Trump Strikes Syria As America’s Undeclared War Expands

The United States fired 59 Tomahawk cruise missiles at a Syrian airbase last night in retaliation for a chemical attack blamed on the Syrian government.  The Syrian government previously declared U.S. troops and military operations in its country to be an invasion of the country.   With the expansion of military operations, including troops on the ground, I thought it was worth reposting the recent column on undeclared wars that have become the norm for the United States.  Of  course, the only thing rising faster than our military intervention is congressional hypocrisy as Democrats express outrage over the failure to secure a declaration of war or authorization.  These are the same members who remained silent as President Obama routinely launched missiles at targets in a variety of nations and took this country to war in Libya without even consulting Congress.  As on the filibuster issue, the Democrats frittered away any high ground years on the issue years ago.

In recent testimony before the Senate Judiciary hearing, I supported the confirmation of Judge Neil Gorsuch, despite my disagreement with some of his opinions. I specifically noted that his textualist approach to statute and the Constitution is no vice in a federal judge. While I hold many liberal views, I also believe in a formalist and fairly textualist approach to interpretation.

What is curious, however, is how the supporters of such textualism and formalism are largely silent this week as the Trump administration is planning to send more troops into Syria and to intervene in Yemen … all without the declaration of war required by the text of Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.

Hundreds of more troops are planned for the Syrian conflict even though the government in the country has declared that any U.S. military operating in the country are “invaders.” We have been conducting extensive bombing raids with troops on the ground in Syria for many months. We have spent billions of dollars on the effort. All without a formal declaration by the Congress.

Now, Defense Secretary James Mattis has reportedly asked the White House to lift restrictions on U.S. military support in Yemen. The war against Iranian-backed Houthi rebels  has not been going well for our Persian Gulf allies, particularly Saudi Arabia. The United States wants now to play a bigger role, but notably, the military is asking permission not from Congress but the president. It is his call. That is precisely what the Framers wanted to avoid.

The Constitution has long had its own unreliable allies in Congress. Adherence to the text of the document seems to be a forgotten value when it would take politicians to uncomfortable or inconvenient places. Politicians hate to declare wars. It is not that they hate wars. Wars are popular. Wars can be profitable.

The problem is that they can be blamed if wars do not go well. As a result, they have used open-ended resolutions that can be used by presidents to conduct wars at their whim while allowing politicians to later deny that they ever really supported interventions or were misled if the wars go badly.

This issue most famously came up with Hillary Clinton during her presidential runs. She was eager to express her support for the wars in Iraq and Libya until they became unpopular. Clinton then blamed others and insisted that she was misled, adding, “I wasn’t alone in getting it wrong.”

Of course, the spin ignored the objections at the time that Clinton and others were unwilling to even listen to objections or demands for substantive hearings. These calls were ignored because the members did not want to hear anything that would make it difficult for them to vote for a popular war.

She is certainly right that she was not alone in discarding her duties under Article I. The vote was a popular choice and paraded before cameras … until the war dragged on with thousands of casualties and hundreds of billions in expenditures. Democrats and Republicans share equal responsibility for reading out Article I, Section 8 from the Constitution.

The courts are equally at fault. They have accepted resolutions as substitutes for declarations and, more importantly, have allowed resolutions to become increasing general and vague, thus allowing (as we are now seeing) open-ended power to intervene militarily in virtually any country at any time. Indeed, challengers rarely get any judicial review at all. Years ago, I represented both Democratic and Republican members challenging the Libyan War, but the federal court barred consideration of the merits by the members as lacking “standing” to be even heard in federal court.

We were bombing the capital of a foreign power with a recognized government. We were spending billions in war funding. Yet, the Obama administration was allowed to simply call it not a “war” but a “time-limited, scope-limited military action” or a “kinetic action.” Indeed, the Administration insisted to the court that the President alone defines what is a war. Thus, as long as he does not use that noun, Article I effectively does not apply. You can call it a “police action” or a training exercise or a bean bag and that is all that you need to claim the right to go to war on a president’s sole authority.

