Type to search

In Syria, The First Step Down A Dangerous Road

Congress Editor's Blog Featured Post Middle East Military National News Politics Russia US White House

In Syria, The First Step Down A Dangerous Road

Share
financial

For the moment, Donald Trump’s bombing of a military airfield in Syria has earned him a measure of success that has eluded his bumbling and malevolent administration during its first three months in office. No doubt he is thrilled by admiring coverage on cable television; by endorsements from voices on the left and right, outraged by Bashar Assad’s latest atrocity against the Syrian people; and by the ultimate distraction from the Russia investigations, the failure of Obamacare repeal, and the ongoing warfare within his White House.

 Whatever Trump’s motives, he was hardly alone in wanting to punish Assad for the chemical weapons attack on Khan Shaykoun. Millions shared the fury that Trump claimed to feel when he saw video of children and infants who died terribly in that village. And the more sober imperative, to discourage the use of poison gas by any regime, is longstanding American policy for good reason.

 But impulsive military action, lacking any strategic plan or even broader rationale, is no more likely to end the Syrian civil war than the lack of action after Assad’s last, and even worse, chemical assault outside Damascus four years ago. Having opposed President Obama’s initiative to punish Assad following that attack, Trump clearly has no idea what to do now that his missiles have landed. Nor do Congressional Republicans, whose enthusiastic support for Trump’s action today rings hollow for anyone who remembers how they rejected Obama’s request to authorize military force in 2013.

 By now, such partisan vacillation about military action is all too familiar, especially among Republicans. In 1999, when Bill Clinton decided to act against Slobodan Milosevic’s incipient genocide against Muslims in Kosovo, nearly every Republican on Capitol Hill denounced his interventionism in the most strident terms.  According to them, the worst war crimes in Europe since World War II were simply not America’s concern. Carping Republicans mounted a series of absurd arguments on the floor of Congress.

If the NATO bombing campaign against Serb forces didn’t achieve surrender within a week, it had failed, they said. If NATO nations weren’t ready to send in ground troops, they should do nothing. And if the West didn’t prevent genocide in Rwanda, Bosnia, and East Timor, then Western nations should ignore catastrophic violence and the threat of a far wider war. Fortunately, Clinton ignored them.

But only three years later, the same Republicans who had opposed Clinton’s surgical policy in Kosovo endorsed a wholesale invasion of Iraq, with calamitous consequences that both the United States and the entire Mideast must endure. It didn’t matter to them that Bush had essentially ignored the United Nations and violated his own pledge to allow UN weapons inspections to be completed before any US military action. Indeed, it didn’t matter that the entire rationale for the war — the supposed existence of chemical, biological, even nuclear weapons in Saddam Hussein’s arsenal — was premised on exceptionally weak evidence.

Worse still, the Republicans permitted Bush to invade Iraq in March 2003 — which he ordered after contemplating regime change there since early in his presidency — without a plausible exit strategy. The war’s advocates promised a “cakewalk,” a chance to profit from Iraq’s oil, an easy war and an easy way out, which many found persuasive at the time, apparently including Donald Trump. We all know how that worked out.

What will happen this time?  It is impossible to predict what kind of policy will be pursued by Trump, whose previous declarations about Syria (and Russia) probably encouraged Assad to think he could escape accountability for any crime he commits. He issued one strident tweet after another, demanding that Obama stand down after Assad’s 2013 gas attack. (Maybe he didn’t look at the videos, or they didn’t show enough children dying.) It is possible to predict, however, that inconsistent actions motivated by presidential emotion are sure to fail. Already the airbase struck by US missiles on Thursday appears to be back in service — and Assad has exercised many other methods of massacring civilians, including tens of thousands of children. Symbolic retaliation doesn’t accomplish much.

So have Republicans — or hawkish Democrats — learned anything from the military and diplomatic history of the past two decades? At least some politicians of both parties appear to understand that rushing into conflict with Russia and Iran — without an international coalition, without any United Nations support, without conclusive proof that Assad perpetrated the chemical attack, without any notion of a strategy to end the war, instigated by an understaffed administration whose commander-in-chief has absolutely no idea what he is doing — marks the first step down a very dangerous road. 

Tags:
Joe Conason

A highly experienced journalist, author and editor, Joe Conason is the editor-in-chief of The National Memo, founded in July 2011. He was formerly the executive editor of the New York Observer, where he wrote a popular political column for many years. His columns are distributed by Creators Syndicate and his reporting and writing have appeared in many publications around the world, including the New York Times, the Washington Post, The New Yorker, The New Republic, The Nation, and Harpers.

Since November 2006, he has served as editor of The Investigative Fund, a nonprofit journalism center, where he has assigned and edited dozens of award-winning articles and broadcasts. He is also the author of two New York Times bestselling books, The Hunting of the President (St. Martins Press, 2000) and Big Lies: The Right-Wing Propaganda Machine and How It Distorts the Truth (St. Martins Press, 2003).

