ChrisWeigant.com

Taser Unswiftly Changes Name

[ Posted Thursday, April 6th, 2017 – 16:58 UTC ]

OK, I'm going to start today by apologizing both for this article and for that title. The article's apology is for its frivolous nature, and the title's apology will become obvious in due course. I do realize there are momentous things happening in the political world that I really should be writing about today, but I am instead choosing to ignore it all until tomorrow because I saw this little blurb of news:


Taser International, a company known for arming the nation's cops with its controversial electroshock weapons, is rebranding and shifting its business model to focus on police body cameras.

When NASDAQ opens on Thursday, Taser International will officially be known as Axon, adopting the name of the company's body camera division, which launched in 2009. In an effort to further dominate the market, Axon will offer law enforcement agencies body cameras and a year of premium service for free, the company announced Wednesday.

The move appears to serve two purposes. Axon's decision to dedicate more resources to body cameras allows it to capitalize on an emerging market with huge potential for growth, thanks largely to police reform activism. And by dropping the Taser name, it can shed some of the unsavory connotations associated with a device connected to scores of civilian deaths at the hands of police.

"Taser can be a little bit polarizing," Rick Smith, the company's founder and C.E.O., told The Huffington Post in an interview ahead of the rebranding announcement. Cops "absolutely love the brand," Smith said, but for people who "have negative views of police," the name Taser evokes something more unpleasant.

Now, I'm certainly no expert on corporate branding, but I have to say I was somewhat dismayed to hear of this change. Not for any political reason, I hasten to point out. I'm sure that there are plenty of people who have negative connotations with the name Taser (and their products), and I am not commenting in any way upon this personal viewpoint. Instead, I am sorry to see the Taser name de-emphasized because of what it literally stands for.

This isn't the company's first name change. It was originally called TSER. According to Wikipedia, they eventually added an "A" to the name "because we got tired of answering the phone 'TSER.'" So they made up a middle name, instead of their other obvious choice, which would have been to call themselves ToSER. I say this because TSER started life as an acronym, standing for: "Tom Swift's Electric Rifle." The company decided to change this to "Thomas A. Swift's Electric Rifle" (mostly, I suspect, to rhyme with "laser" and "maser" -- which are both also acronyms, I should point out). But I'm not so sure Tom ever actually had a middle name, which is why they could have just borrowed the "o" from his first name, if they needed a vowel in there.

So again, I'm not expressing personal support for the company itself or its products, but I did have to smile when I learned where the name came from. Because Tom Swift was definitely part of my childhood. To be accurate: "Tom Swift Jr." -- because the books I had were from the second series, which was written from 1954 to 1971.

The Tom Swift series goes back further, to the original stories written from 1910 through 1941. These were about Tom Swift, father of Tom Jr., and basically jumped the shark (to use another outmoded reference) when Tom got married (young adult books become less relevant to their target audience when they find it harder to relate to the main characters, in other words).

Tom Swift was pretty huge, way back when. To date, 30 million Tom Swift books have been sold, and (again, according to Wikipedia): "a 1929 study found the series to be second in popularity only to the Bible for boys in their early teens." But by the time I read them, they were already fading into obscurity (the copies I read were originally my father's). There have been several attempts to revive the series, but it never got anywhere near as popular as they were in the early and middle parts of the 20th century.

Tom Swift (and, later, his son) were inventors. Again, not having read the original series, I can't vouch for Swift père, but Swift fils was a self-taught genius who invented rocket ships, triphibian atomicars, subocean geotrons, and atomic earth blasters (to name but a few of his many brainchildren). Tom's dad ran Swift Enterprises, which financed all the brilliant ideas Tom dreamed up in his lab (on the company's premises). Invariably, when these inventions were tested and deployed, nefarious types schemed to thwart Tom's plans. Tom always won out in the end, though, defeating Eastern European spies and criminal gangs and whatnot. There's plenty of gung-ho American-boy-does-good plotlines, seeing as how they were written during the dawn of the Space Age and also in the midst of the Cold War.

The plots were pretty fantastical, but the books were based on the theme of scientific advancement and inventive spirit. Not too bad a role model for young adults with an interest in science, in other words. The list of people positively influenced by the books goes beyond Jack Cover (inventor of the Taser), and includes science-fiction luminaries such as Ray Bradbury, Isaac Asimov, and Robert Heinlein -- as well as other actual scientific inventors such as Ray Kurzweil and Steve Wozniak.

The second series of Tom Swift books are still worth reading, even if they can occasionally be a bit outdated in ethnic and racial ways. They're a product of the culture of the times when they were written, in other words, which was pretty downright culturally insensitive when measured by today's standards. The original series (with Tom's dad) was reportedly even worse. But then again so were the original versions of other popular young adult adventure series, such as the Hardy Boys and Nancy Drew. If you can get over the insensitivity and bad patois, though, the Tom Swift Jr. books are still fun reads.

This is why I have to admit being a little sad that the Taser company has decided to change its name. The Taser products will still retain the Swiftian acronym, at least. But fewer kids will learn what the acronym stands for, which might have spurred them to discover the Tom Swift series on their own. Tom never achieved the multimedia success of the Hardy Boys or Nancy Drew (or even James Bond) -- there's never been a Tom Swift movie, although proposals have been occasionally floated to make one. Attempts to revive the book series have never lasted more than a few years, which leaves the 1950s books as the last extensive Swift series.

I did promise to explain (and apologize) for this article's title, which seems a good place to end upon. While not that many people today remember Tom Swift, even fewer remember his humorous linguistic contributions. Much like "spoonerisms," people used to talk of "swifties" or "Tom Swifties." These are little puns, usually involving adverbs. Such as: "'The backstroke is my strongest style,' Tom called out, swimmingly." That's a pretty weak attempt, so here are a few better ones (from the "Tom Swifty" Wikipedia page):

"Hurry up and get to the back of the ship!" Tom said sternly.

"I have no flowers," Tom said lackadaisically.

My favorite from this list (proving verbs can also be used to create a good Tom Swifty):

"The exit is right there," Tom pointed out.

Which is why I just had to call this frivolous article (because there simply was no other possible choice): "Taser Unswiftly Changes Name."

For which I sincerely apologize, once again. Mea culpa. Don't tase me, bro.

-- Chris Weigant

 

Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant

 

161 Comments on “Taser Unswiftly Changes Name”

  1. [1] 
    Don Harris wrote:

    A refreshing change from the doom and gloom.
    You should do more of these kind of articles. :D

  2. [2] 
    Kick wrote:

    Don't tase me, bro.

    Nice article, CW, but just one thing bother's me.

    "Don't ax me, bro" should be the article's swift ending.

    -- get it? Heh. :)

  3. [3] 
    Kick wrote:

    The U.S. is bombing Syria with 59 tomahawks, and I am hearing from sources that we warned Russia first (who would naturally warn Assad). Hmmmm. If this is true, then all this exploding hardware is merely a $100 million light disply.

  4. [4] 
    Kick wrote:

    TWITTER RANTS OF 3 SEP 2013

    ** Sean Hannity @seanhannity
    Glad our arrogant Pres. is enjoying his taxpayer funded golf outing after announcing the US should take military action against Syria
    8:42 PM - 3 Sep 2013

    ** Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
    The great GENERALS MacArthur and Patton, real leaders and fighters, are spinning in their graves as we give Syria info & time to prepare.
    8:52 PM - 3 Sep 2013

    ** Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
    What I am saying is stay out of Syria.
    9:00 PM - 3 Sep 2013

    ** Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
    For all of those fools that want to attack Syria, the U.S. has lost the vital element of surprise-so stupid-could be a disaster!
    9:12 PM - 3 Sep 2013

  5. [5] 
    Kick wrote:

    My intuition is asking myself: Isn't this a sudden 180-degree turn regarding Syria? Aren't we suddenly concerned about the same Syrians we want to ban from the U.S. because Trump says they're terrorists?

    Today: Without approval of Congress -- which Congress refused to give Obama -- Trump warned Putin/Assad before we launched our tomahawks and then put on a very expensive light show.

    Tomorrow: The price of gas goes up.

    So what's in the future?

    * We eventually take out Assad with the help of Putin?
    * We install a puppet of Putin's liking in Syria?
    * Putin... maybe... gives us Snowden?
    * We award Putin for his help in the war on terror by lifting sanctions?
    * Rosneft is back in business with the United States of Exxon?

    Nah... they wouldn't do that, would they!?!

    Can't help it... I'm suspicious.

  6. [6] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Nice article, CW, but just one thing bother's me.

    dear god, not you too with abuse of the apostrophe! please tell me it was a type-o.

    JL

  7. [7] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    what sources say russia was warned?

  8. [8] 
    Kick wrote:

    JL [6]

    dear god, not you too with abuse of the apostrophe! please tell me it was a type-o.

    So we are believing in god these days, JL?

    Yes, it was a typ'o ;)

  9. [9] 
    Kick wrote:

    JL [7]

    what sources say russia was warned?

    My sources. :)

  10. [10] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Yes, it was a typ'o ;)

    as in, "type o' the mornin' to ya?"

    JL

  11. [11] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    So we are believing in god these days, JL?

    i've always believed in her

    JL

  12. [12] 
    Kick wrote:

    JL [10]

    as in, "type o' the mornin' to ya?"

    *LOL*

    Yes, and type... oh!

  13. [13] 
    Kick wrote:

    JL [11]

    i've always believed in her

    *LOL* :)

  14. [14] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Xcellent posts Kick. I too view the US strike as a militarily insignificant show of force. To be blunt, the primary target was the US news cycle. The Syrian airbase suffered collateral damage during the well advertised operation. I see no change in the underlying dynamics of the conflict. The Syrian civil war will continue to grind on with no end in sight.

  15. [15] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    TS and Kick,

    I think President Trump should be commended for giving the go ahead for this strike on the Syrian airfield.

    Far from being militarily insignificant - I doubt the Syrians still suffering from the latest gas attack would agree that it was insignificant - it opens the door for several soft power plays on a number of different fronts.

    I'm just not confident that Trump will see, let alone seize upon, all of the opportunities he has just created ...

