Oh ... and I just saw this ... Fox online news that says that the MSM is backing Trump's decision to a measured response against Syria.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/04/07/media-backing-trump-on-bombing-syria-but-difficult-questions-remain.html

So he must have made the wrong decision.

I was listening to NPR on yesterday too. There were several sample interviews with snowflakes about what should be done about the Chem Weapons drop in Syria. The response was odd. There were two I heard (of maybe four) where they said they would respect Trump if he took action as protection for the Syrians. It was a very one-dimensional view of the situation since there are so many other implications, e.g., destabilizing the area and Russia relations, but I was still surprised that any snowflake would admit any favor of POTUS / Trump in any circumstance. I'm sure they will change their tune once the MSM turns the Syrian response back against Trump and broadcasts the new talking points to the snowflakes.

That's what disturbs me most about the snowflakes. They don't think independently nor critically. I'm find if someone thinks different than I do ... but not if they just trust someone else to give them their opinions. And so many fall into that (Pubs w/ Fox, Libs w/ MSM) because it's easier than thinking for themselves. I find myself starting to spit back talking points occasionally; good to check yourself. Maybe turn off all the media outlets for a week when you're hearing their voices in your head. Especially after driving for 18 hours and listening to them. Uhhh. Make them stop talking in my head!  Just kidding ... inside joke with Solar about the schitz posts.

Quote from: topside on April 07, 2017, 08:11:37 AM
Oh ... and I just saw this ... Fox online news that says that the MSM is backing Trump's decision to a measured response against Syria.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2017/04/07/media-backing-trump-on-bombing-syria-but-difficult-questions-remain.html

So he must have made the wrong decision.

I was listening to NPR on yesterday too. There were several sample interviews with snowflakes about what should be done about the Chem Weapons drop in Syria. The response was odd. There were two I heard (of maybe four) where they said they would respect Trump if he took action as protection for the Syrians. It was a very one-dimensional view of the situation since there are so many other implications, e.g., destabilizing the area and Russia relations, but I was still surprised that any snowflake would admit any favor of POTUS / Trump in any circumstance. I'm sure they will change their tune once the MSM turns the Syrian response back against Trump and broadcasts the new talking points to the snowflakes.

That's what disturbs me most about the snowflakes. They don't think independently nor critically. I'm find if someone thinks different than I do ... but not if they just trust someone else to give them their opinions. And so many fall into that (Pubs w/ Fox, Libs w/ MSM) because it's easier than thinking for themselves. I find myself starting to spit back talking points occasionally; good to check yourself. Maybe turn off all the media outlets for a week when you're hearing their voices in your head. Especially after driving for 18 hours and listening to them. Uhhh. Make them stop talking in my head!  Just kidding ... inside joke with Solar about the schitz posts.

The LSM is at a loss for the moment because Trump did the exact opposite of what their master did, Trump spoke with missiles, while Hussein spoke with hollow threats of imaginary lines in the sand.
This was a complete contrast to his predecessor. This drives the progs nuts because to attack it makes you a sympathizer of a murderous dictator.
They're waiting for their marching orders from the NY Times, just watch...

I'm guessing Trumps LIMITED response was purely tactical and perhaps time motivated. From what I've been hearing in the MEDIA US Missiles struck the base from which the Chem weapons were launched and perhaps stored. That and took out some ground defenses and communications which might mean a follow up strike (??????).

Could be that the SYrians were preparing more chem attacks or could be they were getting ready to move their Chem weapons.

Now here is the political angle.....If this is true, the base that was struck housed Chemweapons, how could ANYONE be against destroying Chem weapons possibly being readied to use again against more civilian targets.....Even SNOWFLAKES would have to quandry over that one.

Second, Putin is in pickle because the Russians don;t like Chem weapons being used on Civilians anymore than we do.
It will be hard, politically, for Putin to stickup for Assad using such weapons.

Third, it makes a very bold statement, it's not Obamao's wimpy lines in the sand that mean nothing, this is a direct strike
in the middle of the night with likely a prefunctory phone call to the Russians to tell them to move their shit out of there or get it melted cause ordinance is on the way.  VERY POWERFUL MESSAGE.

Last it would give Trump a sort of bargaining chip. This is our demand, convince Assad to destroy his weapons under UN observers supervision..MAJOR VICTORY...then maybe we can sit down and discuss sanctions.  If not maybe we'll send a few bunker busters to where they are stored and blow them up ourselves.