Currently he is working on a new book about former President Bill Clinton's life and work since leaving the White House in 2001. He is a frequent guest on radio and television, including MSNBC's Morning Joe, and lives in New York City with his wife and two children.

  • 1

62 Comments

  1. Dominick Vila April 8, 2017

    The problem with Trump’s decision to carry out an air strike against a Syrian military base in response to a heinous act of inhumanity, is not that we may have retaliated prematurely, but the fact that the current administration does not seem to have a long term strategy on how to deal with the national security threats we are facing, on ways to confront the economic challenges that lie ahead, or even a cohesive blueprint of what they intend to do. Instead, what we have are facile slogans designed to impress the naive, expressions of intense hatred, evidence of naivete and lack of a long term vision, and what seems to be a major ideological purge within the administration. It is becoming increasingly evident that Ivanka, Jared, Mattis, and a couple of other close members of the Trump team are replacing the far right ideologues that dominated Trump’s agenda during his first two months in office. Whether this ideological shift, and decisions such as authorizing an attack against another country without investigating and having conclusive evidence to justify it, is just a desperate attempt to distract the American people and pivot our attention from Russia-gate to matters more acceptable to the general public or not remains to be seen. Clearly, it would be in our best interest if Trump starts behaving more like a President than a campaigner. It would also be in our best interest if instead of making accusations against other countries, including our allies, he would start seeking compromise and peaceful coexistence, when possible. In the interim, his base is caught between evidence of a shift in foreign and domestic policies that they do not like, and the need to support a man that is delivering the goods on issues such as moving the Supreme Court to the far right. Will they support short term strategic incoherence to achieve long term goals?

    Reply
    1. Mercedesmgaymon April 8, 2017

      Google is paying $97 per hour! Work for few hours & have longer with friends and family! !wr348c:
      On monday I got a great new mclaren f1 from having earned $12778 this last four weeks.. 3 to 5 hours of work a day… Weekly paychecks… Bonus opportunities…Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
      !wr348c:
      ➽➽
      ➽➽➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialCashJobs328ExpressPower/GetPaid$97/Hour ★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫:::!wr348u:…..

    2. dbtheonly April 8, 2017

      Dom,

      I can’t find it in me to condemn in Trump, an action I would have applauded from President Obama.

      Mr. Conason is right, the follow up is important.

      I’ll add that the announcement that removing Assad was no longer an issue probably emboldened his use of the gas. Thus the ham-handedness probably added to the problems.

      Flagged the spam for you.

      1. Dominick Vila April 8, 2017

        Thanks! I support Trump’s decision to punish the Assad regime for the barbarity they carried out, regardless of motive (s). I just think it is odd that he decided to do this one week after Tillerson said that it was up to the Syrian people to decide what to do with Assad, after opposing punitive action after the 2013 gas attack, and after saying throughout the campaign that he had no intention to escalate the chaos in the Middle East. I suspect that Ivanka, Trump, Mattis, and a few others convinced him to do this. This action also puts some distance between him and Putin. The only problem I have with this decision is that there is no evidence of a long term strategy to deal with threats against out national security, or the instability that exists in some parts of the world. The same goes for the so called war on terror. Defeating ISIS strongholds in Syria, Iraq, Yemen, Somalia, and a few other places may be part of the strategy to achieve that goal, but it will not solve the problem. The big challenge is how to change the minds of people inclined to support medieval concepts and barbarity. That requires deeds, and respecting the traditions, values, and aspirations of others, which we have not been doing.

        1. dbtheonly April 8, 2017

          Would I be much more confident if President Obama were running things? Duh.

          You’re right the next steps are crucial.

          But here today, right now, I would have applauded a bombing of Syrian airfields by President Obama. The fact that Trump pulled the trigger doesn’t change the action.

          I’ve completed too bitterly about the RWMO attacks on President Obama for actions supported in a Republican; to adopt the mirror view of the position.

          I am in favor of regime change in both Syria and the DPRK. The US can not and should not go it alone, but in concert with the Allies, action needs to be taken.

        2. Zoraidaesolomon April 9, 2017

          Google is paying $97 per hour! Work for few hours & have longer with friends and family! !fe410c:
          On monday I got a great new mclaren f1 from having earned $12778 this last four weeks.. 3 to 5 hours of work a day… Weekly paychecks… Bonus opportunities…Its the most-financialy rewarding I’ve had.. It sounds unbelievable but you wont forgive yourself if you don’t check it
          !fe410c:
          ➽➽
          ➽➽➽➽ http://GoogleFinancialCashJobs700WebFresh/GetPaid$97/Hour ★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫★✫★★✫:::!fe410c:….,…….