Does that track with anyone even remotely familiar with our Framers? These were brilliant men who created a system of carefully balanced powers. Yet, Congress and the courts have made them into the world’s biggest chumps who can be circumvented by simply a change in nouns. Where the Framers wanted Congress to take ownership of any wars, courts now allow members to delegate that authority to presidents and sit as pedestrians watching whether wars prove to be popular or problematic.

History is now repeating itself. No one in Congress wants its own new intervention, but no one wants to be seen opposing interventions against terrorists. Suddenly all of the moral outrage over non-textualist readings of the Constitution are silent … just days after the last hearing. This is why moral outrage in Washington is something of a performance art. This performance, however, is nothing but a tragedy for those who believe in adherence to the text of the Constitution.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He has litigated various national security cases.

232 thoughts on “Trump Strikes Syria As America’s Undeclared War Expands”

    1. He makes two excellent points. One, don’t take out one’s frustrations with all the fake news on the people who are being conned. Most of them are not asking to be conned. Two, the so called chemical attack doesn’t make a lot of sense for Assad. He is (or was) winning. He has no good motive.

      On the first, it gets progressively difficult, but it’s a healthy sentiment and a point well taken. On the second, no matter how horrific the allegations, we need better proof of events before we launch missiles. No matter how justified Trump may be, his response is more like a lynching than a properly vetted considered legal response to an established international crime. I have to admit, it is almost certain that people on this site and elsewhere who are calling for Trump to “get tough” and other forms of lynch mob mentality share one trait one can sympathize with. They can not realize, not even begin to realize, just how dangerous what they are asking for is or they would simply not go near it.

      Finally, the damage done to relations with Russia is far more significant than we are being told.

  1. Voted for Trump. I’m out. He just did a 180 and went full neocon. He’s also surrounded himself with neo-liberals as well. This “chemical attack” looks like a false flag to boot…we have been given zero evidence. Trump has abandoned his own base.

    1. He hasn’t abandoned any ‘base’. Palaeocranks are a combox crew with no popular analogue.

    2. You don’t have to turn yourself into an Obama zombie cult follower who doesn’t question or disagree with a single thing Obama ever did and just blindly follow Him. (yes I capitalized the H to demonstrate the absurd level of deification of Obama by his cult followers). You can disagree with Trump on how he handled this and still agree with much else he is accomplishing and not abandon him entirely. Doesn’t have to be all or nothing like Obama cultists.

  2. What is curious, however, is how the supporters of such textualism and formalism are largely silent this week as the Trump administration is planning to send more troops into Syria and to intervene in Yemen … all without the declaration of war required by the text of Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution.

    You haven’t demonstrated that a declaration of war is a requirement to engage in military operations.

  3. Two gay world leaders depcted in two days. First Putin and now Trump. What has the world evolved into?
    Why can’t we be on the side of the Russians in the war against ISIS? Don’t you Americans know that we need a dictator to control each of these pirate territories East of Corfu? Assad is not so bad. If you say it right: Assad rhymes with baad.
    Regarding the poison gas on that squad of children: maybe a bomb hit a pile of poison bombs laying in some building controlled by ISIS.
    Don’t blame Assad for the crimes of Jihad!
    Poet and don’t know it.
    There is no rhyme or reason in duck season.

  4. Though this article generally focuses on the constitutionality of President Trump’s missile campaign in Syria, I believe many of the comments are not fully considering the context of the attack.

    The chemical weapon attack Khan Sheikhoun killed over 80 and wounded over 500. The USAF traced the aircraft from which the bombing occurred to the Shayrat Air Base in Homs, which was targeted by the Tomahawks.

    The US Government consulted with the Russians prior to its military action in order to avoid Russian losses and also, believe it or not, minimize casualties. Syrian media reports that seven persons were killed and eighteen wounded in the attack and that the onslaught was launched against mostly the eastern part of the base and away from most quarters. Brigadier General Saraf Khalil Ibriham, was among the dead.

    it wasn’t long before the Syrians resumed the attacks on Khan Sheikhoun as locals are reporting helicopter attacks against the city.

    In one way the Russians have egg on their face. In 2013 after the red line debacle that haunted President Obama, they negotiated with their ally, Syria, and later warranted they had cleared the illegal chemical munitions from the country or destroyed them. Now, it is apparent that this was not the case. So, there might be some measure of Russian outrage over the Tomahawk strike that is going to be permitted by the US to allow the Russians to save face.