  16. [16] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    Kick,

    The U.S. is bombing Syria with 59 tomahawks, and I am hearing from sources that we warned Russia first (who would naturally warn Assad).

    Oh, I think the US military would have enough eyes on that airfield to know if the Syrian armed forces were reacting to news from their Russian enablers.

    Let's wait until we learn the damage assessments before we assume this action was ineffective.

  17. [17] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:
  18. [18] 
    Elizabeth Miller wrote:

    So, there is another not so insignificant thing that I like about all of this ...

    Trump may be the first American president to end a statement or speech with: "God bless America ... and, the entire world."

    As a citizen of the world, I'll admit that was very nice to hear!

  19. [19] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Kick [5],

    Great post! It's funny that our Sec. of State says he's no longer tied to Exxon, but how much of a bonus do you think he will be retro-paid once Exxon is able to start drilling?

    -Russ

  20. [20] 
    Kick wrote:

    EM [15]

    I think President Trump should be commended for giving the go ahead for this strike on the Syrian airfield.

    I understand where you're coming from... from a humanitarian standpoint, but I don't generally commend any POTUS for a violation of the United States Constitution.

    Far from being militarily insignificant - I doubt the Syrians still suffering from the latest gas attack would agree that it was insignificant - it opens the door for several soft power plays on a number of different fronts.

    The feelings of the Syrians doesn't substitute for the authorization of Congress required by the United States Constitution.

    I'm just not confident that Trump will see, let alone seize upon, all of the opportunities he has just created ...

    And I'm concerned that Trump knows exactly what opportunities he's creating and that it was all by design... see [5] above. Sure hope I'm wrong. :)

  21. [21] 
    michale wrote:

    Victoria,

    The U.S. is bombing Syria with 59 tomahawks, and I am hearing from sources that we warned Russia first (who would naturally warn Assad). Hmmmm. If this is true, then all this exploding hardware is merely a $100 million light disply.

    And can you prove that Russia was warned first??

  22. [22] 
    Kick wrote:

    TRUMP ON TWITTER

    Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
    What will we get for bombing Syria besides more debt and a possible long term conflict? Obama needs Congressional approval.
    1:14 PM - 29 Aug 2013

    *****
    It feels weird to agree with the con artist regarding POTUS needing Congressional approval to strike Syria.

  23. [23] 
    michale wrote:

    Funny..

    President Trump was bashed for his "underwhelming" response to Syria's use of CWMDs...

    Now when President Trump reacts forcefully in Syria, something Odumbo avoided at the cost of US prestige, honor and reputation, do any of ya'all (as expected, sans Liz, of course... :D) give the President credit??

    Of course not... :^/

    Like I said about the rest of ya'all..

    Party sla.... Party zealots...

    Party before Country..

    :^/

  24. [24] 
    Kick wrote:

    Michale
    21

    And can you prove that Russia was warned first??

    If you believe the United States government.

    https://www.defense.gov/News/News-Releases/News-Release-View/Article/1144598/statement-from-pentagon-spokesman-capt-jeff-davis-on-us-strike-in-syria

  25. [25] 
    michale wrote:

    I understand where you're coming from... from a humanitarian standpoint, but I don't generally commend any POTUS for a violation of the United States Constitution.

    What violation of the US Constitution would that be??

    Can you cite it??

    First your BS claim that Russia was warned first and now your BS claim that President Trump violated the US Constitution by ordering a missile strike...

    And you accuse ME of spewing bullshit???

    It feels weird to agree with the con artist regarding POTUS needing Congressional approval to strike Syria.

    Trump was saying that Obama needs Congressional approval for "long term conflict"... Even THAT claim is iffy...

    No where, no how, no way does a President need Congressional approval for a single missile strike or a series of missile strikes...

    You are wrong, Victoria. Plain and simple..

  26. [26] 
    michale wrote:

    Tillerson said there were no executive-level communications with Russian President Vladimir Putin before the missile strike. But he confirmed that U.S. officials had "multiple conversations" with the Russian government in accord with U.S.-Russian military "deconfliction" agreements.
    http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/u-s-launches-missiles-syrian-base-after-chemical-weapons-attack-n743636?cid=eml_nbn_20170406

    So much for the claim that Russia was warned first..

  27. [27] 
    michale wrote:

    "Clearly, Russia has failed in its responsibility to deliver on that commitment from 2013. So either Russia has been complicit or simply incompetent in its ability to deliver on that agreement."
    -SecState Tillerson

    Yea... President Trump and Putin are in bed together..

    SUUURREEEEE they are.. :^/

  28. [28] 
    michale wrote:

    Well, at least we have a President who has some cajones and is not afraid to use military force against Syria..

    I guess Obama was afraid to upset his BFF, Putin... That's why Obama ran away from the infamous "red line"...

  29. [29] 
    michale wrote:

    As to the subject of this current commentary..

    I never read the books, but they sound a lot like the Danny Dunn series which I devoured as a child...

    DANNY DUNN AND THE SWAMP MONSTER

    DANNY DUNN AND THE TIME MACHINE

    DANNY DUNN AND THE AUTOMATIC HOUSE

    were a few of my memorable favorites... :D

    Thanx for the trip down memory lane, CW.. Even if it was a side road.. :D

  30. [30] 
    michale wrote:

    As to the subject of this current commentary..

    I never read the books, but they sound a lot like the Danny Dunn series which I devoured as a child...

    DANNY DUNN AND THE SWAMP MONSTER

    DANNY DUNN AND THE TIME MACHINE

    DANNY DUNN AND THE AUTOMATIC HOUSE

    were a few of my memorable favorites... :D

    Thanx for the trip down memory lane, CW.. Even if it was a side road.. :D

  31. [31] 
    michale wrote:

    As to the subject of this current commentary..

    I never read the books, but they sound a lot like the Danny Dunn series which I devoured as a child...

    DANNY DUNN AND THE SWAMP MONSTER

    DANNY DUNN AND THE TIME MACHINE

    DANNY DUNN AND THE AUTOMATIC HOUSE

    were a few of my memorable favorites... :D

    Thanx for the trip down memory lane, CW.. Even if it was a side road.. :D

  32. [32] 
    michale wrote:

    If you believe the United States government.

    Ahh yes, the deconfliction requirements.. No different than when Israel warns Hamas civilians before incoming...

    Hardly time for the Syrians to react in any meaningful way..

    But you were partially correct..

    You said "Russia was warned" which is not factually accurate.. Russians on the ground were warned, which is not the same thing..

    Regardless, in the interests of Weigantian camaraderie, I'll withdraw the claim of 'bullshit' on this point, even though you were technically not correct..

    :D

  33. [33] 
    michale wrote:

    Regardless, in the interests of Weigantian camaraderie, I'll withdraw the claim of 'bullshit' on this point, even though you were technically not correct..

    I am sure it was just ignorance of military matters, rather than an intent to deceive... :D

  34. [34] 
    michale wrote:

    Liz,

    So, there is another not so insignificant thing that I like about all of this ...

    Trump may be the first American president to end a statement or speech with: "God bless America ... and, the entire world."

    As a citizen of the world, I'll admit that was very nice to hear!

    President Trump is beginning to grow on ya, eh? :D

    heh

    Oh, I think the US military would have enough eyes on that airfield to know if the Syrian armed forces were reacting to news from their Russian enablers.

    Let's wait until we learn the damage assessments before we assume this action was ineffective.

    According to the BDA, the airfield was totally decimated..

    I think President Trump should be commended for giving the go ahead for this strike on the Syrian airfield.

    Far from being militarily insignificant - I doubt the Syrians still suffering from the latest gas attack would agree that it was insignificant - it opens the door for several soft power plays on a number of different fronts.

    I'm just not confident that Trump will see, let alone seize upon, all of the opportunities he has just created ...

    If I ever accuse you of never giving President Trump of credit for anything, please throw this comment back in my face with great force and vigor.. :D

  35. [35] 
    michale wrote:

    One message was clear: Mr. Trump is willing to use force and to make decisions swiftly when he is moved to act.
    https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-shows-he-is-willing-to-act-forcefully-quickly-1491540535

    'nuff said... :D

  36. [36] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [25]

    What violation of the US Constitution would that be??

    Can you cite it??

    First your BS claim that Russia was warned first and now your BS claim that President Trump violated the US Constitution by ordering a missile strike...

    Just listen to you. *LOL* You've got yourself all worked up because no one is giving PT credit yet before the dust even settles and we see what's been accomplished.

    And why am I not the least bit surprised that you're asking for a cite to the United States Constitution!?!

    Look it up yourself. It's a very nice read, Patriot! :)

  37. [37] 
    michale wrote:

    Just listen to you. *LOL* You've got yourself all worked up because no one is giving PT credit

    Really???

    I think President Trump should be commended for giving the go ahead for this strike on the Syrian airfield.

    Far from being militarily insignificant - I doubt the Syrians still suffering from the latest gas attack would agree that it was insignificant - it opens the door for several soft power plays on a number of different fronts.
    -Liz

    "No one" is giving President Trump credit?? :D

    And why am I not the least bit surprised that you're asking for a cite to the United States Constitution!?!

    I am not surprised at the deflection.

    I asked YOU to cite the part of the US Constitution that says a President cannot launch a military strike without approval from Congress.

    YOU made the claim.. YOU back it up. That's how it works around here..

    Look it up yourself.

    YOU made the claim.. YOU back it up..

    I understand your reticence, I really do..

    It's a bullshit claim that you CAN'T back up..

  38. [38] 
    michale wrote:

    It's a very nice read, Patriot! :)

    It's a great read... Unlike others here, I have fought, killed and bled for it..

    I have read it MANY times and absolutely NOTHING in it precludes or forbids the Commander In Chief from launching a military strike without Congressional approval..

    Maybe you are reading a different US Constitution..

    Put up, shut up or concede you were wrong..

    Those are your choices.. :D

  39. [39] 
    michale wrote:

    Publicly, the Russians had backed the Assad regime's incredible explanation for Tuesday's attack: that the anti-Assad terrorist group Al-Nusra Front had smuggled a chemical-weapons depot into the country and Assad forces had inadvertently launched the nerve gas into the air while trying to destroy its enemy's munitions.
    http://www.weeklystandard.com/trump-national-security-team-all-agreed-on-syria-strike/article/2007563

    So, let me get this straight...