        3. itsfun April 9, 2017

          We don’t know if there is a long term strategy or not. This President is not going to tell the world of our military plans or world strategy before hand. With all the leaks coming out of Washington, he may feel he can only trust a handful of people to keep our military secrets.

      2. plc97477 April 8, 2017

        I can’t say I would have applauded the action done by Obama. He did it the way it is supposed to be done. He went to congress to get permission. That is how the constitution says to handle things like this. If trump had gone to the congress, I would not condemn his actions since he did not….

      3. Independent1 April 8, 2017

        The only question I have here is with respect to another article on the NM about whether or not Trump’s strike was actually helping al-Qaeda deepen its control over the province where the city is in that Assad bombed. I certainly don’t condone the chemical bombing, but from that article on the NM said, it seems that should we be successful in having Assad back off from his heinous actions or even ousting him, all that we may be accomplishing is saving the people in that province from chemical warfare only to have them subjected to al-Qaeda’s brutal governance where it says women are executed in the streets and ethnic cleansing is going on just like under ISIS. Are we simply trying to remove one inhumane method of them being killed just to have them murdered for another – insane religious ideology?

        As we move toward eliminating the dominance of Assad, we also need to be working at removing al-Qaeda from all of Syria. We need at least a two pronged effort; we can’t simply be focused on just overthrowing Assad. He’s not the only inhumane killer.

        1. dbtheonly April 8, 2017

          I1, you certainly hit the key question. The Russians hit this point consistently. They equate the Anti-Assad forces with the “terrorists”. Hurting Assad helps the terrorists.

          I do not accept that dichotomy. There are more than two choices Assad and Al-Quaida. There is a third way. Providing security, clean water, adequate food, reasonable health care, and a visible way for each Syrian to build a better life for himself and his children.

          Who are the “terrorists”? People who don’t see a solution to their current problems. Who don’t see a better life for their children. A “war on terrorism” is doomed to fail. A “food on terrorism” can be successful. A well fed man doesn’t want to blow himself up. Peace, security, comfort, and satisfaction are the best weapons against terrorism.

          1. Independent1 April 8, 2017

            I don’t disagree with what you’re saying, but I don’t think that you’re going to accomplish what you’re suggesting by simply “Providing security, clean water, adequate food, reasonable health care, and a visible way for each Syrian to build a better life for himself and his children.”

            I don’t see any of that happening until Assad, the Russians and al Qaeda are kicked out of Syria. I can see what you’re suggesting as being a way to prevent where Syria is today from reoccurring; but in order to get to the point where the Syrians that have been brainwashed by Assad and the al Qaeda Taliban and the horrors they’ve been through to be in a position to accept what you think should be offered, isn’t going to become a reality until some semblance of peace comes to the land.

            And I don’t see that happening without the two pronged effort I suggested: that deliberate action needs to be taken to oust both Assad (and the Russians) and al Qaeda so that the Syrian people can once again feel safe enough that they can even think about accepting what you say should be offered to bring true peace to Syria: security, clean water, adequate food, and so on.

          2. dbtheonly April 9, 2017

            While bombing and military effort can rid the world of Assad, military effort is much less useful against “terrorism”. John Kerry was mocked by the RWMO for it, but I agree that “terrorism” is a job for the police, not the army. So I’m not sure how you kick Al-Qaeda out of Syria. Nor the Russians, for that matter.

            Terrorism flourishes where a people feel helpless. That holds true in Syria, as in Trump’s USA. So the answer isn’t bombs. It’s hope.

          3. Independent1 April 9, 2017

            I think it starts with getting rid of Assad; my preference would be through getting Putin to agree that he needs to leave and him convincing Assad of that rather than some military action. And then hopefully if that can be accomplished, Putin will not see the need for Russia to stay involved in Syria and maybe the U.N. can then defuse some of the animosity going on between Assad’s supporters (including the military) and the non terrorist aligned people that have been opposing Assad. If that can be accomplished, hopefully what’s now the Assad military can work at getting rid of the al Qaeda terrorists.

    3. Independent1 April 8, 2017

      Dominick, it may be more than just some members of Trump’s WH team that are replacing the alt-right’s support for Trump; it may also be his alt-right supporters finally waking up and realizing that Trump isn’t even to them all that he appeared to be when he was campaigning to get his family into the White House where he could make the whole family more wealthy.

      According to the following article from Yahoo News, Trump’s alt-right supporters are bailing on him where it appears now that he isn’t just totally focused on just making ‘America First’.