No I don;t want to get involved in Syria anymore not our business but the fact is were already ARE involved, so lets try to make the most out of it and score a small win.  Truth be told these Chem weapons should have been taken out a long time ago. When we knew Saddam moved them into Syria.

Meanwhile Cruz, Lee and Paul have made it known that further military action in Syria better involve consulting Congress. 

Quote from: Ms.Independence on April 07, 2017, 09:43:24 AM
Meanwhile Cruz, Lee and Paul have made it known that further military action in Syria better involve consulting Congress.

As much as I like Cruz and the FC, there is no Constitution requirement for Trump to consult Congress when deploying or using military assets. War Powers Act not withstanding, this issue was resolved way back at the beginnings of the Civil War, when Lincoln ordered the Navy to start blockading ports belonging to the Southern states. The bottom line is the Constitution makes the President the Commander in Chief of the military with no mention of any type of oversight. The Court decision also acknowledged that declaration of war is a political act, and is reserved to Congress, while USE of military forces is, by definition, a military act, and is reserved to the executive branch.

Considering the fact that Congress has not had the cojones to actually declare war since WWII, despite the large number of major and/or significant conflicts we have been involved with since then, consulting congress on use of military force is little more than formality, anyway.

Quote from: zewazir on April 07, 2017, 10:05:57 AM
As much as I like Cruz and the FC, there is no Constitution requirement for Trump to consult Congress when deploying or using military assets. War Powers Act not withstanding, this issue was resolved way back at the beginnings of the Civil War, when Lincoln ordered the Navy to start blockading ports belonging to the Southern states. The bottom line is the Constitution makes the President the Commander in Chief of the military with no mention of any type of oversight. The Court decision also acknowledged that declaration of war is a political act, and is reserved to Congress, while USE of military forces is, by definition, a military act, and is reserved to the executive branch.

Considering the fact that Congress has not had the cojones to actually declare war since WWII, despite the large number of major and/or significant conflicts we have been involved with since then, consulting congress on use of military force is little more than formality, anyway.

Here's what he actually said.

Ted Cruz agreed this morning that Trump had the authority to attack Syria last night, or as he put it, to respond to an exigent circumstance with military force. But if there are any more military actions needed, then Trump needs to make the case to Congress to get the authority for war:
http://therightscoop.com/ted-cruz-trump-had-authority-to-attack-syria-but-needs-to-talk-to-congress-for-more/

Quote from: Solar on April 07, 2017, 11:35:23 AM
Here's what he actually said.

Ted Cruz agreed this morning that Trump had the authority to attack Syria last night, or as he put it, to respond to an exigent circumstance with military force. But if there are any more military actions needed, then Trump needs to make the case to Congress to get the authority for war:
http://therightscoop.com/ted-cruz-trump-had-authority-to-attack-syria-but-needs-to-talk-to-congress-for-more/

Look at it this way the UN should have done something long before this.  But like always their all blow and no go. 

Quote from: walkstall on April 07, 2017, 11:42:17 AM
Look at it this way the UN should have done something long before this.  But like always their all blow and no go.

They didn't have a problem with it.

Quote from: Solar on April 07, 2017, 11:43:27 AM
They didn't have a problem with it.

What and piss off their own people?   

Quote from: walkstall on April 07, 2017, 11:42:17 AM
Look at it this way the UN should have done something long before this.  But like always their all blow and no go.

The UN is the stereotypical equivalent of the toothless old hag who spends her time sitting on her front porch with cheap binoculars watching and bitching about her neighbors.

Quote from: Solar on April 07, 2017, 11:35:23 AM
Here's what he actually said.

Ted Cruz agreed this morning that Trump had the authority to attack Syria last night, or as he put it, to respond to an exigent circumstance with military force. But if there are any more military actions needed, then Trump needs to make the case to Congress to get the authority for war:
http://therightscoop.com/ted-cruz-trump-had-authority-to-attack-syria-but-needs-to-talk-to-congress-for-more/

And, again, though I am a great admirer of Cruz, he is simply not technically correct.

http://www.americanforeignrelations.com/E-N/Judiciary-Power-and-Practice-War-and-the-courts.html

The Korean and Vietnam Wars were conducted in their entirety without congressional approval - despite complaints and suits based on the fact there was no declaration of war - because POTUS, as CinC, is recognized to have Constitutional authority to use the military as he sees fit to assure the security of the nation. Again, the declaration of war is a political action given entirely to Congress, but deployment and use of military assets is entirely executive.