    Assad claims that rebel forces PLACED the CWMDs into the Syrian forces weapons chain and Assad forces ACCIDENTALLY used those CWMDs against rebel forces??

    Sounds like a story the Obama administration would swallow, hook line and sinker!! :D

    Fortunately for us, we have President Trump at the helm... :D

  40. [40] 
    michale wrote:

    Victoria,

    But, look at the bright side..

    Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said Thursday night that President Trump needs congressional authorization for military action in Syria after Trump ordered an airstrike in retaliation for a deadly chemical attack earlier this week.

    "While we all condemn the atrocities in Syria, the United States was not attacked," Paul said in a statement shortly after reports that the U.S. had launched more than 50 Tomahawk cruise missiles against an airfield in Syria.

    "The President needs congressional authorization for military action as required by the Constitution, and I call on him to come to Congress for a proper debate," Paul said. "Our prior interventions in this region have done nothing to make us safer, and Syria will be no different."
    http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/327736-rand-paul-trump-needed-congressional-authorization-for-military

    You and Rand Paul are on the exact same page.. :D

  41. [41] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [32]

    You said "Russia was warned" which is not factually accurate.. Russians on the ground were warned, which is not the same thing..

    Deconfliction does not necessarily mean "Russians on the ground were warned" as it's regarding the usage of airspace. Deconfliction means the restriction or adjustment in time and/or space of the flightpath of aircraft and weapon systems to avoid an accidental collision between friendly forces. It's basically a telephone call on a "hotline" to Russian forces to warn them to get out of the airspace. Next.

  42. [42] 
    Kick wrote:

    You and Rand Paul are on the exact same page.. :D

    Don't be surprised if there are other lawmakers who agree with me and Rand. Apparently, some of us are patriots and have the same interpretation of the United States Constitution.

    I'm such a Party zealot with my pals the Libertarians.

    I told you, I'm an issues person: Believe me yet? :)

  43. [43] 
    michale wrote:

    Deconfliction does not necessarily mean "Russians on the ground were warned" as it's regarding the usage of airspace.

    It kinda does.. There have been protocols set up between Russia and the US in Syria so that forces don't bump into each other and cause unnecessary loss of life and unnecessary conflict..

    It's basically a telephone call on a "hotline" to Russian forces to warn them to get out of the airspace. Next.

    Which is exactly what I said..

    Irregardless of all that, you were wrong when you claimed that "Russia was warned"..

    Man up and admit it..

    Don't be surprised if there are other lawmakers who agree with me and Rand. Apparently, some of us are patriots and have the same interpretation of the United States Constitution.

    And you STILL haven't provided ANY facts to support your claim that the US Constitution forbids the Commander In Chief from launching a military strike..

    Do you have ANY facts??

    No??

    Didna think so... :D

    I told you, I'm an issues person: Believe me yet? :)

    Not without any facts to back it up...

  44. [44] 
    michale wrote:

    Lawsuit alleges Seattle Mayor Ed Murray sexually abused troubled teen in 1980s

    A new lawsuit accuses Seattle Mayor Ed Murray of child sexual abuse decades ago. Two other men have told The Seattle Times they, too, were abused by Murray as teenagers in the 1980s. The mayor vigorously denies all the accusations.
    http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/lawsuit-alleges-seattle-mayor-ed-murray-sexually-abused-troubled-teen-in-1980s/

    Democrats :eyeroll:

  45. [45] 
    Kick wrote:

    Hey, I know what Liz said. If you'll slow down, you'll see that I quoted the same thing myself.

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/04/06/taser-unswiftly-changes-name/#comment-98093

    So I should have said nobody else here, but I just assumed you read the whole thread and saw I already quoted Liz. Hey, if you'll read that link you'll see where I said I understood from a humanitarian standpoint why it was done. I'm reserving judgment until the dust settles and we see the fallout. Regardless, I don't think it was Constitutional. People have been debating the meaning of the Constitution for centuries. No need to get yourself all mad at me about it, though!

    I'm not a rush to judgment type, although I am a very suspicious type. I don't trust Trump... probably not alone in this. Let's see what happens.

    Oil futures will soar. What else? We'll see. :)

  46. [46] 
    michale wrote:

    Allow me to lay yer mind at ease, Viki...

    NOTHING in the US Constitution precludes, prevents, or forbids the Commander In Chief from launching a military strike or a series of military strikes.

    NOTHING...

  47. [47] 
    Kick wrote:

    It's basically a telephone call on a "hotline" to Russian forces to warn them to get out of the airspace. Next.

    Which is exactly what I said..

    "Exactly" what you said? Wow... revisionist history. You said:

    Ahh yes, the deconfliction requirements.. No different than when Israel warns Hamas civilians before incoming... and Russians on the ground were warned, which is not the same thing..

    Israel and Hamas aren't friendly forces so not sure how deconfliction applies there. Maybe you're defining another term, but you weren't describing what deconfliction is by any stretch, and it's certainly nowhere near "exactly" what you said!

  48. [48] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [46]

    Allow me to lay yer mind at ease, Viki...

    I'm fine. :)

    People have been known to interpret that thing differently. If they didn't, there'd be no need to argue over who was going to sit on the Supreme Court, eh?

  49. [49] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [37]

    And why am I not the least bit surprised that you're asking for a cite to the United States Constitution!?!

    I am not surprised at the deflection.

    So here's the thing: I didn't deflect to another subject; I simply said look it up yourself. That is direction... NOT deflection. :)

  50. [50] 
    michale wrote:

    Israel and Hamas aren't friendly forces so not sure how deconfliction applies there.

    And Russian and US forces are??

    Talk about revisionist..

    It's basically a telephone call on a "hotline" to Russian forces to warn them to get out of the airspace. Next.

    Make up your mind... First you said that "Russia was warned" by Trump administration.....

    NOW you are agreeing with me and saying that Russian forces were warned..

    Which is it??

    People have been known to interpret that thing differently.

    Fine.

    Then point to the part of the US Constitution that you "interpret" as forbidding the Commander In Chief from launching a military strike..

    Further, I am SURE you condemned President Clinton when he launched an airstrike against an aspirin factory in Afghanistan without Congressional approval..

    Right??

  51. [51] 
    michale wrote:

    So here's the thing: I didn't deflect to another subject; I simply said look it up yourself. That is direction... NOT deflection. :)

    You made the claim..

    YOU back it up..

    I know, I know.. You CAN'T back it up..

    NOTHING in the US Constitution precludes, prevents or forbids the Commander In Chief from launching a military strike or a series of military strikes..

    Prove me wrong..

    You can't...

  52. [52] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale

    NOTHING in the US Constitution precludes, prevents, or forbids the Commander In Chief from launching a military strike or a series of military strikes.

    NOTHING...

    So based on your criteria there, if the United States Constitution doesn't prevent the Commander in Chief from doing something, then it grants him authorization to do it?

    Asking for a friend. ;)

    'Cause that's a HUGE amount of stuff that's not precluded under the Constitution.

  53. [53] 
    michale wrote:

    So based on your criteria there, if the United States Constitution doesn't prevent the Commander in Chief from doing something, then it grants him authorization to do it?

    Deflection..

    'Cause that's a HUGE amount of stuff that's not precluded under the Constitution.

    But that's not your claim..

    You claimed that President Trump is violating the US Constitution by launching the Syrian Air Strike without Congressional approval..

    You made the claim.. Back it up...

    You can't because nothing in the US Constitution says what you claim..

  54. [54] 
    michale wrote:

    Regardless, I don't think it was Constitutional. People have been debating the meaning of the Constitution for centuries. No need to get yourself all mad at me about it, though!

    OK, I just caught this..

    So, now you are saying, IN YOUR OPINION, it's not Constitutional..

    OK, that's getting warmer..

    Would you be so kind as to quote the part of the US Constitution that is the basis for your opinion??

  55. [55] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [50]

    Israel and Hamas aren't friendly forces so not sure how deconfliction applies there.

    And Russian and US forces are??

    Talk about revisionist..

    You're kind of proving my point here on this subject, thank you. United States forces are in Syria and Russian forces are in Syria. Is the United States fighting Russia in Syria? No {yet} So Russia is considered a friendly force in Syria, thus the warning on the hotline under deconfliction.

    Later. I'm TCB. Brush up on your Constitution. I hear people have different interpretations of it! *LOL*

  56. [56] 
    altohone wrote:

    Kick, Liz, CW... the whole gang

    The chemical attack in Syria was reported in the media as "allegedly by Assad"... because it hadn't been determined as a fact.

    No investigation to prove the accuracy of the allegations had been undertaken yet.

    The constitutional issues are secondary to the FACT that culpability for the chemical attack had not been proven.

    Trump just launched a military attack based on potentially false claims.

    Liz (and Hillary and apparently all the Democrats in Congress, since I have yet to see a single one publicly condemning this) are supporting Trump despite the lack of proof AND despite the incessant, accurate claims that Trump is lacking in judgment.

    This unreasoned support is bizarre and morally vacant.

    Arguing about the constitutional violations is a complete distraction from the real issue, not that Trump violating the Constitution should be ignored.

    The acceptance of an act of war that may well be based on lies is once again a crippling of the claimed morality and devotion to fact and reason for Democrats (and Canadians).

    Everyone rallying behind Trump, defending an action worthy of outrage, makes me sick to my stomach.

    Yesterday, I asked CW for his sources when he blamed Assad and Putin for the chemical attack... and got no response.

    TheStig falsely stated that there were news reports that the chemical attack had been "delivered by aircraft" (comment 86 from The world is testing Trump)
    when the news reports actually quoted Syrian "rebels", aka al Qaida, as claiming the attack came from aircraft.
    There were no reporters on the ground there when it happened.
    There weren't ANY credible sources on the ground in al Qaida controlled territory.

    TS also stated-
    "I have seen reports accusing the Syrian rebels of using chemical weapons, but I don't consider these reports credible... if you have a reliable source that says otherwise, please post the citation."

    from 2013
    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-syria-crisis-un-idUSBRE94409Z20130505

    Comments from a UN investigator reported by Reuters are generally considered credible.