    When President Obama declared the Red Line, and President Assad ignored it and made the chemical attack, the Kurds and many rebel groups felt that the US would finally fully intervene and remove Assad from power. But, when Obama backed out they felt betrayed and the US lost credibility among its both its allies and opponents in the region. Plus it reinforced the notion that the US will make big promises of support and then wimp out on a whim. It is a notion that frankly the US needs to reassess.

    But we have to look at some of the geopolitical matters also. North Korea and Assad are presently testing the resolve of President Trump and when matched with the notion that the international community should not stand by when chemical weapons are used in warfare if the US did not take action it would encourage aggression by some states and perhaps make the use of these weapons more attractive. These two problems need to be addressed.

    Proportionality is something that the US and any other superpower state should take with great consideration. I believe an immediate response was needed and there so far has not been an escalation between the US and the Syrian Government. It sent the message that if chemical weapons are to be used by the SAA, senior military officials there can expect a swift response by the US Navy or Air Force. The fact that General Ibriham died might surely have a deterrent effect in the mind of other military leaders.

    On the political side, whether President Trump becomes insistent that President Assad step down from power, that remains to be seen.

    1. Darren, from what I’m reading, the facts are not known very well. No Western journalists are on the ground in that area (too dangerous). Reports are thus from Rebels (Alcaeda) or from other sources opposed to Assad.

      What is your source for the number of wounded? Also for the USAF trace back and/or for claims that the chemicals were dropped from the air, or used at all, rather than already being there. Who has verified that the photos of children are indeed from that event? There are no Western journalists on the ground in that area (too dangerous), only rebels and other anti Assad interests such as Turkey. I’m not saying you are wrong. On the contrary if anyone has good sources, it would be you, but I just hadn’t hear of that finality of proof anywhere else.

      1. Oh yes, another thing. I have a comment in moderation in the previous post. The one on Clown Putin. I limited myself to only two links and there is no foul language. Could you rescue it from the mod. beast? Thanks, BB

      2. The casualty reports were from a press release by the Syrian Government and confirmed by a statement released by hospital officials. The source for the flight path was from the US military and confirmed by a Kurdish media outlet. I did not write about the photo. the fact that a chemical attack occurred was from various individual vloggers as well as the hospital reports.

        1. But the Syrian Government has categorically denied using these chemicals. I’m missing something here.

          Anyway, if we do indeed have concrete proof of Assad’s involvement in using chemical bombs against his own people, then a lot changes. I think Trump’s response should still have come only after further investigation and discussion, but it would not be quite so flagrant an escalation of tensions with Russia.

            1. Sorry Darren, no offense meant. I appreciate your pointing out your sources. And I have done my own research (not exaustive by any stretch). You convinced me of what I was already fairly sure, namely that your sources were sound but it never hurts to check.

              As I understand it, however, there are many unanswered questions.

        1. Great! Let’s see the proof!

          Paul, you don’t mean…, you can’t mean that simply because we have satellites, we should simply accept anything the government tells us. Do you remember when Colin Powell showed us satellite pictures of Iraq that he claimed proved beyond doubt weapons of mass destruction? How did that one work out?

          I have to admit though, that would be the easiest, as in: Tricky Dick: “I am not a crook, cause we have satellites!”

          Well, thank goodness. Some of us might have had doubts otherwise…

  5. “On August 31, 2013, US president Barack Obama announced that he intended to launch a military attack on Syria in response to a chemical weapons attack in that country that the US blamed on the Syrian government. Obama assured the US public that this would be a limited action solely intended to punish the Assad government for using chemical weapons; the goal of US military action would not be to overthrow the Assad government, nor to change the balance of forces in Syria’s sectarian civil war.

    History shows that public understanding of US foreign policy depends crucially on assessing the motivations of US officials. It is likely inevitable as a result that US officials will present themselves to the public as having more noble motivations than they share with each other in private, and therefore that if members of the public had access to the motivations shared in private, they might make different assessments of US policy. This is a key reason why WikiLeaks’ publishing of US diplomatic cables was so important.

