Paul Revere by Cyrus Dallin, North End, Boston

~~~

~~~

.

.
.

Saturday, April 8, 2017

Trump Bombed: Now What?

Here's a report from 2013 when President Obama sought to LEGALLY bomb Syria after Assad's chemical weapons attack on his own people. 

The GOP controlled Congress said a firm NO! to President Obama's request for Congressional authorization for military action, which is required by the Constitution.

Four years later, Republican so-called president Trump, who tweeted and railed against then President Obama's plans to send missiles to Syria, did EXACTLY what he told President Obama not to do; and then Trump sent missiles on a bombing mission WITHOUT Congressional authorization. 

The corrupt Republicans are nothing more than political hacks, not interested in governing nor in Constitutional law, but only in wielding power - even if their head of state is a lying, cheating, con man. As long as he has a fake "R" after his name, Trump will get away with breaking laws and doing whatever he and the mendacious, cowardly thugs in the GOP will let him.

Ezra Klein of VOX discusses Trump's foreign policy -- or lack thereof.


Also this from Digby:  Trump's words mean nothing.



8 comments:

Shaw Kenawe said...

Andrew Bacevich writing in the Boston Globe, 4/8:

"...Perhaps Trump will convene another “meeting of considerable length” to assess the consequences likely to follow if and when Assad is finally removed. We must hope so. The previous results of regime change — Iraq in 2003 and Libya in 2011 — suggest that the real trouble begins after the evil dictator leaves the scene.

'Of greater concern, however, are the implications of this remarkable turn of events. How will it play in capitals such as Tehran, Moscow, Beijing, and Pyongyang, not to mention London, Berlin, and Seoul? Will allies be reassured by the alacrity with which the administration’s indifference regarding Syria shifted to bellicosity? Will Trump’s sudden concern for the plight of the Syrian people persuade our adversaries to behave, lest they become Trump’s next target? Will they be cowed by this latest demonstration of America’s matchless military might? Or will they nervously finger their own triggers?

'These are matters in which members of Congress just might want to inquire. Or, alternatively, they could undertake to revise the US Constitution by conferring on the president the additional title of Supreme Warlord and then just see what happens.'

Rational Nation USA said...

Mirrors my thoughts.

Now that I'm back on grid with a working weblog and intending to get active on Twitter again as well Trump will continue to provide much material to work with I'm sure.

Dave Miller said...

I think the answer to what next depends largely on what is on cable news.

There simply is no framework for a consistent policy in the ME and Trump seems to have squarely abandoned his America First approach...

Stephen B. said...

I get that people want a military response to things like chemical weapon attacks. It's natural to want to match force with force.

That's not what Trump did.

Trump got mad so he threw a rock.

A violent response to seeing something on tv that upset him with no thought to how it would solve the problem beyond "that'll show'm."

Blowing shit up is not, in and of itself, a military strategy. Some thought of consequences next steps, and end result are required.

So the question I have for anyone who thinks throwing an $80 million rock at an evacuated airfield was a good idea is this: what was accomplished? Might someone else at the helm have used a different strategy, and, perhaps, accomplished more? Or wasted less? Even if that person

Stephen B. said...

Even if that person's response was a military one.

(Sorry, shaw, I walked away from the PC before I finished typing commoent, then sent it to be published before re-reading it.) It's Saturday and kids and animals my excuse.

Ducky's here said...

@Dave - I think the answer to what next depends largely on what is on cable news.
-------

Depressingly true.

Unfortunately, his inept, impulsive policies aren't limited to the Middle East.
He can be easily distracted by shiny objects.

Jus Sayin said...

The Obama administration may have known that it failed to eliminate Syria’s chemical weapons well in advance of Tuesday’s deadly attack.

In the wake of a chemical weapons attack Tuesday in Syria that killed innocent civilians, including women and children, observers immediately recalled former President Barack Obama’s 2013 deal, which allowed the president to back down from his red line on chemical weapons, and the administration’s comments in the aftermath.

Shaw Kenawe said...

For your information, Mr. Sayin:

(CNN)Many of the congressional Republicans who are praising President Donald Trump's decision to strike a Syrian airfield were opposed to President Obama's request to approve a similar action against Syria in 2013.

Trump ordered the launch of more than 50 tomahawk cruise missiles on Thursday in retaliation for Syrian leader Bashar Al-Assad's reported use of chemical weapons against his own people. In August of 2013, after Assad used chemical weapons in a similar scenario against people in the Syrian city of Ghouta, Obama requested congressional permission to launch air strikes against the Assad regime.

Many Republicans opposed his request. One of the most prominent was Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, who on Friday tweeted out his support for Trump's strike, writing, "This was a clear signal from America that Bashar al Assad can no longer use chemical weapons against his own people with impunity."

In a speech on the Senate floor in 2013, however, McConnell announced his opposition to Obama's proposal, saying, "A vital national security risk is clearly not at play, there are just too many unanswered questions about our long-term strategy in Syria, including the fact that this proposal is utterly detached from a wider strategy to end the civil war there, and on the specific question of deterring the use of chemical weapons, the President's proposal appears to be based on a contradiction. Either we will strike targets that threaten the stability of the regime — something the President says he does not intend to do — or we will execute a strike so narrow as to be a mere demonstration."



The hypocritical GOP Congressional thugs denied Mr. Obama's request for legal authorization to strike Syria after Assad used chemical weapons on his own people. Also, for your information, the current part-time occupant of the White House warned President Obama NOT TO GET INVOLVED IN SYRIA, NOT TO ENGAGE IN AIR STRIKES, NOT TO DO ANYTHING IN SYRIA, when President Obama was faced with EXACTLY the same thing Preznit Trump faced this past week.

Trump is a political opportunist and hack. He has no core values or policies. He's worse than a spinning weather vane blowing every which-way; Trump is a chaotic funnel of wind and destruction with no consistent plan on anything.