    It should be noted that the anti-Assad, pro-regime change warmongers attempted to discredit the reports, but if anyone lacks credibility it is the gang who lied about Iraq.

    It should also ne noted that a follow up report by UN investigators about that attack and other chemical attacks (prior to this recent one) only determined that chemical weapons had been used...
    ... NOT that Assad was responsible as the regime change warmongers falsely claimed.

    A

  57. [57] 
    michale wrote:

    And did you voice this opinion when Obama or Clinton launched air strikes??

  58. [58] 
    michale wrote:

    Arguing about the constitutional violations is a complete distraction from the real issue, not that Trump violating the Constitution should be ignored.

    Using your own methodology, NO PROOF has been put forth that President Trump violated the US Constitution..

    You are doing EXACTLY what you accuse "the gang" of doing..

    Stating a conclusion with no factual support...

    Everyone rallying behind Trump, defending an action worthy of outrage, makes me sick to my stomach.

    Try Pepto... :D

    when the news reports actually quoted Syrian "rebels", aka al Qaida, as claiming the attack came from aircraft.

    Al Qaeda is a small small percentage of Syrian "rebels" and the person quoted was not of that small percentage..

    Again, you are condemning ALL Syrian "rebels" as Al Qaeda without any facts to back it up..

    Comments from a UN investigator reported by Reuters are generally considered credible.

    ANYTHING coming from the UN is ANYTHING but credible..

    It should be noted that the anti-Assad, pro-regime change warmongers attempted to discredit the reports, but if anyone lacks credibility it is the gang who lied about Iraq.

    Yea.. Better to trust the agency who made 9 BILLION DOLLARS lying about Iraq.. :D The agency that sends peacekeepers to African nations and then ends up selling weapons to BOTH sides.. The agency that harbors and protects rape squads...

    Yea.. THAT is a trustworthy agency... :^/

  59. [59] 
    altohone wrote:

    Follow up

    It should also be noted that there was no formal investigation for at least one chemical attack blamed on Assad that occurred after the UN report was released.

    Believing unsubstantiated assertions despite the lessons of Iraq is called a failure to learn from history.

    A

  60. [60] 
    altohone wrote:

    57

    Yes.
    I did.

    Everybody here with two brain cells to rub together remembers my condemnation of the bombing in Libya, Yemen, and drone strikes.

    58

    A morally deprived, pro-torture trumpling dismissing investigations by the UN and the wording of our Constitution is hardly shocking.

    A

  61. [61] 
    altohone wrote:

    Just in case anybody considers Seymour Hersh credible-

    " In an interview with Alternet.org, the independent investigative reporter Seymour Hersh was asked about Hillary Clinton’s role in the Benghazi Libya consulate’s operation to collect sarin from Libyan stockpiles and send it through Turkey into Syria for a set-up sarin-gas attack, to be blamed on Assad in order to ‘justify’ the US invading Syria, as it had invaded Libya. He said: «That ambassador who was killed, he was known as a guy, from what I understand, as somebody, who would not get in the way of the CIA. As I wrote, on the day of the mission he was meeting with the CIA base chief and the shipping company. He was certainly involved, aware and witting of everything that was going on. And there’s no way somebody in that sensitive of a position is not talking to the boss, by some channel». This was, in fact, the Syrian part of the State Department’s Libyan operation, Obama’s operation to set up an excuse for the US doing in Syria what they had already done in Libya.”

    A

  62. [62] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [57]

    And did you voice this opinion when Obama or Clinton launched air strikes??

    You talking to me?

    If you're referring to Operation Infinite Reach -- a.k.a "Wag the Dog" -- the United States was attacked at our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania on August 7, and the air strikes on August 20 were in direction retaliation for attacks upon the United States... so "No" because the 90-day rule.

    And Obama? Which air strike? Obama went to Congress for approval for an airstrike on Assad/Syria for the use of chemical weapons against Syrians and couldn't get approval. Remember? Then they criticized him for not doing an air strike when they wanted nothing to do with it. Even Trump kept whining how Obama needed Congressional approval for the air strike, remember?

    Which other Obama air strike?

    I really have to go TCB. I'm not avoiding you; I just have to go. :)

    approximately 225 deaths, 4000 injuries... an attempt to take out Al Qresponse to the United States being attacked and was .

  63. [63] 
    Kick wrote:

    A01 [56]

    I hear you. Read my comment at [5]. I don't exactly trust Trump. He just took action without Congressional approval when the United States wasn't attacked and... all that stuff you said.

    Later, gators! I'm TCB... OAO. :)

  64. [64] 
    michale wrote:

    Yes.
    I did.

    I have no doubt you did, Altohone..

    As annoying and as wrong as you often are..

    You are consistent.. There is very little hypocrisy about you...

  65. [65] 
    michale wrote:

    A morally deprived, pro-torture trumpling dismissing investigations by the UN

    With VERY good, CITED reasons...

    and the wording of our Constitution is hardly shocking.

    Care to cite the wording of the Constitution that precludes, forbids or prevents the Commander In Chief from launching a military strike??

  66. [66] 
    michale wrote:

    Even Trump kept whining how Obama needed Congressional approval for the air strike, remember?

    No.. Trump was "whining" how Obama needed congressional approval for a "possible long term conflict"....

  67. [67] 
    michale wrote:

    Even Trump kept whining how Obama needed Congressional approval for the air strike, remember?

    No.. Trump was "whining" how Obama needed congressional approval for a "possible long term conflict"....

  68. [68] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    here's a first person account by a guardian reporter on the gas attack:

    https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/06/the-dead-were-wherever-you-looked-inside-syrian-town-after-chemical-attack

    There was no evidence of any building being hit in recent days or weeks near where so many people were killed and wounded by a nerve agent. The homes across the street appeared undamaged from the outside. There was no contamination zone near any building. Instead, the contamination area radiated from a hole in a road.

    i think it's a good thing that the president ordered a retaliation of some sort, however limited.

  69. [69] 
    altohone wrote:

    Ex-UK ambassador to Syria Peter Ford

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04zb6yv

    A

  70. [70] 
    altohone wrote:

    nypoet
    68

    An account of the aftermath doesn't help settle the question of who was responsible.

    Dems rallying behind Trump despite the lack of evidence will actually make it less likely a factual determination of who was responsible will be made.

    A

  71. [71] 
    michale wrote:

    i think it's a good thing that the president ordered a retaliation of some sort, however limited.

    In other words, you give President Trump credit for doing the right thing..

    Would that be a fair assessment??

  72. [72] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    that wasn't an intelligence officer or a secondhand account, it was a member of the free press who went there himself. general skepticism may be warranted, but in this case continuing to doubt reports of a chemical attack by the assad regime strains credulity.

    Witnesses said the air raids began shortly after 6.30am on Tuesday, with four bombings around the town. Initially they thought it was just another airstrike, until the first responders who arrived at the scene began falling to the ground.

    Khutainy said: “They told us ‘HQ, we are losing control’. We had no idea what they were trying to say. Then they said, ‘come save us, we can no longer walk’. So the second and third teams went with just face masks. We could smell it from 500 metres away.”

    JL

  73. [73] 
    michale wrote:

    "I know what you're going to say - You don't have to. We've had our differences. I said some things I didn't mean; you said some things you didn't mean, but you're happy I stuck with the case. And if you've gained a certain respect for me over the last three weeks... well, of course, I'm happy about that. But we don't have to make a whole big deal outta that - you like me. I won't make you say it."

    "I was just going to tell you to wear matching socks"
    -A FEW GOOD MEN

    :D

  74. [74] 
    altohone wrote:

    Kick
    63

    I included you in my comment because of the discussion about constitutionality.

    We're on the same page as far as that goes.

    But the bigger issue is being widely ignored.
    In addition to the Democrats, our allies and "allies" are praising the attack despite the lack of evidence on responsibility for the chemical attack.

    It's like Iraq never happened.

    A

  75. [75] 
    altohone wrote:

    nypoet
    72

    Geez.

    The question is who carried out the attack, not whether it happened.

    My language wasn't vague.

    A

  76. [76] 
    michale wrote:

    I included you in my comment because of the discussion about constitutionality.

    We're on the same page as far as that goes.

    Apparently, you two are on the same page as not being able to CITE any part of the Constitution that is the basis for your opinion...

  77. [77] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [66]

    No.. Trump was "whining" how Obama needed congressional approval for a "possible long term conflict"....

    Your memory needs improvement. Here, let me help.

    https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/373581528405905408

    I'm busy, but I had 2 minutes to answer you. :)

    Later, later...

  78. [78] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    An account of the aftermath doesn't help settle the question of who was responsible.

    seriously??? the article shows a photo of the hole in the ground that witnesses observed to be the center of the mass of dead people, immediately after an air raid. nearby buildings were undamaged and there's only one air force in the area that could conceivably have dropped it. it would take a conspiracy theorist of trumpian proportions to claim some other cause.

    JL

  79. [79] 
    michale wrote:

    Victoria...

    Your memory needs improvement. Here, let me help.

    Your memory needs improvement. Here, let me help.

    Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
    What will we get for bombing Syria besides more debt and a possible long term conflict? Obama needs Congressional approval.
    1:14 PM - 29 Aug 2013

    http://www.chrisweigant.com/2017/04/06/taser-unswiftly-changes-name/#comment-98098

    I am just going by what you posted... :D

  80. [80] 
    altohone wrote:

    nypot
    78

    Releasing Sarin doesn't require the use of a bomb.

    See the Tokyo subway attack by that cult.

    Do you consider Seymour Hersh a conspiracy theorist?

    A

  81. [81] 
    altohone wrote:

    80

    Just to clarify...

    "Releasing Sarin doesn't require the use of a bomb" dropped by a plane.

    The crater isn't proof of who was responsible.

    All the previous chemical attacks in Syria were done using ground to ground rockets.

    A

  82. [82] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    hersh is a shoddy journalist who tends to jump to the same conclusion in every story. just like any broken clock, occasionally he's right. what does he have to do with syria?