      See this:

      Trump’s alt-right fans bail after Syria strikes
      https://www.yahoo.com/news/trumps-alt-right-fans-bail-syria-strikes-130839954.html

      And with respect to Trump strongly urging Obama to stay out of Syria earlier on in the Syrian conflict, my sense is he was doing that because 1) if a bombing of Assad back in 2013 turned out to be successful and someone was going to get the credit, it wouldn’t be him; and 2) like so many things, Trump only thinks about getting the glory, and virtually never about what damage down the road his getting the glory may mean to the lives of millions of people, or other countries, around the world.

  2. Aaron_of_Portsmouth April 8, 2017

    Trump and his loyal myrmidons started the election season with a preoccupation with Trump’s recklessness and purported deal-making skills, after years of watching this irresponsible con artist on TV. Surely what he claims, all his money, his hot-air approach, and writing some idiotic book should be proof enough that those shallow items on a tawdry resume should qualify him as fit for the Oval Office, right?
    Shouldn’t the fact that he mowed down a field of incompetent GOP wannabe’s in an endless joke called the GOP debates was enough to convince us of the “might”, “thoughtfulness”, and “wisdom” of one, Donald John Trump, correct?

    And what about his ability to passionately appeal to millions of voters’ basest and isolationist instincts, by rejuvenating the legions of racists, motivated the worst elements of society to feel the need to become a vigilante force terrorizing various and sundry derelicts to take their guns and administer frontier-style justice on anyone vaguely resembling a Muslim? Certainly those skills of Trump must qualify as being fit for the job—right?

    And then, there are 3 of the most potent and convincing items of Trump being fit to be Commander-in-Chief: 1) His ability to brag about his unbalanced sexual proclivities in public and get away with it, and even be admired; 2) Just simply saying he’s going to allow coal-miners and “frackers” to continue to poison the air and water; and 3) Chanting a trite and antiquated slogan, while wearing his special magic red cap with said slogan etched on it, “Make America Great Again”.

    The last 3 sterling qualifications should alone deter Putin from daring to take actions against America, while leaving the field wide open for Russia and China to fill the void left by an increasingly cowardly retreat into isolationism. And Trump’s “skills” with “telling it like it is” should be enough to cause the Russian cruisers now positioned in the Mediterranean Sea to suddenly turn tail and cruise back to the Baltic because the “mighty” Trump said— “They’ve crossed a lot of my red lines”.

    Any American who feels a sense of solace and security with all the above needs to do more than seek help from a psychiatrist. And should be given a battery of tests to see whether they have functioning minds or have had their brains replaced with modules stamped with “Courtesy of Putin and the FSB”—a popular unit on trial among avowed right-wing extremists and regular conservatives.

    Reply
  3. Aaron_of_Portsmouth April 8, 2017

    Right now, I can hear Mitch McConnell again saying, with his fine southern drawl, that he doesn’t care for Trump’s methods. but that he approves of the results—does this include ordering a strike without thinking of what to do next, Mitch? Are you, Mitch, and the other rule-breakers in Congress, satisfied with the results that Russia is still heavily committed to supporting Assad by Putin’s step to send military ships to the region to bolster air space defense near Syria’s air space?
    Or is Mitch and the rest of the GOP only content with ramming through a Supreme Court nominee and focused only on that ram-rod job, happily discounting the ominous clouds building up on the world’s horizons??

    Reply
    1. marriea April 8, 2017

      These guys are ‘dicks’ and they are thinking like the very word it represents.
      The Republicans are so into themsleves they don’t seem to realize or care what their action will do for the country as a whole.
      Saw a picture of McConnell smiling about the ‘quick turnaround’ theydid to put Gorsuch on the Supreme Court.
      You don’t like the rules, hell just change them.
      What is that saying, ‘the end justifies the means’.
      It was the Republicans that changed the rules years ago concerning how many terms a president could serve.
      Then they lamented the actions years later when Reagan was president.
      They will also lament their action is years to come with a simple majority rule for the Supreme Court.
      And Gorsuch, will he be able to resist not doing his job if it comes to to ruling against the one who put him in this job.
      Trump is trying to show that he is not the weak ass that he is.
      I get that something had to be done concerning Assad, but for the U S to go this all alone.
      There is much cheering among the leaders of the world.
      But what if they then egg the U S on to ‘finish’ the job without their help or money.
      Is the U S now prepared to get involved in another war with the ‘Muslims’
      From my viewpoint, you can’t effectively fight a man (or woman) who isn’t afraid to die.
      When we fight, we do so with the idea of a hero’s welcome should we come home.
      From what I have seen with the Muslim, they are fighting because they believe in the cause and are willing to die for it.
      I can’t help but see this as the begainning of the end for us.
      Putin obviously knew what he was doing in supporting/helping Trump.
      He probably already had seen Trump the wantabe up close and personal and decided to test him to see what he was all about.
      After all, Putin didn’t like President Obama neither.
      But he saw that not only Trump didn’t like him, he was overtly jealous of him.
      What a better way than to us one of the U S’ own to bring down an entire country.
      I keep getting images of Uncle Arthur of the Bewitched series when he did something that caused another to make a fool of themselves.
      With Trump, it is so easy.