    The cables gave the public a recent window into the strategies and motivations of US officials as they expressed them to each other, not as they usually expressed them to the public. In the case of Syria, the cables show that regime change had been a long-standing goal of US policy;”

  6. Your partisanship shows again. Democrats are hypocrites? How about this as reported in the Washington Post: “About 100 House Republicans signed a letter in the summer of 2013 that suggested it would be unconstitutional for Obama to order any military response to Syria’s use of chemical weapons without getting congressional approval first. Politico’s Kyle Cheney has filled his Twitter timeline with examples of GOP lawmakers who signed that letter but now praise Trump for being decisive….”

    1. A little slow and somber. How about we speed things up with The Gap Band’s You Dropped a Bomb on Me?

    2. And, for all the anti-Trumpers. How about, Mr. Big Stuff. Who do you think you are?

  7. Some things are really simple: everything The Rump does is for self-aggrandizement and to deflect attention away from his lack of validity as a person and total unfitness for office. Does he care about innocent Syrian people, including babies, getting gassed? Hell to the no! He has prevented them from seeking refuge in this country. Did he try to kill Assad, which might really be beneficial? No, again. Too risky. Must have “victory”, and that wouldn’t be easy. Did he even totally disable an entire airbase by blasting enough craters in the runways to prevent quick repairs, and blowing up all of the buildings? Nope. Tomahawks, which are launched from ships far away, aren’t powerful enough to do enough damage to an airport to completely disable it. He ran through 30 million of our tax dollars blowing up a few planes and gas tanks. That’ll show them who’s boss–right? Now, they’ll never again consider using sarin gas–right? And all of this is to prove how much we love innocent Syrians–right? Syrian media reports he killed 4 children in the process. Not confirmed, but potentially true. Next pivot–this was done to protect America from terrorists–right? You believe that, don’t you? Maybe it was to save face, after accusing Barak Obama of being “weak”. Trouble is, most people in this country do not approve of The Rump. Again, consider the context in which everything The Rump does–it will always be all about him.

    All in all, this was a really weak attack, but safe, because if planes had been sent with big bombs capable of doing real damage, there was a serious risk they could have gotten shot down because Syria has a Russian-built air defense system. If he killed some American pilots and crew by sending them in without asking Congress first, then even the true conservatives would turn against him. This is the equivalent of zipping down his fly and wagging his johnson. What remains to be seen is the true fallout–what will the U.N do? What will Congress do? Wait–I know the answer to that one–probably nothing, because standing up for the Constitution isn’t in vogue this year. What will Russia do? What will our allies do?

    Investigations were closing in on Russian intervention in the election, so he tried pivoting to blame Susan Rice for unmasking, something she could not do. She could ask, but only the agency involved could actually unmask. Next thing, Assad gave him the perfect opening to prove just how “tough” a leader he is. What did he do? A safe, sneak attack on a few planes, gas tanks and minor buildings, conducted from a distance. No risk to American personnel, but he thinks this makes him look tough. He is a fat, lying, misogynist, 70 year old rookie juiced up on Viagra who continues pissing off everyone.

    1. Natacha–Did Susan Rice and Obama care about innocent civilians when they bombed Iraq, Afghanistan, and Libya–killing many innocent men, women, and children?

  8. From an AOL article:

    “The President needs Congressional authorization for military action as required by the Constitution,” tweeted Senator, and Trump golfing buddy, Rand Paul on Thursday.

    “I think it’s unconstitutional,” Paul said in an interview with FOX Business.

    The president himself agreed with Paul and others back in 2013 when he tweeted, “The President must get Congressional approval before attacking Syria-big mistake if he does not!”

    Donald J. Trump

    The President must get Congressional approval before attacking Syria-big mistake if he does not!
    4:02 PM – 30 Aug 2013

  9. We are overthinking this event:

    1. The attack on Syria was unlawful.

    2. Trump ordered the bombing because he saw photographs and was pissed.

    3. Pissed is not a policy.

    1. Mike,

      I don’t think Trump did this because he was pissed. Why would killing babies piss him off? He’s already done so himself, so there’s no reason for him to be upset. Further, he’s not upset when our BFF’s kill babies. He has a very select “pissed off” button.

