We Need To Talk About Donald

[Brian Peacock]

An air strike which supposedly targeted weapons dumps and planes but which also, somewhat surprisingly, left the runway and most of the hangers intact.

No surprise at all. The purpose was not to strike against Assad. Had Trump meant to inflict meaningful military damage to the dictator he would not have given the Russians advance warning of the impending "attack", the runway would have looked like the worst days of Verdun and Assad would not have been given the opportunity to remove all his aeroplanes that were not grounded for repairs from the targeted area. The real purpose was to divert attention from Trump's latest series of faux pas, and that worked exceedingly well. The media's reportage is focused on Syria instead of the goings on at the White House, and the plebs are preoccupied with patriotic flag waving while deliriously shouting "Rahh, rahhh, rahhh, USA, USA, USA."

Stand by tor 4 point 2 arguing that there's nothing wrong with any of that. He'll start by seizing on Trump's tweet procaiming that the "attack" does not constitute a change in policy while ignoring the several tweets he made immediately after the 2013 sarin attacks in which he told Obama not to get militarily involved with Syria.

If missiles are used to "divert attention" from a domestic scandal, then absolutely there is something wrong with that. However, your theory is just speculation. Assad, apparently, did use chemical weapons against civilians, including children. However, if it was meant to divert attention, it did a bad job of it, since none of the major networks have let up going after Trump on all fronts.

As for his flip flop on Syria, all I would say is that my take on it is that Trump should not have launched any attack without Congressional approval, and I oppose the attack 100%. I have sympathy for the civilians killed by Assad, and Assad is a brutal dictator who deserves, in my view, to be taken out, but that doesn't change the fact that this is not much different, if at all, than the US spilling the Vietnam War over into Cambodia and such.

So, I oppose the attack, but I would not go so far as to say he fired 30 Tomahawk missiles and killed people just to divert attention from a domestic issue. He's been under constant attack from the Democrats and the media since he announced his candidacy. The Russia thing is not a significant departure or increase in heat.

I find myself in some agreement here - although it was 59 Tomahawks not 30. The comparison with the US's adventures in Vietnam is not unreasonable, but let us not forget that that was a proxy war with the Communist block whereas this was supposed to be an action which put certain munitions beyond use. Nonetheless, four days after the US giving loud political signals that the Syrian civil war was an internal Syrian matter al-Assad did gas his own population. I question the wisdom of that stance, which is fundamentally out of step with the international community (Russia and China accepted), with Russia's part in al-Assad military endeavours, as well as the convenient good fortune of the Russian-operated air defence network apparent taking a night off. Reports in the UK press today have raised questions about whether the material for manufacturing the gas were provided by UK companies and supported by governmental export guarantees (the taxpayer picks up the tab if the buyer defaults on the purchase).

[Brian Peacock]

Such a humanitarian crisis.... http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-bor ... story.html - border crossings from Mexico to the US down to their lowest level in 17 years.... so horrible. So terrible. Such an atrocity. Shame, Trump. Shame.

And last year it was at the lowest level for 16 years, and the year before the lowest for 15 years.... Didn't Trump say that illegal immigration was at an all-time high about this time last year, and wasn't he wrong about that, with independent and federal estimates of illegal immigration and residency following a downwards trend from a peak in 2003?

Why do you think it's important to continue to characterise disagreement with Trump as misplaced bleeding-heart liberalism on this matter?

[DRSB]

We can take comfort in the fact that he is doing precisely what he was elected not to do for. He is alienating his electorate.
If the tomahawk shoulder-flexing really cost 100 mln, like I read somewhere, his electorate will present him with the check.

[Hermit]

If missiles are used to "divert attention" from a domestic scandal, then absolutely there is something wrong with that. However, your theory is just speculation. Assad, apparently, did use chemical weapons against civilians, including children. However, if it was meant to divert attention, it did a bad job of it, since none of the major networks have let up going after Trump on all fronts.

Why are liberals now cheerleading a warmongering Trump?

