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

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

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

:D

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! :)

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

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*

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

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! :)

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

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. :)

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??

"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...

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

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

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

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

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

And you believe James Clapper??

:D

That's your first mistake. :D

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? :)

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

Bullcarp...

Obama was trying to appease Putin..

Pure and simple..

Obama needed Putin for the Iran Nuclear deal..

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

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

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

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

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

125

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

#NeoliberalsLoveNeocons

A

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

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

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

I commented about Hillary's support this morning.

A

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

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

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

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

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

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/

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

“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.”

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

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

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

President Trump and Putin are besties!!!

They Left Whinery has said so!!!

WTF!!???

ARRRGGGHHHH!!!!

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

:D

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

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...

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

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

Russia has already suspended cooperation on the aerial bombardment coordination.

The next US incursion may well trigger a violent escalation.

A

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... :^/

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

Thanks for reminding me of Tom Swift and Tom Swiftys

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

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

May we see this "note"??

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

"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"

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

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

But Abrams points are right on target...

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. :)

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

Unemployment rate down to 4.5. :)

superseded by the UN final report, download from here:

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

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

"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

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

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.

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

Not really a shocker. :)

JL

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

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

:D

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??

"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.

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...

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...

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

JL

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

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

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

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

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

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...

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...

Geez.

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

My language wasn't vague.

A

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

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

:D

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

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

Would that be a fair assessment??

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

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

A

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.

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

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

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??

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...

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. :)

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 .