      His former supporters saw this coming. They were speaking against it the past few days and trying to warn people that Trump is following his orders from his globalist masters. They didn’t think he cared about dead babies either. They knew exactly what he was going to do and why.

      Trump has a policy. It’s the same one Bush had and it’s the same one Clinton has and it’s the same one Obama had. It’s a policy you can read over at wikileaks. It’s regime change and oil pipelines. I don’t think it’s wise to pretend Trump was pissed and just acted on his anger. He is following a deadly agenda, one that’s been happening for years.

      Top 10 Lies, Damn Lies, and Lies About Syria
      Posted on April 6, 2017 by DavidSwanson

      David Swanson is on the far, actual left.

      Here’s the far right in the Lee Stranahan video in the link below:

      “The takeover of the Trump administration by Goldman Sachs has been obvious for months now. The takeover by the deep state has taken a bit longer, hence the non-stop Russia hysteria, which was clearly intended to back him into a corner. If Trump takes military action against Syria, we’ll know for certain the deep state coup is complete.

      Fortunately, some Trump supporters are starting to wake up, with former lead investigative reporter for Breitbart, Lee Stranahan, being one of them…”

      1. Thanks for the links/info, Jill.

        I think this is true: “He has a very select “pissed off” button.”

        1. Jill, I believe you and others are giving Trump far more credit than he deserves. He is not a strategic thinker, as recently evidenced by the fiasco over so-called health care “reform.” He’s merely impulsive and reacts to the latest shiny object, in this case photographs of dying children. His response was an entirely predictable decision to show Syria that he’s the boss. He is a power junkie and a show of force is ego satisfying. I don’t buy into the suggestion that he is particularly complex or even has a defined vision of where he wants to take the country. Of course, that is also why he is dangerous.

          1. Mike A.,

            Trump is a willing pawn, just like Obama. The last president we had who actually made policy was president Cheney.

            He didn’t make the decision. It was made for him. If you look at his former base, they knew exactly what was happening and why. He’s no more dangerous than any of the rest of them because he’s a lackey, just like the rest of them. If you want dangerous on their own account, you’d need to look at president Cheney. But yes, he’s a danger to others because he’s a willing lackey for those who can think about things very well–that is if you’re into murder, torture, war and starving people while ruining the planet. Those people are out there and they know who to pick as their lackey. I’d say they did rather well in the last election.

      2. Jill==Exactly which babies did Trump kill? Please enlighten us with facts. You should be ashamed of such accusations!

          1. Thanks Prairie Rose. I think the shame belongs to those who kill, not those who mention the killing!

    2. Mike, using chemicals is a war crime. Our UN Ambassador spoke at UN, asking others to join.

  10. “Trump is right, America isn’t ‘so innocent.’ Here’s how we can right that wrong in Syria”

    “Both morally and strategically, employing violence as an antidote to Arab repression has proven to be a bust. So anyone proposing that the United States have another go at it, this time targeting Assad, should think long and hard. We don’t need more war in the Middle East. War hasn’t worked.

    “My vote for an alternative: Follow the German model.

    “When you compare American behavior in Franklin Roosevelt’s day to that of Hitler’s Germany, the balance sheet clearly favors the United States. Yet to compare recent American behavior with that of Angela Merkel’s Germany, not so much. The German response to the plight of Syrians caught in the middle of a terrible civil war has been simplicity itself: Provide sanctuary to the displaced.

    “Germany has thereby saved literally hundreds of thousands of lives. If it chose to do so, the United States could do likewise. What the Syrian people need is not more bombs but more visas — one way of making partial amends for our own not “so innocent” past.”

    Andrew J. Bacevich is professor emeritus of history and international relations at Boston University.

    1. Well, Anonymous believes the answer to the Syrian conflict is to bring the 23 million Syrians to the United States? Wow! How simplistic? How ludicrous!

    2. “When you compare American behavior in Franklin Roosevelt’s day to that of Hitler’s Germany, the balance sheet clearly favors the United States.”

      Talk about a low bar.