So now we know what it takes for an unhinged, bigoted demagogue to win liberal applause: just bypass a constitution to fire some missiles.

This is what I don't get - The Guardian now reports that it is a constitutional requirement for the President to launch missiles like Trump just did? Where were the articles saying that when Obama launched missiles into several countries during his tenure, and other air strikes. The Obama Administration argued that no congressional approval was required for Libya, for example. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... 79bb040b72

So, now, after a chemical weapons attack on civilians, including little kids, firing a strike on their behalf is constitutionally required to have congressional approval?

I agree, but then again, I agreed last year, and the year before, too. I agreed in 2003.

It has taken less than three months for these illusions to be shattered. A man widely castigated as a proto-fascist only needed to drop bombs without observing due process.

Let’s examine what is being said about Trump now. A press he denounced as liars and “enemies of the people” are eating out of his hands, tiny or otherwise. “I think Donald Trump became president of the United States,” cooed CNN commentator Fareed Zakaria in response to the bombing. Trump “reacted viscerally to the images of the death of innocent children in Syria,” declared Mark Sandler in the New York Times. The original headline on that article, since amended? “On Syria Attack, Trump’s Heart Came First.”

Yes, indeed, these same folks had to say that, because they said too many times how humanitarian needs warrant military intervention by the Obama administration, and hardly any of them questioned the Obama administration in the issue and when they did it was muted, at best. If folks like those you mentioned came out against Trump on this, they wouldn't be able to get around the bias accusations. And, this was an easy one for them to throw an attaboy at Trump -- hardly anyone was killed, it was against an evil dictator, and most of the damage was property damage. It will have no effect on anything.

So the man who once bragged to a baying audience that he would tell five-year-old Syrian refugees to their faces that the US would not offer them safety, is now driven by his heart. Touching indeed. The “moral dimensions of leadership” had penetrated Trump’s Oval Office, declared the Washington Post’s David Ignatius. MSNBC’s Brian Williams described the missile launches as “beautiful” three times in the space of 30 seconds.

Williams was referring to the images, and not the nature or propriety of the attack.

I am not looking forward to seeing the results of the next few popularity surveys.

And if the missile strike was genuinely meant to be a meaningful military response, Russia would not have been notified of it beforehand. That, in turn, enabled to clear the airfield of any actually valuable material. Or do you think the Russians would not have passed the message on to Assad? Or more pertinently, that trump did not think they would? It's a charade meant for domestic consumption, and it works. So, yeah, from that point of view it is technically not a change of policy. Just Trump doing whatever seems to him a good idea at the time. I'm not sure which is worse.

This I don't agree with, because Syria is a client state of Russia. Bombing the shit out of Syria without giving Russia the courtesy of a "hey howdy" beforehand would be an act of war and perhaps one that Russia simply could not ignore. It would be like Russia just going ahead and bombing targets in Iraq without giving the US a heads up.

The purpose in coordinating with Russia was to allow Russia to clear any men and munitions from the area, so it doesn't become an attack on Russia itself.

We warned Russia ahead of the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001, for example. The reason being is if you start dropping bombs in their sphere of influence, they need to be able to handle it politically on their end or they start looking like they're on the "pay-no-mind-list." They can't have that. There are certain international no-nos that are widely recognized as hair triggers for war. Bombing on someone's border or near it, bombing someone's client state, and attacking vessels on the high seas are 3 that come to mind.

I'll reiterate, I oppose the missile strike, but if you're going to do it, unless you're prepared to have the big dick contest with Russia, it would be irresponsible not to discuss it with them. This way, Russia can move some ships around, take some symbolic actions to show that they can't be walked on, and then we can all move on. If Trump destroys that airfield without involving Russia, there would a new Russian fleet steaming to the Eastern Mediterrenean, and Russian a flotilla delivering Russian "military trainers" and some armor, artillery and missile batteries.

When you quote people, please avoid misattributing them. Thank you.