      .

      1. Eleanore Whitaker April 8, 2017

        Don’t you love it though that they Republicans are smarting because Trump discuss the attack on Syrian with no mention to Congress? This is something President Obama would NEVER do. But then, President Obama was our one in a million president who knew as a Constitutional Law Professor that the Constitution is the foundation of our government. Trump thinks he is.

        I am not in the least worried that Gorsuch on the SC will be any threat. He’s why. 4 of the members of the SC are born and raised in NY. 2 are from Princeton NJ. That number of 6 quite metropolitan bred SC judges will tear Gorsuch to shreds if he dares try to pull rank on them with his hick laws or tries in any way to usurp the Constitution for Trump.

        Donald Trump won’t get from the Supreme Court what he thinks he will even with his appointee. But, the Republicans will lose their majority in 2018. The American people have a deep distaste for hicks pulling rank on one president and allowing their Republican president to get away with things they’d never allow Obama to do.

        1. marriea April 8, 2017

          But that will happen only if folks flock to the polls and vote like birds flying south for the winter.
          I don’t know, but I can only hope members of the courts will see Gorsuch as a fake judge.
          They know what happened was wrong on so many levels.
          Even Clarence Thomas can see this as a wrong move.

          1. Eleanore Whitaker April 8, 2017

            Normally I would agree about flocking to the polls. 2.6 million more of us flocked to the polls in 2016 to vote for Hillary than for Trump. He lost the popular vote.

            The question no one asks is HOW he won the Electoral College vote. Since VA and NC both have been called before the Supreme Court for violating voting rights by moving or chopping up voting districts in largely minority areas of their states, these tactics made it appear there was an increase in Electoral College votes from their states and that minorities who normally voted Democrat voted for Trump.

            That’s election rigging of the Electoral College. And, since all of the electors in the Electoral College are appointed by state legislators from the party, you can see there is more than enough evidence that Trump’s winning the Electoral College may not have been on the up and up.

          2. marriea April 8, 2017

            I do believe your analogy is correct.
            This is why I’m shouting now about people learning the process and start NOW, TODAY in getting one’s voting papers in order and learning today about how much the state and local elections play in our laws.
            I suspect many people don’t now and this is why politics is being played out so much via social media.
            Once before one could count on TV, although I personally liked it better with te way Jimmy Carter did it.
            Much to his credit, rump did the same thing but I just can’t get pass that many folks was more turned on to be in the midst of a ‘celebrity and one who is reportedly ‘rich’ is why folks packed themselves to the polls to vote for him.
            Filks do have a way of celebrating
            their celebrities
            I have heard folks at the bus stop say the same stuff as Trump, silly as it might be, but when someone of ‘status’ repeats non-sense, it carries weight.
            Guess people still feels the way they did in days of yo, hen te king said something, ven if wrong, folks believed it then as now.
            Must be that follow the pack syndrome.

          3. Eleanore Whitaker April 9, 2017

            American voters need to start thinking in terms of their options in order to get one past the Russian and right wing goalies.

            One of Trump’s fortes is his ability to always know his “options.” When it appears there are none, he creates new ones.

            So here is what Americans need to do at their local levels to guarantee a Russia Free election:
            1. Start by digging up as much dirty laundry on each states’ party bosses. This is where the slime starts in elections. For example, every state has a political party boss for both parties. Learn every detail of how they became so empowered and who else is on their “back room board.”
            2. Keep a microscopic eye on how these party bosses operate before and after elections. Much of their sliming of our elections begin long before a final vote is counted for the next coming election.
            3. Take the time to learn which parties are gerrymandering and chopping up voting districts. This is how they win the Electoral College. Force them to prove the actual party count in each voting district. Example: If know your town has a population of 12,000 voters, go to your local board of elections and take the time to know how many are GOP and how many of the 12,000 are Dems and where the concentration of the parties lies most. Then, watch for any “changes” made by party bosses.
            4. It may be necessary now to go back to the old days of “handwritten ballots” in order to have signature proof of our votes.

      2. itsfun April 8, 2017

        Harry Reid is the one that started using the nuclear option and changing Senate rules. He changed to rules to put liberal judges on federal courts. He used the nuclear option to pass the ACA. Blame Reid for your complaints.