    3. Bacevich isn’t serious and hardly pretends to be anymore. Any authentic refugee population can be taken care of in camps proximate to the fighting in preparation for eventual repatriation. There was no need to engage in political signaling to generate a camp-of-the-saints march through Europe, which generated problems for European but cares for authentic refugees no better than they could be cared for in Turkey. As for Syria, it requires someone to impose order, and that can only be done by men with guns and bombs.

  11. The 17th year of Bush’s War. My take away is that I am grateful this is the last election decided by the Boomers. America will survive maybe, if we have a voter base that knows everyone lies to them.

  12. See Bob, they have these big tubes that carry information its called the internet tubes. And you know what? they also have things called books.

  13. Richard Richard, facts do not matter here. This is the world of alternative facts. JT’s readers are immune to whats real or not. ODS Obama derangement syndrome is alive and well. JT is a big part of the conservative entertainment complex of infotainment. And besides, conservatives don’t like it when the facts interfere with their opinions.

    1. The Professor is reminding everyone that we have a Constitution.
      Why is it not TREASON to not follow it? I really thought in 2008, Obama and the Dems in Congress were going to put the brakes on the unbridled war machine. I believed Obama and I believed Trump.
      Now there is nothing stopping the fulfillment of the prophecy in Isaiah 17.
      Stay tuned for the rest of God’s Word to be fulfilled.

      1. There isn’t any unbridled war machine outside of your imagination. Both the Iraq War and the Afghan War were conducted with Congressional approval. Neither have been particularly bloody by any historical standard, nor have they drawn deeply from available productive capacity or manpower. As we speak, the ratio of military spending to domestic product is close to the post 1939 nadir.

  14. Zionist Nazi Trump has committed more War Crimes by bombing Syria.

    I do not believe Assad gassed his own people. “US missile strikes on a Syrian air base have reportedly killed nine civilians – including four children.” Trump murders children again.

    Congress, DOJ, FBI & Courts are corrupt cowards.

    1. Patriot, you are correct in all you said, but what does it tell you that most of the customers here are generally better educated than the average Joe & Mary SixPack – yet their only concern is that they want the salve of our Zionist Congress to bless wars before the killing begins.

      That relieves the guilt doncha.

      1. They still have blood on their hands and the wickedness turns inward to make them their own worst enemies. I call the ones who lack morals.. black hearts. They have endorsed the evil in the universe and by not speaking / working against it they are made evil also.

      2. Bill McWilliams:

        You call the Congress “Zionist”? You obviously do not know the definition of “Zionism”. Let me educate you:


        1.”a person who believes in the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel.

        2.(in southern Africa) a member of any of a group of independent Churches which practice a form of Christianity incorporating elements of traditional African beliefs.

        Do you really believe this definition would apply to our entire Congress? Do you realize the anti-Semitic nature of your statement? If not, then “the average Joe & Mary SixPack” you refer to would have to be considered far more educated than you claim to be!

        1. He knows the meaning. There are three individuals who post here who are purveyors of all manner of kookery, at least two of whom are the sort who blather about Jews. There’s a fourth who limits his silliness to discussions of the Kennedy Assassination.

    2. April 4-5, a conference on rebuilding Syria with delegations from 70 nations. I guess that allowing Syria to survive wasn’t part of the “Big Plans”.

    3. “Zionist Nazi Trump”

      What a stupid, ignorant anti-Semitic statement! Do you even know the definition of “Zionism”? Do you have any knowledge of the Nazi crimes against Jews?


      1.”a person who believes in the development and protection of a Jewish nation in what is now Israel.

      2.(in southern Africa) a member of any of a group of independent Churches which practice a form of Christianity incorporating elements of traditional African beliefs.


      “Driven by a racist ideology that regarded Jews as “parasitic vermin” worthy only of eradication, the Nazis implemented genocide on an unprecedented scale. They slated all of Europe’s Jews for destruction: the sick and the healthy, the rich and the poor, the religiously orthodox and converts to Christianity, the aged and the young, even infants.”

      “Mr. or Ms. Patriot”—It is the height of ignorance to believe that someone can be a Nazi and also a Zionist! It is also the height of ignorance to state that Donald Trump is a Nazi!

