logical to me that we have to move in more troops in order to protect the 1000 US lives that are at stake now. We are no longer acting as "advisors". The recon missions of our soldiers have turned into active forays. We have moved heavy artillery into place to choke off Raqqa. We are no longer just doing bombing raids. This link references the impending change in our tactics in Syria.
Here also.

 

[I35]

And don't be a tool.

Struck a nerve? It's all good Deez. No need for name calling.

like we've received in most wars we've engaged in the past.

Obama drew a red line and it was crossed. He didn't announce his plan. Oh yea, he didn't have one so he did nothing. Or he remembered that he doesn't have any cujones. I agree 100% with what President Trump did with out hearing his plan of the "Basics". He is sure of what his belief is and did something about it. So I trust his judgment, which I never got to do under Obama.

I'd like to know why we're so sure Assad did this when it was absurdly against his interests to do so.

Well we know exactly what plane did it and from what airbase with the tracking. Did Assad give the order? I'm guessing he did because he's a moron and believes that he has Putin protecting him. Either way, we hit the airbase from where the plane came from and not the individual who we think ordered that. But Assad does have a history gassing his people.

Now that Trump got sideways with Putin, can we now drop Russian collusions?

 

[Musburger1]

Struck a nerve? It's all good Deez. No need for name calling.



Obama drew a red line and it was crossed. He didn't announce his plan. Oh yea, he didn't have one so he did nothing. Or he forgot he doesn't have any cujones. I agree 100% with what President Trump did with out hearing his plan of the "Basics". He is sure of what his belief is and did something about it. So I trust his judgment, which I never got to do under Obama.



Well we know exactly what plane did it and from what airbase with the tracking. Did Assad give the order? I'm guessing he did because he's a moron and believes that he has Putin protecting him. Either way, we hit the airbase from where the plane came from and not the individual who we think ordered that. But Assad does have a history gassing his people.

Now that Trump got sideways with Putin, can we now drop Russian collusions?

I've been accused of being a Russian troll. I just laugh it off.

Your comments probably lead some to believe you are a neocon troll. I'm sure you are not that. I think you are representative of the majority of the population whose bias stands in the way of critical thinking. God help us.

 

[Brad Austin]

I think you are representative of the majority of the population whose bias stands in the way of critical thinking. God help us.

More like there are quite a few of us who apply critical thinking to an isolated U.S. military action without invoking an automatic default posture of deep state subversion, false flag conspiracy, and/or war-mongering desires.

 

[Musburger1]

Let's go back to 2013 when the Ghouta chemical attack was attributed (falsely) to Assad. But even if he had been responsible for that attack, it almost resulted in a US bombardment. So what did Assad do? He agreed to relinquish his chemical stockpile and did so. Why? Because he didn't wont to be on the receiving in of a US bombardment. Doesn't that seem to be a rational response? I think so. An irrational response would have been to refuse the deal or launch an attack. When Obama agreed to the deal, the Neocons were pissed and berated Obama for caving in. Obama didn't agree to the deal because he wanted to. He agreed because the evidence showed the sarin originated in Libya, not Syria, and had he gone through with an attack, he would have been compared to Bush who launched a war under false pretenses.

A few years later the terrorists (or is the correct term opposition) were winning the war. Russian then engaged air power and turned the momentum back to the Syrian army.

Now it's 2017 and the Syria. Army has liberated Aleppo and is gaining back territory. How much sense does it make to drop chemical weapons on civilians given what the US threat was in 2013?

I35 attributes the alleged action to Assad being a moron. There are multiple in depth interviews of Assad on YouTube and I assure you he is no moron. He speaks the English language and answers questions directly.

There are links available which provide detailed evidence that Assad was not behind the 2013 attacks. The chemical agents were delivered to the terrorists (I mean opposition) via Turkey. Most likely the current event is exactly the same thing. Trump's actions are playing with fire on a global stage and in no way help defeat terrorists. If anything, US involvement against the Syrian army only helps their cause.

 

[Brad Austin]

Interview with a Syrian Refugee didn't go quite the way CNN was hoping...

"I didn't see each and every person who was demonstrating after the travel ban, I didn't see you three days ago when people were gassed to death...If you really care about refugees, if you really want to help us, please help us stay in our country...Help us establish safe zones and stay safe in our country"