  83. [83] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Releasing Sarin doesn't require the use of a bomb.

    yes, gas can be released without a bomb, and bombs can be exploded without a plane. but that's all hypothetical. here on earth, the gas came from a hole in the ground that appeared immediately after bombs were dropped from planes.

    JL

  84. [84] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    In other words, you give President Trump credit for doing the right thing..

    i wouldn't go so far as to call it the right thing. a good start?

    JL

  85. [85] 
    michale wrote:

    This strike will save lives—in Syria, by preventing Assad from daring to use chemical weapons again, and in unknown future conflicts where the losing side will be tempted to employ chemical weapons, and will think twice and not do it. Trump saved more lives in Syria by his action this week than Obama did in all his years in office.

    And the strike will have far wider effects. It was undertaken while Chinese president Xi was with Trump in Florida. Surely this new image of a president willing to act will affect their conversations about North Korea. Vladimir Putin will think again about his relations with the United States, and will realize that the Obama years of passivity are truly over. Allies and friends will be cheered, while enemies will realize times have changed. When next the Iranians consider swarming around an American ship in the Gulf, they may think again.

    Emphasis mine...

  86. [86] 
    michale wrote:

    Of course this was an easy lift militarily: a few dozen missiles, one air base as a target. Yet our previous president refused to do it; this one acted. He did not let worries about the possible Russian reaction scare him off. He understood that this would not end the war in Syria, but he did it anyway. He was willing to act alone, without demanding a UN Security Council meeting or congressional vote. And of course, leadership pays off: he will have strong bipartisan support on the Hill.

    Henceforth when he speaks of American conditions and demands, interests and desires, more attention will be paid. Every official in every foreign government has been trying to figure him out since November 8. This week he gave them a lot to think about. He took command, and issued orders. He didn't draw a red line and then withdraw it, but instead called Assad's action intolerable—that overused word—and then proceeded to show that when he said intolerable, he meant it.

    Again, emphasis mine...

  87. [87] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Altohone-56

    "TheStig falsely stated that there were news reports that the chemical attack had been "delivered by aircraft"

    I take exception to that.

    Reports of air and rocket strikes against Khan Shaykhun (spellings differ) came from:

    White Helmets in Khan Sheikhoun (local first responders)

    Medicins Sans Frontiers

    The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights

    All the above interviewed eye witnesses shortly after the attack. Videos were also posted on social media by local residents and were probably the earliest reports to reach the world press.

    Reuters (reporter Ammar Abdullah) and the Associated Press (reporters Sarah El Deeb and Mehmet Guzel) also conducted on site interviews with eye witnesses and observed the damage, human and material.

    Reports of air attack are credible.

  88. [88] 
    michale wrote:

    i wouldn't go so far as to call it the right thing. a good start?

    Logically speaking (not snark'ly speaking) if it's a GOOD start, then it can't be a wrong thing...

    Right??

    But, I'll rephrase..

    You are giving President Trump credit for a good start...

    Better??

  89. [89] 
    michale wrote:

    here on earth, the gas came from a hole in the ground that appeared immediately after bombs were dropped from planes.

    If it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck....

    "What's a duck??"
    -Luke Skywalker

    :D

  90. [90] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    i give donald credit for the right type of response. my instinct is that it was a smaller response than assad's transgression called for, but given the range of options i'll take it.

    JL

  91. [91] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [85, 86]

    So you agree with the opinion of Elliott Abrams, neocon?

    Not really a shocker. :)

  92. [92] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    ...and to be clear, it's certainly a better choice than obama made in similar circumstances.

  93. [93] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Altohone-56

    from 2013
    http://www.reuters.com/article/us-syria-crisis-un-idUSBRE94409Z20130505

    Superseded by the final UN report.

    http://undocs.org/A/68/663

    I think you are flogging a dead horse.

  94. [94] 
    michale wrote:

    i give donald credit for the right type of response. my instinct is that it was a smaller response than assad's transgression called for, but given the range of options i'll take it.

    I'll take it.. :D

    ...and to be clear, it's certainly a better choice than obama made in similar circumstances.

    I just fell in love with you, JL :D

  95. [95] 
    TheStig wrote:

    oh, the dreaded nanny:

    "I have seen reports accusing the Syrian rebels of using chemical weapons, but I don't consider these reports credible... if you have a reliable source that says otherwise, please post the citation."

    superseded by the UN final report, download from here:

    http://undocs.org/A/68/663

  96. [96] 
    michale wrote:

    So you agree with the opinion of Elliott Abrams, neocon?

    Not really a shocker. :)

    I don't know Elliot Abrams so I don't know if he agrees with me or not..

    But my points are valid and factual regardless of who agrees with me.. :D

  97. [97] 
    michale wrote:

    "I have seen reports accusing the Syrian rebels of using chemical weapons, but I don't consider these reports credible... if you have a reliable source that says otherwise, please post the citation."

    superseded by the UN final report, download from here:

    I thought you wanted CREDIBLE reports??? :^/

  98. [98] 
    Kick wrote:

    In other news, a fairly anemic jobs report for March at 98,000 (fewest in a year), probably due to weather. January was revised down to +216,000, and February was revised from +235,000 down to +219,000.

    https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/empsit.pdf

    Unemployment rate down to 4.5. :)

  99. [99] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale

    I don't know Elliot Abrams so I don't know if he agrees with me or not..

    But my points are valid and factual regardless of who agrees with me.. :D

    You posted without citing the author at [85] and [86] an opinion written by Elliott Abrams, neocon. :)

  100. [100] 
    michale wrote:

    You posted without citing the author at [85] and [86] an opinion written by Elliott Abrams, neocon. :)

    Ahhhh So I did.. :D I rarely look at bylines, except maybe Glenn Greenwalds..

    But Abrams points are right on target...

  101. [101] 
    michale wrote:

    ...and to be clear, it's certainly a better choice than obama made in similar circumstances.

    As with Liz above, please throw this comment into my face with gusto if I ever complain you are nothing but a Lerft Wing drone.. :D

  102. [102] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Liz 15

    "Far from being militarily insignificant - I doubt the Syrians still suffering from the latest gas attack would agree that it was insignificant - it opens the door for several soft power plays on a number of different fronts."

    I agree that this raid could open some soft power plays. A militarily insignificant action can be politically useful - and that logic almost certainly played some role in the decision to launch. If Putin is pissed off at Assad for unapproved use of chemicals, it could give Putin some cover to crack down. I've heard that argument, but I'm skeptical. Obama basically tried the same thing with his militarily insignificant strikes against Syria. I don't think Putin is pissed off.Putin likes to apply international thumb screws, relax the pressure, then apply pressure somewhere else. A little chemical terror, with implausible political deniability, may serve his purpose just fine.

    The downside of cruise missile diplomacy is that it can escalate into something really bloody. Hence the diplomatic note: "Dear Vlad, try not to get upset and please stay away from Al Shayrat AFB for a few hrs - Don"

  103. [103] 
    michale wrote:

    Hence the diplomatic note: "Dear Vlad, try not to get upset and please stay away from Al Shayrat AFB for a few hrs - Don"

    May we see this "note"??

    Do you have a cite for this "note"???

  104. [104] 
    altohone wrote:

    TS
    87

    What is with you guys today.

    Again, I am not disputing that an air strike occurred.
    The Russians even confirmed it.

    It is entirely possible the rebels released Sarin right after the strike occurred.

    A

  105. [105] 
    TheStig wrote:

    CW-

    Thanks for reminding me of Tom Swift and Tom Swiftys

    My fav: "I've dropped my toothpaste!" Tom said, Crestfallen."

  106. [106] 
    altohone wrote:

    nypoet
    82

    See above.
    His reporting has been ground breaking on occasion, not just "accidentally correct".

    83

    "here on earth, the gas came from a hole in the ground that appeared immediately after bombs were dropped from planes."

    "bombs"... as in plural.

    And yet, from the previous account you posted, all the casualties from the gas attack surrounded a single crater.

    Where are the other craters?
    Were they conventional bombs?
    Why was this crater not near where the conventional bombs dropped?
    Why would Trump act before an investigation could take place?
    Why are you trusting that after Iraq, where evidence was fabricated to sell the war, that evidence wouldn't be fabricated again?

    Given the history of the al Qaida "rebels" attempting to blame Assad for their actions in previous attacks, do you really believe they wouldn't learn from those failed attempts and try to make the evidence look more conclusive?

    Did you listen to the brief audio from the BBC interview with the former UK ambassador to Syria?

    A

  107. [107] 
    michale wrote:

    It is entirely possible the rebels released Sarin right after the strike occurred.

    Yea... AND it's entirely possible that NONE of it is real, that we're all plugged into some vast Matrix run by machine AI... :^/

  108. [108] 
    altohone wrote:

    TS
    101

    Russia has already suspended cooperation on the aerial bombardment coordination.

    The next US incursion may well trigger a violent escalation.

    A

  109. [109] 
    altohone wrote:

    99

    The fact that "non-interventionist" trump and his trumplings are now eagerly embracing neocons and their agenda is hardly surprising.

    He's such an anti-establishment Republican (sarcasm off).

    The biggest con was just revealed.

    A

  110. [110] 
    altohone wrote:

    106

    Your reaction is telling.

    How is releasing Sarin after an air strike difficult or implausible?

    Why do you feel the need to downplay something that isn't the slightest bit difficult... something a single guy could accomplish?

    A

  111. [111] 
    michale wrote:

    The fact that "non-interventionist" trump and his trumplings are now eagerly embracing neocons and their agenda is hardly surprising.

    Actually, many Trump supporters are condemning Trump for his actions..

    But why let FACTS ruin a perfectly good rant. :D

    How is releasing Sarin after an air strike difficult or implausible?

    Because it's completely and utterly unsupported by ANY factual basis whatsoever...

  112. [112] 
    altohone wrote:

    TS
    87

    Just btw-
    The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights is one guy operating from the UK.

    94

    I mentioned the follow up UN report in the very same comment.
    Superseded is exactly what the regime change warmongers insist. And they attacked the UN official who dared to speak the truth earlier.
    The old "ignore what was said earlier because it is contrary to our goals" approach.