      If you truly believe that Donald Trump has committed (more?)”War Crimes” by bombing Syria, why don’t you level the same accusations against Bill Clinton and Barack Obama for all the bombings perpetrated by them?

    4. Patriot:

      You call Trump a Nazi? The Nazis gassed their own citizens–men, women, and children! Maybe you are too ignorant to know that! The real Nazi here is Bashar al Assad!

      1. He’s posting from an asylum day room. Fuggeddaboutit.

        1. Susan–I had a feeling he was posting from an asylum day room. Now it all makes sense!

  15. Air strikes on Syria happened on the actual anniversary of US entry into World War I – on 4/6/1917. I still don’t see how Trump could simply condemn the chemical attacks and then sit back like Obama doing nothing? Trump had to send a message. Let’s hope this is part of a clear-headed political strategy and Trump is not getting sucked in by the military warmongers.

    1. Bob,

      Doesn’t it seem strange that Trump isn’t invading Saudi Arabia? They have used white phosphorous. They and we have used cluster bombs. Why aren’t we invading? Don’t we have to do something about those Saudis? Shoot, why aren’t we invading ourselves by now?

      He can condemn the chemical attacks and use a smart strategy that doesn’t involve bombing anyone. The world has the UN and the ICC. There is no need to go to war and only greedy, stupid people recommend war because it is so profitable, not because they are trying to help people.

      We don’t even know Syria did this. There are real questions about who did this and even questions about what agent was used. Only a warmongering president would bomb at all, let alone bomb before having all the facts in order. We saw this one already under Obama Jesus. He turned out to be wrong about the use of the weapons. Trump is going to be proved wrong on this one, not that it matters, since the plan all along, endorsed by Hillary and the oligarchic globalists is to remove Assad. God closed a window on them but they rammed upon a door so they could remove Assad and kill even more people. PTL!

      1. There are a lot of questions about the chemical attack – one being who actually did it, another being the Obama admin telling us that all the chemical weapons had been removed from Syria. No one has all the facts here, and I am against starting another war in the Mid East, but I am giving Trump the benefit of the doubt on his decision to strike one of the air bases and send a message. I am willing to trust that Trump is developing a clear strategy to followup this limited strike. Should he have gone to Congress first? Yes. But he didn’t. I hope he’s listening to all the blow back he’s getting on this. Rand Paul played golf with him last weekend, so it’s good to see he has the president’s ear. Nonetheless, I see this as the US sending a clear message to the world that Trump is decisive, that the US could have hit all the air bases if we wanted to, and that we have reestablished American credibility that was lost under Obama. With millions of refugees fleeing the country and destabilizing Europe, the Syrian civil war and refugee crisis is our problem too and maybe this strike paves the way for the creation of safe zones and hopefully a clearly laid out plan to successfully deal with the region’s problems politically and diplomatically rather than militarily.

    2. Bob – I do not understand why people are upset. Trump attacks the source of the bombing and the attack is designed to put it out of business. This is not like shooting a couple of Cruise missiles at an aspirin factory.

      1. Paul Schulte,

        “This is not like shooting a couple of Cruise missiles at an aspirin factory.”

        We would have to assume you are referring to Bill Clinton’s launching missiles at the Sudanese pharmaceutical factory and the tents in the Afghan desert to divert attention from the Lewinsky affair? I don’t remember any criticism of that action from the democrats….

        1. Lawrence W – “We”? Do you have a mouse in your pocket? 🙂

          1. Paul–“we” refers to all the astute readers of your post. Hopefully that answers your question. By the way, my mouse is not in my pocket. It is next to my computer and has been for quite awhile.

      2. Agreed. It is sad to know that strike was launched by Clinton when he was mired in the Monica Lewinsky scandal and now we have Trump launching a strike when his approval poll numbers were not doing well. It may be this is just what president’s do to gain some approval – as sick as this sounds. Even so, I am still willing to give Trump the benefit of the doubt here and see how things play out.

  16. Prove you’re intelligent readers! Use your Google! Obama withdrew his request for a vote from Congress when it was apparent Congress did not want the military to act after the 2013 sarin attack on Syrian citizens. Obama, who many here claim was a dictator, acceded to Congress’ decision.

Comments are closed.