        1. marriea April 8, 2017

          I beg to differ.
          Harry Reid might have suggested that move a long time ago, just like Joe Biden suggested the idea of having the next president select the next president.
          Both those guys were DEMS and they both thought better of the ramification something like that would do to our constitution.
          But as a RULE, neither one of those options were actually put into play.
          Now we have a bunch who if something pops out of their ass, they do it.
          They are destroying YOUR constitution.
          They are destroying YOUR rules of law.
          Trump has gotten rid of all decorum, respect for policies that have been in place for years.
          Even the one about the emolument clause is being shattered.
          But, if you like it, it fine with me.
          Perhaps you or I might not feel the benefits of these laws or rules, there were put there for a reason because the founders were wise to human nature, but it seems that the GOP is fine with it.
          It callled greed my friend.
          I can understand the desire to have things, but at what cause to home and country.

          1. itsfun April 8, 2017

            Harry Reid did change the rules to appoint liberal federal judges that didn’t get enough votes in the Senate. Harry Reid also used the nuclear option to get Obamacare passed. No one is destroying the Constitution. The Republicans have done nothing that is unconstitutional. The policies that President Trump is get rid of and changing are the executive orders of Obama. He has every constitutional right to do that. President Trump was elected to get rid of Obama’s excessive rules, regulations, and EO’s. President Trump has not done anything to ignore the Constitution. Where do you come up with greed. Where does greed come into play with getting rid of the ridiculous amount of regulations?

          2. Independent1 April 8, 2017

            And the lies and distortions of reality just keep a flying out of your pathological lying mouth.

            Harry Reid invoked the nuclear option to get 3 federal judges appointed who were desperately needed because Emperor Mitch had used the fake filibuster over 300 times at that point to shut down virtually any judicial nominations Obama had made – Because of GOP obstruction, the Obama years saw the fewest judicial appoints confirmed of any president.

            And the Dems DID NOT use the nuclear option to enact Obamacare. The version of Obamacare finally enacted was approved in the Senate in December of 2010 when the Dems had a 60 vote majority – that was before Scott Brown replaced Ted Kennedy’s temporary replacement and the Dems lost that 60 vote majority in January of 2011. Because of that loss, the Dems used budget reconciliation NOT the nuclear option to fully enact ACA in 2011.

            And although the GOP may not have done anything totally unconstitutional so far, they outright stole a lot of 2016 elections, including the presidency, via gerrymandering, voter suppression, elections fraud and actually hacking the voting computers.

            And only a moron such as yourself would ask a question such as this: ” President Trump has not done anything to ignore the Constitution. Where do you come up with greed.”

            Again, although what Trump has done is not blatantly against the Constitution, GREED is what the GOP is all about; and virtually all Trump’s EOs are designed to allow corporations and even small companies to further destroy America’s water, air and natural environment putting people’s lives at risk, INCLUDING YOURS, just so greedy mostly Republicans can make higher profits by running their businesses cheaper and actually do business in areas that were previously blocked because they were life threatening; and in addition to further the agenda of those greedy individuals who would threaten other people’s lives because they are a different color or different religion than they think should live and work in America.

          3. dbtheonly April 9, 2017

            Respectfully suggest that you find a better use of your time than spending serious effort refuting its’ ravings.

            He’s trolling us. He stands for nothing. He’ll take any position and refuse to accept rational argument against it.

          4. marriea April 9, 2017

            Of course you are right.
            He’s worst than Trump because like an alcoholic, he see only thru the haze of delusions.
            I honestly feel bad for him because sometimes I do see a hint of rational thought.
            Oh well.
            But thank you.

        2. ♚ King Leo ♚ April 8, 2017

          Hmmmmm yes the fact that Republicans blocked more appointments than all previous presidencies had nothing to do with that, guy who is so stupid he argued for days that the FBI was not part of the DOJ.

    2. ORAXX April 8, 2017

      Exactly. I wish the people who are so eager to blow stuff up, were better at asking, ‘Then what?’

      1. Eleanore Whitaker April 8, 2017

        When I first saw Trump in person in Atlantic City, my first impression was a guy who is so in love with himself and so grossly insecure that only an adoring fan club and audience renders him operative on a human level.

        You can be sure Trump was thrilled at being able to use missiles for the first time in his life. Wow! What Power! What Trump Power!

        Power is what Trump is all about. Money as power. Women as power, lies as power and manipulations as power. Gotta get his daily dose of power somehow or his weeny shrivels.

        1. Jim April 9, 2017

          What makes you think that anyone else wouldn’t have attacked? It’s common for a president of both party’s to retaliate like that, it’s not just a republican thing.

    3. Jim April 8, 2017

      No matter what party’s in charge there’s some decisions we hate, I hate the dems. supporting the L.G.B.T.Q. agenda, President Obama put a judge in that supports gay marriage. Now Trump has someone who who doesn’t good! Now get off off his case & let him do his job, no one is perfect!

      1. Eleanore Whitaker April 8, 2017

        Let him do his job? Really little boy? You mean like the job he did on all of his NJ employees and contractors who built his casinos and hotels? Don’t bother to pay them?

        I hate Republicans because they DO NOT REPRESENT the people. The only “people” they represent are the corporations they claim are “people.”