    That's hardly uncommon at the UN.
    Oddly enough it occurs most often on issues centering on Israel and agendas they support for some reason.

    A

  113. [113] 
    michale wrote:

    Russian warship steams toward US destroyers that launched Syria strikes
    http://www.foxnews.com/world/2017/04/07/russian-warship-steams-toward-us-destroyers-that-launched-syria-strikes.html

    ARRRGGGHHHH!!!!

    THE RUSSIANS ARE COMING!!!! THE RUSSIANS ARE COMING!!!!!

    :D

  114. [114] 
    michale wrote:

    Furious Vladimir Putin has called the US airstrikes on Syria an 'illegal act of aggression' and suspended a deal to avoid mid-air clashes with American fighter jets over the war-torn country.
    The Russian President warned of grave damage to relations between Washington and Moscow after 60 Tomahawk missiles were fired at al-Shayrat airbase near Homs.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4389332/Russia-calls-airstrikes-Syria-act-aggression.html#ixzz4da675daU

    BUT!!! BUT!!! BUT!!!

    President Trump and Putin are besties!!!

    They Left Whinery has said so!!!

    WTF!!???

  115. [115] 
    altohone wrote:

    110

    Funny that you aren't sharing those condemnations from trumplings.
    Please do.

    "Because it's completely and utterly unsupported by ANY factual basis whatsoever."

    You mean like the claims of Assad's culpability for the chemical attack?

    In anticipation of your response, the official White House line about the chemical attack is "high degree of confidence", NOT certainty. Not "factual".
    And that is without an investigation on the ground, and eerily reminiscent of the claims about trump and Russia which you (and I) dispute.

    Why the shift in your belief system?

    A

  116. [116] 
    michale wrote:

    Funny that you aren't sharing those condemnations from trumplings.

    You would be AMAZED at things I don't share with you..

    I just had a hellascious dump.. You want pics?? :D

    Please do.

    Pics of my dump???

    http://www.realclearpolitics.com/

    DYOFR :D

  117. [117] 
    michale wrote:

    Don't spose you would want to reciprocate and cite your source within the US Constitution that supports your claim that the action was unconstitutional...

  118. [118] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Al's going to have a field day with this, but I wanted to point out for the record that hours before news of the airstrikes broke, HRC was on stage in New York suggesting that Trump bomb Assad's airfields:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-syria-strike_us_58e6d7f4e4b051b9a9da22c5?cj&

    “Assad has an air force, and that air force is the cause of most of these civilian deaths as we have seen over the years and as we saw again in the last few days,” Clinton said. “And I really believe that we should have and still should take out his air fields and prevent him from being able to use them to bomb innocent people and drop sarin gas on them.”

  119. [119] 
    michale wrote:

    Altohone,

    My bust.. It wasn't part of the RCP line-up..

    Here's the direct link..

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/07/nigel-farage-right-wing-populists-turn-donald-trump-missile/

  120. [120] 
    michale wrote:

    Al's going to have a field day with this, but I wanted to point out for the record that hours before news of the airstrikes broke, HRC was on stage in New York suggesting that Trump bomb Assad's airfields:

    So, NOT-45 is on the same page as President Trump and completely supports his actions..

    Interesting.. :D

    Can't wait to see Paula weigh in on THAT.. :D

  121. [121] 
    TheStig wrote:

    Alto-112

    One guy fronting for a big network of informants in Syria, who has established a good reputation for accuracy.

  122. [122] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    In anticipation of your response, the official White House line about the chemical attack is "high degree of confidence", NOT certainty. Not "factual"

    no, there's no smoking gun, but there is extensive evidence collected by independent journalists, all of which support the conclusion that assad gassed those people, and none of which point to any alternate conclusion.

    in order for anything else to be true, it would have required an organized plan to anticipate air strikes, have poison gas ready near where those strikes landed, then somehow place the gas in an identical looking crater and release it without being observed or leaving behind evidence. while not technically impossible, to do all that would require a highly organized plan, carried out secretly and flawlessly.

    i.e. a conspiracy, which is why that type of thinking is generally referred to as a conspiracy theory.

    JL

  123. [123] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    no, there's no smoking gun

    but there was, literally, a smoking hole in the ground.

  124. [124] 
    michale wrote:

    How is releasing Sarin after an air strike difficult or implausible?

    Because it's completely and utterly unsupported by ANY factual basis whatsoever...

    Ever read THE JESUS FACTOR??

    There has never been a successful detonation of a launched/dropped nuclear device..

    NEVER....

    In the case of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Enola Gay dropped a HUGE conventional bomb and then military planes went in in the immediate aftermath and dispersed radioactive particles..

    That's what your theory reminds me of... :D

  125. [125] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    I think that if I were writing today's column, it would be entitled, "And Next...", because, as everyone knows, it's not the military action but the aftermath that matters. Iraq, right? Obama wasn't trying to be nice to Assad, he was trying to keep the US at arm's length of a conflict in a part of the world that has a well-earned reputation for being a briar patch.
    But when the gas attack this week produced some graphic pictures of little children gasping for air, it provoked universal condemnation, including from Hillary Clinton, who yesterday suggested airstrikes against Assad's airfields just hours before Trump did exactly that.
    I have little doubt that the two are just massive coincidences, but it does offer us a rare opportunity to merge for a moment in our minds this moment, and the alternate-history version in which the same action at the same time is made by a Clinton administration.
    Would the left condemn it? That's a dependable "yes". Would the right condemn it? Mostly no, I'll say, because the Neocons I've seen today seem downright giddy that somebody finally threw a Tomahawk at Syria. There might be some grumbling on the right about the extreme cost of the event, and having accomplished comparatively little militarily as a result (Tomahawks don't grow on trees, ya know). There would be, I think, alot of conservatives on TV right now complaining that Hillary hadn't done enough with the air strike, that it was too little, too late.
    Trump, on the other hand, will hear very little of that, and can point to the (nearly unnoticed) deployments of US troops to Syria that he's made lately as evidence that he's seriously joining the battle.
    But to give the 'Wolf!' cryers on the left their due, we ought to consider the ramifications of all of this. We're already at war in Iraq and Afghanistan (remember that?), and involved in shooting conflicts in several other places, like the Congo and the Philippines. It puts us at odds with Russia and Iran (who are our allies against Isis in Iraq).
    Trump's ace card there is Putin, who considers Assad to be 'insignificant' according to one source, and might have privately acquiesced to this attack. Russians were certainly warned to stay out of that air corridor, that's confirmed (did they tell the Syrians?). But Putin and Trump each have a reason for shadow-boxing with the other right now, for domestic consumption in their respective countries.
    But at this point in the invasion of Iraq, we were still looking at pictures of 'shock and awe' over Baghdad. The reckoning didn't come for a long while afterward, and it wasn't pretty.
    We have a rare moment of national unity. Let's use it to look to the future - and worry.

  126. [126] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    And who knew that Nikki Haley could be so competent as UN Ambassador, acting apparently entirely on her own? If there were a 'Most Impressive Republican of the Week' award, I'd nominate her.

  127. [127] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    Of course, we'd have to mitigate that 'most impressive' moniker with the fact that it's probably statements by her and Tillerson to the effect that Assad's future is 'in the hands of the Syrians' that emboldened Assad to resume gassing his own people in the first place. sigh.

  128. [128] 
    altohone wrote:

    Balthy
    117

    I commented about Hillary's support this morning.

    A

  129. [129] 
    altohone wrote:

    TS
    120

    He's not there.
    He mostly uses social media from "rebels".
    And his reputation is one pro-regime change advocacy... including repeating false claims that serve his agenda.

    A

  130. [130] 
    altohone wrote:

    nypoet
    121

    Nonsense.

    Air strikes in Idlib province are a regular occurrence.
    Park a few vehicles together and have some folks milling about for a day and it's likely to draw an attack.

    "Rebels" removing and/or planting evidence in THEIR TERRITORY before any journalists can get there is not difficult.

    Again, one person could have pulled it off.

    A

  131. [131] 
    altohone wrote:

    123

    A trumpling thinks of fiction.

    It reminds me of what happened leading up to Iraq, except in that case literally hundreds of people were involved in the conspiracy to create and disseminate lies.

    A

  132. [132] 
    altohone wrote:

    Balthy
    124

    #I'mWithHerAndHim
    #HumanitarianCruiseMissiles
    #DemocratsRallyForTrump
    #Can'tPlayHardballDespiteEightYearsOfExamples
    #BigDonorsGetWhatTheyWant

    125

    Sure.
    Let's throw in praise for Nikki Haley too.

    #NeoliberalsLoveNeocons

    A

  133. [133] 
    nypoet22 wrote:

    Park a few vehicles together and have some folks milling about for a day and it's likely to draw an attack.
    "Rebels" removing and/or planting evidence in THEIR TERRITORY before any journalists can get there is not difficult.
    Again, one person could have pulled it off.

    well which is it, one person or some folks and a few vehicles? if a person or a group of people had done that right where the chemical weapons originated, is it unreasonable to infer that someone might have noticed and reported it? furthermore, if it was their own territory then it was also their own people who died a grisly death by poison gas. those would be some pretty great lengths to go to just on the off-chance that some foreign reporters might attribute those deaths to the assad regime. skepticism is one thing, but you've wandered into tinfoil hat territory.

    JL

  134. [134] 
    altohone wrote:

    Balthy
    124 part two

    Our resident trumpling is so busy embracing neocons, defending the Trumpon despite his abandonment of yet another campaign promise, and abandoning his anti-establishment worldview he doesn't have time to do one of the three jobs CW gives as a reason for keeping him around... namely providing info from the far right.

    But Coulter, Ingraham, and lots of right wing bloggers are speaking out against Trump... more so than the lone Democrat in Congress.

    Meanwhile, there are voices on the left noting that Trump is following a tried and true practice-
    When in trouble at home, initiate military action abroad.

    And you and the I'mWithHerAndHim gang will no doubt help the Trumpon rescue his polling numbers.

    A

  135. [135] 
    altohone wrote:

    nypoet
    132

    Attracting the strike is different than the task of releasing Sarin and then removing the evidence.
    Sorry for the two different sentences. Maybe a space between them would have helped.