You can discuss the constitutionality of the missile strike with someone else. Likewise whether it was a justified action. Also whether it was a symbolic gesture aimed at diverting the plebs from the latest batch of the presidents faux pas rather than to punish Assad for using chemical weapons. As usual, your tu quoque leaves me less impressed than you might have hoped. And perhaps you will one day find a convincing reason why unleashing 59 cruise missiles on to a Syrian military airfield is not a reversal of Trump's foreign policy or does not contradict the four tweets he rained on Obama immediately after Assad's chemical attacks in 2003.

The core issue of the article is about none of that. It is about the ease with which military sabre rattling gets former opponents onside, and I quoted it at length to make that perfectly clear because it's profoundly depressing.

[Brian Peacock]

Here's an interesting nugget. By 2013 Mitch McConnell had led filibusters of 79 of Obama's court nominees, compared to 68 filibusters against nominees to the federal courts in the entire history of the United States. And his reason? Because he considered nominations to the courts from Obama as "partisan appointments". Yeah. Just that that one sink in for a moment...

[pErvinalia]

Yeah, he's just another entitled conservative. They are a disease.

[Brian Peacock]

Here's an interesting nugget. By 2013 Mitch McConnell had led successful filibusters of 79 of Obama's court nominees, compared to 68 filibusters against nominees to the federal courts in the entire history of the United States previously. And his reason? Because he considered nominations to the courts from Obama as "partisan appointments". Yeah. Just let that one sink in for a moment...

Majority of Voters Want President Trump to Release His Tax Returns...

Also: Two statements from the administrtion on Syria given the same day (Sunday)..

• Rex Tillerson: "The goal of the attack was to send a message to Syrian president Assad and it's ally Russia that the United States wouldn't tolerate the use of chemical weapons. Other than that there is no change in our military posture."
• Nikki Haley: "There can be no peace in Syria with Assad in power."

Which is it then?

[Animavore]

The pushed aside ecological reasons Trump's wall is beyond stupid.

http://www.vox.com/energy-and-environme ... ll-animals

As long as the darkies are kept out, fuck the bobcats. Amiright?!

[Brian Peacock]

Sean Spicer today: "Assad is worse than Adolf Hitler. Hitler didn't sink to using chemical weapons."

Happy Passover Sean.

[Hermit]

Sean Spicer today: "Assad is worse than Adolf Hitler. Hitler didn't sink to using chemical weapons."

Happy Passover Sean.

Gassing Jews doesn't count because Jews are not human. They are vermin. Sean Spicer knows that, and if it wasn't political suicide he'd say it out loud too.

[pErvinalia]

[DRSB]

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Vladimir Putin said on Wednesday trust had eroded between the United States and Russia under President Donald Trump, as Moscow delivered an unusually hostile reception to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson in a face-off over Syria.

Any hope in Russia that the Trump administration would herald less confrontational relations has been dashed in the past week after the new U.S. leader fired missiles at Syria to punish Moscow's ally for its suspected use of poison gas.

https://www.investing.com/news/world-ne ... son-473696

[Scot Dutchy]

TICK-TOCK-TICK-TOCK

[Hermit]

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Vladimir Putin said on Wednesday trust had eroded between the United States and Russia under President Donald Trump, as Moscow delivered an unusually hostile reception to Secretary of State Rex Tillerson in a face-off over Syria.

Any hope in Russia that the Trump administration would herald less confrontational relations has been dashed in the past week after the new U.S. leader fired missiles at Syria to punish Moscow's ally for its suspected use of poison gas.

https://www.investing.com/news/world-ne ... son-473696

Relax. Forty Two will come along presently to explain how a) this is not Trumps fault - after all, who could have predicted that any escalation in a proxy war could possibly cause difficulties between the world powers, b) it's nothing to worry about - the atom bomb shelters underneath Capitol Hill and the White House are capacious enough to shelter the entire top echelon of the Republican Party, and c) if you think this is bad, just imagine how much worse the situation would have become under that super-hawkish Hillary Clinton.

[tattuchu]