        You now why twits of middle age hate Obama? Because while his intelligence is a serious threat to twits, his rock star admiration from the entire world is something your Lard ass in chief hates and will never have.

        Why does Trump have hundreds of lawsuits? Why does he have a fine for money laundering in the Taj Mahal casino?

        Why doesn’t he want any investigations into how Putin helped him “win” an election? Sorry he is not now nor ever will be president of anything but Trump Organization. You need to drop the Trump ass kissing little boy.

        1. Jim April 9, 2017

          The republicans represent a lot and so do dems. but everyone says the other doesn’t, since republicans get voted in they clearly do, I don’t like republicans either. I agree they do greatly faver co. but this time I have to vote against the excessive bleeding heart dems. as apposed to the total lack of heart republicans. I’m not saying Trump is a good man or his party. I will say it again no matter what party is in control there’s always some decisions we hate, both party’s suck.

          1. Raven April 22, 2017

            > “[S]ince republicans get voted in they clearly do” [represent a lot of people] — Gerrymandering has something to do with that. For instance, in Wisconsin:

            “With the new maps in place, GOP candidates in 2012 state Assembly races actually got 168,000 fewer votes than their Democratic counterparts, but the GOP still scored 60 of the 99 seats. They now hold a 63-36 advantage in the Assembly and a 19-14 advantage in the state Senate.”

      2. Aaron_of_Portsmouth April 8, 2017

        Jim, that’s an air-headed response that says nothing aside from your simple-minded “hate of dems”, and an equally irrelevant citing of your anti-gay non-Christian attitude. Are you telling me and others that expressing your “hate” is how we are to define who a Christian is? Are you truly so small-minded that you couldn’t offer a better comment than the pathetic one you just posted?
        Grow up, Jim, become a useful and important contributor to society, by leaving behind your childhood—become an ADULT, Jim!!

        1. Eleanore Whitaker April 8, 2017

          Aaron, this is a generation of middle aged mostly white males educated in DogPatch where everything filters through religion. It has to. These are some of the most promiscuous people in the country. Ergo, the high rate of single white moms in the south and midwest. After all, this mentality was taught to “hit and run” on every issue.

          Sadly, men like Jim are so narrow minded that anything that represents freedom is anathema to them unless it’s the freedom to stalk shopping malls with AK47s strapped to them. Always the show offs with the strutting and swaggering and mouthing off…not unlike Trump. Birds of a feather…right?

          The problem is that this is a generation that absolutely wants it handed to them. Even if those handing it to them went to war to defend their country, worked for 4 or more decades.

          Not these lazy louts. They want to work 5 years, retire on a CEOs salary while they spend their days texting, trying to intimidate those of us they simply refuse to admit CANNOT and WILL NOT ever be intimidated by their lies and their distortions.

        2. Jim April 9, 2017

          I never said I hate anyone & there are a lot of christian’s who are against homosexuality the bible preaches against homosexuality but my reason isn’t religious it’s just sick, I don’t hate gay people nor dems. just homosexuality I write one thing and you people think I’m saying another, you guys need to read more carefully.

          1. Raven April 22, 2017

            > “I never said I hate anyone” — you, now.
            > “I hate the dems.” — you, earlier.

          2. Jim April 30, 2017

            I hate something’s dems. & republicans do but they both do some good things as well.

      3. ♚ King Leo ♚ April 8, 2017

        “I’m a dumb bigot now let the dumb loser president start dumb random wars to cover up his treason”
        – you

        1. Jim April 8, 2017

          The president has legitimate bad country’s to go after, N. Korea, Iran, ending those as they are is a good thing eventually., how is Trump a traitor? If anyone is it’s Obama & Hilary, don’t misunderstand me I don’t like republicans either. Excuse me for not liking homosexuality! & dems. trying to force our society to except this perversion.

          1. ♚ King Leo ♚ April 8, 2017

            I already said you were a dumb bigot, but is it too late to go back and underline “dumb”?

          2. Jim April 9, 2017

            And your an A-HOLE!

          3. ♚ King Leo ♚ April 9, 2017

            Oh no

      4. CarlOrcas April 9, 2017

        Why do you hate gay people?

        1. Jim April 9, 2017

          You clearly didn’t read carefully I didn’t say or imply I hate gay people I said I hate homosexuality there is a difference.

          1. Aaron_of_Portsmouth April 9, 2017

            You clearly didn’t read what you wrote regarding “hate”, using your own words posted a day ago.

            “No matter what party’s in charge there’s some decisions we hate, I hate the dems. supporting the L.G.B.T.Q. agenda, President Obama put a judge in that supports gay marriage.”