    I noticed you aren't addressing the questions I posed to you earlier.
    Interesting.

    As for gassing their own people, they've already done it several times as I have noted several times... and they have a clear record of not giving a whit about the civilians in their territory (see "rebels" refuse to allow civilians to leave eastern Aleppo).
    And you do realize a large percentage of the "rebels" are foreign jihadis, not Syrians, right? So, "own people" is actually just Syrians on their side of the front line.
    You're in denial territory.

    Though at least you admitted the lack of a smoking gun.
    One step forward, ten steps back.

    A

  136. [136] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey gang and Liz

    https://theintercept.com/2017/04/07/the-spoils-of-war-trump-lavished-with-media-and-bipartisan-praise-for-bombing-syria/

    Trudeau makes an appearance in the fourth paragraph... on the side of REASON.

    A

  137. [137] 
    michale wrote:

    Obama wasn't trying to be nice to Assad, he was trying to keep the US at arm's length of a conflict in a part of the world that has a well-earned reputation for being a briar patch.

    Bullcarp...

    Obama was trying to appease Putin..

    Pure and simple..

    Obama needed Putin for the Iran Nuclear deal..

  138. [138] 
    Paula wrote:

    Best Article Today: http://fusion.net/the-long-lucrative-right-wing-grift-is-blowing-up-in-t-1793944216

    For years, the conservative movement peddled one set of talking points to the rabble, while its elites consumed a more grounded and reality-based media. The rubes listened to talk radio, read right-wing blogs, watched Fox News. They were fed apocalyptic paranoia about threats to their liberty, racial hysteria about the generalized menace posed by various groups of brown people, and hysterical lies about the criminal misdeeds of various Democratic politicians. The people in charge, meanwhile, read The Wall Street Journal and The Weekly Standard, and they tended to have a better grasp of political reality, as when those sources deceived their readers, it was mostly unintentionally, with comforting fantasies about the efficacy of conservative policies. From the Reagan era through the Bush administration, the system seemed to be performing as designed.

    But if this was a reasonably useful arrangement for Republicans, who won a couple close elections with the help of their army of riled-up kooks, it was a fantastic deal for the real engine of the right-wing propaganda machine: companies selling newly patented drugs designed to treat the various conditions of old age, authors of dubious investing newsletters, sellers of survival seeds, hawkers of poorly written conservative books, and a whole array of similar con artists and ethically compromised corporations and financial institutions. The original strategy behind demonizing the “mainstream media” may have purely political, to steer voters away from outlets that tended to present information damaging to the conservative cause, but the creation of the conservative media was also a revenue opportunity for shameless grifters from the very start, as Rick Perlstein showed in his classic Baffler piece on the snake oil-salesmen of the right.

    The bottom-feeding amorality of the sorts of people who sponsored the right-wing press, and the crummy nature of the products and services sold, shows exactly who was supposed to be consuming it: suckers. Or, more specifically, trusting retirees, with a bit of disposable income, and a natural inclination to hate modernity and change—an inclination that could be heightened, radicalized, and exploited.

  139. [139] 
    altohone wrote:

    Hey gang, nypoet, TS, Balthy

    Here's a good article.
    Something I missed somehow... the Seymour Hersh reporting was based on documents from the DIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency.
    Highly credible.

    http://www.dw.com/en/is-assad-to-blame-for-the-chemical-weapons-attack-in-syria/a-38330217

    Note also what James Clapper told Obama.

    Contrary to what our resident trumpling is claiming, Obama may well have doubted the "evidence" when making his decision not to attack Syria.

    A

  140. [140] 
    ListenWhenYouHear wrote:

    Paula,

    Interesting article. I remember reading that the average Fox News viewer is age 72. The average Fox News viewer also never changes channels, according to one article I read. At first I wondered if that was because they were in nursing homes and might not have control of what they watched, but then I remembered going to my grandfather's house and he always had Fox News on the TV (except when college football was on). Hearing the same propaganda blasted 24/7, is it any wonder it is virtually impossible to get them to see the truth when it seems so obvious to everyone else.

  141. [141] 
    Paula wrote:

    [140] Listen:
    Hearing the same propaganda blasted 24/7, is it any wonder it is virtually impossible to get them to see the truth when it seems so obvious to everyone else.

    Exactly. The rightwing propaganda machine is a real thing and it has done tremendous, tremendous damage to our country.

  142. [142] 
    Balthasar wrote:

    The rightwing propaganda machine is a real thing and it has done tremendous, tremendous damage to our country.

    But it has a soft, gooey center. Did you notice the chaos this week over at Fox regarding O'Reilly, and his apparent habit of costing Fox money every time he gets horny? Notice how quickly advertisers pulled their ads?

    And compare that to similar economic pressure put on Indiana and South Carolina regarding obnoxious laws and antique flags.

    Democrats have influence in places other than voting booths. We're half the country after all, and have enormous economic power. Far more than the geezers and paranoids who watch Fox (if you don't count the Koch brothers).

    And by the way, did you know that the Koch brothers own Bounty paper towels? Or that Yuengling Beer endorsed Trump during the election and that L.L. Bean maxed out (exceeded, actually) their donation limit to Trump?

    Economic political pressure isn't a new tactic, but it's useful to remind ourselves from time to time that we aren't the powerless waifs, collectively, that the media makes us out to be. Corporations, those bastions of liberal dogma, were terrified to be linked to Pence's anti-gay legislation. Was it the fear of gay magic? No, it was the economic damage that an LGBT boycott could do to them.

    So the next time you're doing Oppo research at Fox, and you find that one of the ads you see isn't just another con artist, but rather a real company with a national constituency, drop a note to them telling them how much you dislike their support of a company with no apparent ethics policy, and tell them that you'll stop using their products unless they stop. They'll notice.

    Some of this information came from https://www.popsugar.com/news/Which-Businesses-Support-Trump-43025072 and #grabyourwallet.

  143. [143] 
    Kick wrote:

    A01 -- The fact that "non-interventionist" trump and his trumplings are now eagerly embracing neocons and their agenda is hardly surprising.

    michale -- Actually, many Trump supporters are condemning Trump for his actions..

    But why let FACTS ruin a perfectly good rant. :D

    Isn't it just egregious when somebody paints an entire group with a broad brush... following your lead? :)

  144. [144] 
    michale wrote:

    Note also what James Clapper told Obama.

    And you believe James Clapper??

    :D

    That's your first mistake. :D

  145. [145] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    Don Harris [1] -

    Well, some like them and some don't. I get some complaints when I do frivolous articles, and some raves. I usually save most of them for August, when (as the interstellar rules of Fizzbin dictate) it is silly season for politics in general. But I will keep throwing them in there every so often, never fear!

    :-)

    nypoet22 [6], Kick [8], etc. -

    I thought "Type O" was the "universal donor"? All I know is I see some bloody nonsense all over the place...

    Heh.

    nypoet22 [10] -

    OK, I'm going to pretend you didn't say that, otherwise I'd have to sic the Simpsons leprechaun on you...

    LizM [18] -

    I noticed that, too, in hindsight -- it did seem kind of unusual, but I didn't really note the significance until you pointed it out.

    michale, Kick [various] -

    I understand both arguments, the "must declare war first" argument and the "C-in-C has the power" argument. But because neither Congress nor any president has ever pushed to have the War Powers (Act? Resolution? of 1973? or 1975?) ever adjucated, we're all going to have to wait and see what is and is not constitutional until one side or the other pushes it to SCOTUS. Until then, the issue is really up in the air.

    michale [25] -

    OK, a couple of things. First, Trump was saying exactly what he tweeted, not your interpretation of it. Sorry. He was using it as a political bludgeon against Obama, but (according to you) he was just flat-out wrong. Admit when your side makes a mistake, dude, if you're going to be consistent in your reasoning.

    Second, what is up with the "Victoria" thing? Something I missed in earlier comment threads? I am hereby serving you notice that you are crossing a line which should not be crossed. Stop calling other commenters names, no matter how much you enjoy doing so. You have been warned, so take note.

    As stated above, until SCOTUS rules, neither argument can be said to be definitively "constitutional" or not, but both are (much like Schrodinger's cat) valid arguments to make, at this point.

    michale [28] -

    Actually, Obama worked WITH Putin, for better or worse -- something Trump has promised to do repeatedly. So what's your problem?

    michale [29] -

    OK, finally we get back to the article's contents. Never heard of Danny Dunn... send me a link, I am intrigued.

    There is also a hilarious series (as a massive spoof) of Tom Swift that I should have mentioned, written by sci-fi genius Harry Harrison (he of "The Stainless Steel Rat" fame) called "Star Smashers Of The Galaxy Rangers" which is freakin' gut-bustingly funny, if you are familiar with what is being spoofed...

    [OK, I'm thinking my browser is on the brink of crashing, so I'm going to post this and continue in another comment, everyone...]

    -CW

  146. [146] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    michale [32] -

    While I do appreciate your attempt at camraderie, see above comment on "admit when you're wrong." Notifying Russian troops is the same thing as notifying Russia. You're splitting meaningless hairs, dude.

    As for [37], you guys are both lazy. This took 0.47 seconds on Google:

    "War Powers. Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to declare war. The President, meanwhile, derives the power to direct the military after a Congressional declaration of war from Article II, Section 2, which names the President Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces."

    Ambiguous though it may be, there it is. Does the C-in-C decide, or Congress? Until SCOTUS rules, nobody knows for certain.

    Neither side's argument (like the vitality of Schrodinger's cat) is "bullshit" or "fact" until the eigenstate collapses, by looking in the box (allowing SCOTUS to rule). So there.

    Nothing precludes the C-in-C from launching an attack (absent a congressional approval), in other words, but nothing in it specifically authorizes it either. Stalemate.

    michale [44] -

    Tell it to Denny Hastert. Republicans (eyeroll...).

    Kick [45] -

    Always like to see people using the permalinks in the comments!

    :-)

    Just had to say that...

    altohone [56] -

    Another county heard from! Good point about the accuracy of the allegations.

