…but they won’t do anything about it if he doesn’t.
Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI): “and a possible nuclear war between the United States and Russia.”
When has American intervention in the mid-east ever ended well?
Talk is cheap; so is “tweeting.” How about actually doing your damned jobs and passing some legislation?? Weak sauce.
Trump: Thanks and No Thanks. I will do what I want, when I want. Dont need any of you.
But apparently not heartbroken when Syrian children die while trying to get to Europe.
or when they stay:
Tulsi Gabbard should be completely ignored at this point. She went from trying to personally broker a peace deal…face to face…with Assad, after serendipitously sneaking into Syria…to tonight going full hawk.
She has zero credibility, and continues to be for Tusli and nothing else. She will take any stance if she thinks it will garner her press and she can sell it to the gullible.
Why would Trump consult anybody? He alone can fix it, just ask him.
without a well-thought-out, comprehensive plan
Who the hell do these reasonable people think they’re dealing with?
He didn’t consult anyone in Congress before he took military action. This is about the most poignant example of telling someone to shut the barn door before the horses run away, while the horses are already half way down the road.
He did however consult Russia…and therefore Syria…before the attack.
And finally…the exact same GOPers who were screaming and jumping up and down demanding Obama had no authority to bomb Syria and refused to pass a new AUMF…now say Trump totally has authority and doesn’t need a new AUMF.
I’m with Josh that you can make a case both for and against this. After all, Clinton, Bush and Obama launched cruise missiles in one instance or another. Hillary might have done the same. In none of those cases was there any lasting impact and there won’t be here either.
It’s great to say “Assad must go!” Sure he should-straight to the Hague for a war crimes trial. But how does one achieve that goal and who replaces him?
If I thought that Mr. Trump had carefully considered the possible consequences of this strike upon the future of Syria and related entities, I might look more favorably upon his actions.
Unfortunately this has all the earmarks of being an impulsive response to his personal discomfort at being caught in the crosshairs of international scorn over his weasely previous responses to the Syrian situation and his apparent deference to Putin on so many fronts.
I also wonder how launching 50+ cruise missiles could be considered a proportional response, especially after warning Russia (and therefore presumably Assad) that they were coming.
I would be interested in seeing the after action assessment, but I suspect that is unlikely to find the light of day.
OMG … I agree with Rand Paul … ick …
If anything expect a backdated AUMF as soon as the recess is over ( because like fuck GOP congress critters will cut short their vacation to speckle over this big hole Trump fucked in the Constitution)
The lasting impact has less to do with the “action” as the “actor” in this case.
Trump involved us militarily in a sovereign nation without the authorization of congress and with no planning or forethought.
It’s not that he responded somehow that makes this a global relations shitshow, but how he skirted every check on the executive branches authority to do it
Wow. What a blatant mixed message from us and the Russians. The next world war will be everyone against the US and Russia.
And if it doesn’t end up well for the Repubs, they’ll finally impeach him to save face while lying baldfaced to us through the MSM and Twitter.
Are you certain of that?
this Rand Paul?