            Jim, you do know how to read, right? Your words “I hate the dems”—who do you think you meant other than what’s in that statement?
            And then you make a strange grammatically illogical bridge by going from who you hate to say, “,,.I hate the dems, supporting the L.G.B. T. Q. agenda, President Obama put a judge in that supports gay…”.
            Jim, you’re so confused by all the bile you have coursing through you veins that you’re totally out to lunch. Take a break, go outside and breathe some fresh air, and clear your head.

          2. CarlOrcas April 10, 2017

            You seem to hate a lot. Why?

          3. Jim April 11, 2017

            Only some things some people do.

          4. CarlOrcas April 11, 2017

            Why do you hate homosexuality? What difference does it make to you what other people do?

    4. Eleanore Whitaker April 8, 2017

      McConnell is as bad at truth as Trump. McConnell’s entire political career depends on campaign donations from military industrialists, HMOs and Big Pharma. He fools no one with that “butter wouldn’t melt in his mouth” BS Act.

      The reality of Syria is that Trump didn’t even advise Congress of his plan to attack. President Obama NEVER used preemptive strikes without Congressional discussion and approval.

      Where the hell is big mouth Roy Cohn clone, Trey Gowdy on SyriaGate now that Trump killed hundreds of Syrian civilians? And, curiously why isn’t Tillerson as Secretary of State getting beaten on like the morons of the right beat on Hillary and CohnMan Gowdy with his 11 hour interrogation of Hillary for Benghazi.

      Some men in this country are dangerously close to pissing off all the wrong women. We pay our taxes just like they do and we do not intend to see our young men and women in the military used for another Trump Ego Buster campaign.

      Trump used Syria as he always uses his weak willed lackies: To show his POWER. He has none. We are not going to stop the investigations into his kissy kissy nicey nicey Putin election rigging.

  4. FF April 8, 2017

    Here’s the irony…Many people (including Democrats) didn’t vote for Hilary because she was too hawkish. They were concerned that she would drag us into another protracted conflict in the Middle East. So, they voted for Mr. “America First” and here we are now not knowing what the long term strategy is for Syria. I guess we’ll have to wait to find out.

    Reply
  5. itsfun April 8, 2017

    Writer says President Trump has no idea of what he will do now. This President isn’t running around telling the whole world his exact future plans. He isn’t drawing fake red lines or fake anything. He is a man of action, not inaction.

    Reply
    1. marriea April 8, 2017

      And you like that?
      What is about the ideology of many of the people of the U S, these days.
      Did the presidency of Obama so mess with your brains that now everything is off the table and you are actually going to explain the actions of a man whom I doubt even knows the words to the Preamble.
      I have read your words and you seem passionalte about your/our country, but seriously are you?
      You are actually buying into the idea that he doesn’t know what he will do next ot his future plans.
      You’re comfortable with the idea that you have elected a man whose idea of governing is to ‘wing’ it.
      Itsfun, what the hell is the matter with you.
      You need to check yourself.
      You have been seemingly overcome with some sort of hate not only in your heart but your head.
      I hope you’re not teaching your kids this mess.
      WOW!!

      1. itsfun April 8, 2017

        Do you like the idea of telling murderous chemical users what your plans are? That is not what President Trump will do. Should President draw red lines, then back down after the red lines are crossed? Obama is the cause of these chemicals being used. He is the one that let them get away with using chemical weapons. Then he tells us all the chemical weapons were destroyed and Syria will not have any more. He believed everything the murderous leader told him to believe. Obama always saw the world as he wanted it to be, not as it was. President Trump is not winging anything. He is not a polished politician and I love that. He calls a jerk a jerk instead of using some politically correct BS. President Trump knows what he wants to do. You are the one preaching hate. You appear to be one of the tolerant left as long as I agree with you. When people don’t agree with you, you resort to name calling and more hate.

        1. Independent1 April 8, 2017

          Wow!! Do you write for SNL?? You’re posts are such delusions of reality that they border on the absurdity that is even your life. You are such a worthless piece of crap that it turns my stomach even to respond to your evil nonsensical ramblings!!!

          Everything you just posted is a FLAT OUT LIE!!!!!!!

    2. ♚ King Leo ♚ April 8, 2017

      OK thanks for telling us your opinions, guy who was too dumb to accept that the FBI is part of the DOJ.

      You’re a thinker.

  6. itsfun April 9, 2017

    The first dangerous step in Syria was President Obama drawing a red line if Syria used chemical weapons and now following through after they did just that.

    Reply
    1. ♚ King Leo ♚ April 12, 2017

      OK that’s a weird version of history. In this dimension, Republicans stopped him from doing anything, but then cheered loudly as Trump blew up an empty cafeteria. Is that “following through”? How does that harm Assad?

  7. Aaron_of_Portsmouth April 9, 2017

    Trump has bitten off more than his ego should have been allowed to chew on.

    Reply

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.