    As for my no response... I've been busy. But which rebel groups have been proven to have the ability to create chemical weapons? Assad has. Now, I'm not up on what it takes to create Sarin (creating mustard gas, on the other hand, is quite easy), but so far haven't heard much skepticism on the claim. Not saying it's true or not, but just haven't heard any differently, that's all.

    I'll keep it in mind, as things develop...

    -CW

  147. [147] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    OK, interlude -

    What does everyone think about the captialization of Sarin? Was it ever a branded product? Should it be capitalized? I've seen it both ways, with no rhyme or reason. Now, something like napalm is not properly capitalized today (although it might have been, 50 years ago), but something like Semtex or Agent Orange is. So I'm left wondering, what standard should I be using?

    Any thoughts?

    OK, back to the main threads...

    -CW

  148. [148] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    michale [85, 86] -

    I think you forgot your cites, there. How about some links?

    TheStig [105] -

    Aha! Another rare comment on the actual article!

    "Well, I guess I should send the email," Tom said, hitting the Return key depressingly.

    Heh.

    Making up Swifties is fun...

    Balthasar [118] -

    See Friday's column. :-)

    michale [124] -

    Ever read THE JESUS FACTOR??

    No, but I've read The Jesus Incident by Dune author Frank Herbert... good book, only sci-fi book that was written to highlight one very bad pun on the last page...

    The sequels were much better, though, have to admit...

    Balthasar [126] -

    Um, yeah, except for Haley saying last week that Assad's future should be decided by the Syrian people... I'm just sayin'...

    [127] -

    Oh, OK, there you go. Just what I said, there...

    altohone [134] -

    See Friday's column...

    OK, that's it for now...

    -CW

  149. [149] 
    michale wrote:

    I understand both arguments, the "must declare war first" argument and the "C-in-C has the power" argument. But because neither Congress nor any president has ever pushed to have the War Powers (Act? Resolution? of 1973? or 1975?) ever adjucated, we're all going to have to wait and see what is and is not constitutional until one side or the other pushes it to SCOTUS. Until then, the issue is really up in the air.

    Ahhhh, but even if you bring up the War Powers Act, that is STILL not a constitutional issue..

    The US Constitution is clear on what the Commander In Chief can and cannot do..

    Based on the Constitution, President Trump was fully and completely within his rights and obligations..

    In other words, there MAY be other issues that would prevent President Trump from legally ordering a missile strike..

    But the US Constitution is not one of those issues..

    Second, what is up with the "Victoria" thing? Something I missed in earlier comment threads? I am hereby serving you notice that you are crossing a line which should not be crossed. Stop calling other commenters names, no matter how much you enjoy doing so. You have been warned, so take note.

    Uhhh, I don't see a :D so I have to assume you are serious...

    As far as I know, Victoria IS Kick's name...

    So, color me confused...

    Actually, Obama worked WITH Putin, for better or worse -- something Trump has promised to do repeatedly. So what's your problem?

    My "problem" is when Obama worked with Putin, he was hailed as a great statesman by the WPG..

    When President Trump professes a desire to work with Putin, he is denigrated as a traitor and worse by that same WPG...

    My "problem", as usual, is the hypocrisy solely and completely based on Party zealotry...

    OK, finally we get back to the article's contents.

    X3 :D heh

    Never heard of Danny Dunn... send me a link, I am intrigued.

    OHMYGOD!! You never heard of Danny Dunn!!!!

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danny_Dunn

    :D

  150. [150] 
    michale wrote:

    Oops. Hit SUBMIT by accident..

    "War Powers. Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the U.S. Constitution grants Congress the power to declare war. The President, meanwhile, derives the power to direct the military after a Congressional declaration of war from Article II, Section 2, which names the President Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces."

    OK, I thought you were referring previously to the War Powers Act of... ??1974??

    That makes it sound like that President cannot order ANY military until Congress declares war..

    And that is patently ridiculous..

    Ever read THE JESUS FACTOR??

    No, but I've read The Jesus Incident by Dune author Frank Herbert... good book, only sci-fi book that was written to highlight one very bad pun on the last page...

    YOu should read THE JESUS FACTOR?? Very exciting read...

  151. [151] 
    michale wrote:

    michale [44] -

    Tell it to Denny Hastert. Republicans (eyeroll...).

    I know, right??

    It's utter despicable and bigoted to castigate an entire group solely based on the actions of an individual, right??

  152. [152] 
    Kick wrote:

    As far as I know, Victoria IS Kick's name...

    Victoria is not sure why CW is giving you a hard time calling Kick that, and Victoria absolves thee of any wrongdoing.

    BUT, I have to admit I do like CW's idea of NOT calling me that since no one else EVER calls me that.

    Call me Kick. :)

  153. [153] 
    michale wrote:

    Victoria is not sure why CW is giving you a hard time calling Kick that, and Victoria absolves thee of any wrongdoing.

    Danke

    BUT, I have to admit I do like CW's idea of NOT calling me that since no one else EVER calls me that.

    Call me Kick. :)

    I will do my utmost to abide by your request..

    If I don't, then you'll know I am TRYING to piss you off.. :D

    BUT, I have to admit I do like CW's idea of NOT calling me

    I like CW's idea of losing the name-calling 100% completely...

    But I know that THAT is never going to happen.. :D

  154. [154] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [153]

    If I don't, then you'll know I am TRYING to piss you off.. :D

    Oh, okay... I see. Maybe CW picked up on that "tone," and maybe THAT is why you got busted!?!

    I like CW's idea of losing the name-calling 100% completely...

    But I know that THAT is never going to happen.. :D

    Because you can't stop calling everyone party sla... zealots, right? So many posts of yours are devoted to calling people Party bigots. You might be a regular person without it! :)

  155. [155] 
    michale wrote:

    Oh, okay... I see. Maybe CW picked up on that "tone," and maybe THAT is why you got busted!?!

    Oh, no no.. You misunderstand.. It would only be AFTER you had asked me not to call you "Victoria" that I would do it just to piss you off. :D Before I simply called you Victoria in an attempt to humanize the debate/discussion and make it more friendly..

    Because you can't stop calling everyone party sla... zealots, right? So many posts of yours are devoted to calling people Party bigots. You might be a regular person without it! :)

    And because everyone else (NEN) can't stop calling me Troll and all other sorts of names..

    I treat people exactly as they treat me.. Take now, for instance.. We're having a decent and adult exchange of ideas and viewpoints.. Not a name call to be found...

    M Horton was another perfect example.. He would talk to me as a mature adult and I would respond in kind.. He went on a name-calling bender and I followed suit..

    Yes, at times, I can be the bigger person.. Altohone calls me "trumpling" and I choose not to respond in kind.. At times I choose not to be the bigger person...

    Quite simple when ya think about it.. :D

  156. [156] 
    Kick wrote:

    Oh, no no.. You misunderstand.. It would only be AFTER you had asked me not to call you "Victoria" that I would do it just to piss you off. :D Before I simply called you Victoria in an attempt to humanize the debate/discussion and make it more friendly..

    Oh, I see. It doesn't piss me off, though. It's like reading someone else's name when I see it. You are "humanizing" a name that no one ever calls me. :)

    Yes, at times, I can be the bigger person.. Altohone calls me "trumpling" and I choose not to respond in kind.. At times I choose not to be the bigger person...

    Who you kidding? You're mean all the time! :) <--- *smile*

    Altohone is a Punk... a compliment... and he kicks your butt on a regular basis. :) <--- *smile*

  157. [157] 
    michale wrote:

    Altohone is a Punk... a compliment... and he kicks your butt on a regular basis. :) <--- *smile*

    That's yer opinion..

    Unsupported by facts..

    He hasn't provided ANY substantiation that President Trump violated the US Constitution..

    He hasn't provided ANY facts to support his claim that the cop used excessive force..

    Last couple go-rounds, he has had his ass handed to him by your's truly.. :D

  158. [158] 
    Kick wrote:

    michale [157]

    Unsupported by facts..

    You and your ilk make up their own set of "facts."

    He hasn't provided ANY substantiation that President Trump violated the US Constitution..

    He could rub your nose in shit, and you'd claim you couldn't smell anything. :)

    He hasn't provided ANY facts to support his claim that the cop used excessive force..

    See above.

    Last couple go-rounds, he has had his ass handed to him by your's truly.. :D

    You'd have to up your game exponentially in order to even get remotely near him. Enjoy your fantasy, though! :)

  159. [159] 
    michale wrote:

    You and your ilk make up their own set of "facts."

    Apparently, ya'all do, as you have provided ANY facts to support your claim that President Trump's acts were not constitutional..

    :D

  160. [160] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    michale and Kick -

    As far as I know, Victoria IS Kick's name...

    So, color me confused...

    Oh, OK. I missed a few weeks of comments, a while back, while doing taxes, so I must have missed that.

    My apologies to both of you, and I withdraw my previous comment. Mea culpa. It was late at night, don't know what got into me...

    -CW

  161. [161] 
    Chris Weigant wrote:

    michale -

    OK, Danny Dunn sounds interesting. I will scour the used bookstores...

    [150] -

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Powers_Resolution

    1973. Was passed to rein in presidents at the end of the Vietnam War. It basically says the president can order military action, but he has to inform congressional leaders (note: inform, not get their consent) within I think 48 hrs, and that he can keep the military action going for something like 90 days before Congress gets a say-so. That's oversimplification, but it was written to put some meat on the bones of the rather thin language of the Constitution on war powers.

    We haven't declared war since WWII. So, constitutionally, we haven't marched off to war since then. Realistically, things are different. That's why they passed the WPR. But, as I said, it has never been tested in court. The whole WPR may itself be unconstitutional -- when different branches of government try to limit powers of the other two, sometimes the effort itself is unconstitutional.

    Here's an article that talks about reasons why some are calling it an illegal act of war now (that doesn't talk much about the WPR, but does have recent history from the past few presidents):

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/04/07/trumps-missile-attack-on-syria-might-be-satisfying-but-its-not-legal/?utm_term=.3d37d3ea37d1

    Not saying I agree with the article fully, but it was an interesting read.

    michale [155] -

    Right... when you start calling it "Obamacare" again then maybe I'll take you seriously...

    Heh. Couldn't resist.

    -CW

Comments for this article are closed.