Now, IMO, Trump SHOULD talk to Congress if he is pondering further actions against Syria (or, more specifically, Assad). However, he technically does not "need" to do seek congressional approval for military action.

Also, IMO, the Constitution needs an amendment which specifically limits presidential authority in use of military action to emergency responses to direct attacks or imminent threat of direct attacks, while all other types of military actions be only allowed under the authority of Congress to declare war.

Quote from: zewazir on April 07, 2017, 01:16:27 PM
And, again, though I am a great admirer of Cruz, he is simply not technically correct.

http://www.americanforeignrelations.com/E-N/Judiciary-Power-and-Practice-War-and-the-courts.html

The Korean and Vietnam Wars were conducted in their entirety without congressional approval - despite complaints and suits based on the fact there was no declaration of war - because POTUS, as CinC, is recognized to have Constitutional authority to use the military as he sees fit to assure the security of the nation. Again, the declaration of war is a political action given entirely to Congress, but deployment and use of military assets is entirely executive.

Now, IMO, Trump SHOULD talk to Congress if he is pondering further actions against Syria (or, more specifically, Assad). However, he technically does not "need" to do seek congressional approval for military action.

Also, IMO, the Constitution needs an amendment which specifically limits presidential authority in use of military action to emergency responses to direct attacks or imminent threat of direct attacks, while all other types of military actions be only allowed under the authority of Congress to declare war.

Precedent does not make law, though it destroys our Republic style of government by not enforcing the rule of law, it still doesn't make it law.
Problem is, Congress is nothing but a bunch of spineless wimps that do as their handlers decide and nothing more. If they had a spine, they would define war and force the POTUS to follow the letter of the law, but they don't and we both know why.
There's a reason people like McCain remain in office, he's a Warhawk, he serves those with interests in military development and procurement.

Nikki Haley has denounced Iran and Russia in the affair, and both she and Rex Tillerson are essentially reading the same script by accusing Russia of failing to take the gas out of Syria as the Russians were REQUIRED to do. Both said the attacks were due to Russian incompetence or direct participation with Syria in the attacks.

What made the UN sit on its hands was that this month the U.S. sits as president of the UN Security Council and Haley openly said we would use that advantage by FORCING all debate to be out in public, where Bolivia tried and failed to defend Syria off the record.

Joining the U.S. in assailing Russia was the U.K. representative, who used language even more blistering than Haley.

We live in interesting times.

I agree with Cruz. Trump would be wise to put Congress on record  in support.

Quote from: Solar on April 07, 2017, 01:28:27 PM
Precedent does not make law, though it destroys our Republic style of government by not enforcing the rule of law, it still doesn't make it law.
Problem is, Congress is nothing but a bunch of spineless wimps that do as their handlers decide and nothing more. If they had a spine, they would define war and force the POTUS to follow the letter of the law, but they don't and we both know why.
There's a reason people like McCain remain in office, he's a Warhawk, he serves those with interests in military development and procurement.

The Constitution clearly states that the President is the Commander in Chief of our armed forces. Nothing precedent abut that. It also states that Congress shall have the authority to declare war. Nothing "precedent" about that, either. Nor is there any "precedent" about the defined FACT that declaring war is a political action, while making war is a military action. Two distinct types of action which were delegated to two different branches of government. IF they meant the two actions to be co-dependent, I am certain they would have stated so.

Of note, there is NOTHING in the Constitution which gives Congress the power to "authorize" military action. NOT ONE WORD. They can declare war as one of their powers AND NOTHING ELSE. Therefore, assuming that Congress needs to be involved with the decision to use military force is nothing less than declaring a power because people think it SHOULD be there, not because it IS there.

From the start, even those who were involved in writing the Constitution, who later went on to become presidents used military action where it was deemed necessary WITHOUT declaration of war. The War of 1812 was our first actual declared war, yet our military had sen action dozens of times in dozens of different conflicts. In fact, we have had exactly 5 DECLARED wars in our history. Compare that to the number of times we have been in armed conflict of one type or another. There is a huge difference between "precedent" and the reality of defending the country as necessary without making a huge production of making every military action a declared war.

With the way the Korean War and Vietnam were mismanaged as Cold War political statements does prove, IMO, that there SHOULD be more checks and balances between the executive and legislative branches of government when it comes to conducting war and/or military actions on foreign soils. However, that verbiage is NOT in the Constitution at this time.