Müs wrote:
Trump's decisions should be colored by coherent policy. In attacking the military of a sovereign nation, they should alco have gone through Congress. Here, he decided to strike first and ask permission later. And, the judicial filibuster wouldn't have been needed if the (R) **** would have brought Garland up for a vote over a year ago, instead of playing partisan bullshit. I wish I could refuse to do my job and keep it.
There is no particular reason he should have acted through Congress in a case like this. Congress has made clear through the War Powers Act when it feels consultation is mandatory - a law passed by override of veto. As for a coherent policy, "we will not tolerate the use of chemical weapons" is pretty **** coherent.
As for Garland, that "partisan bullshit" is exactly what the Democrats thought it was ok to threaten GWB with, when he had almost 2 years left, and which Biden articulated in 1992. This is entirely the Democrat's fault - at least insofar as it's anyone presently in the Senate's fault, since filibustering nominees is actually a terrible practice regardless. Neither Trump nor Gorsuch had anything at all to do with that, and resenting that McConnell played exactly the same politics they themselves had advocated is utter crap.
No, Trump demonstrated that he'd notify one of our adversaries about a strike before our congress. He demonstrated that he'd give them a chance to move their personnel and other **** off the base before we gave it a love tap in and around its environs. That we'll strike, but not attempt to do any real damage. Except that we did, in fact, do real damage- to the tune of 20% of their aircraft, which is effectively much higher because they can't keep them flying at high OR anyhow. Or I suppose you're going to now tell me that you know better than James Mattis how effective the strike was. Maybe you should jump right in the "my intuition is better than facts!" pool with Elmo.
As for notifying an adversary, yes, making notice to a country we don't want to provoke is a wise move. He's not, however, obligated to notify Congress in advance.
Pull our military out, and let the region deal with it. Saudi Arabis has planes and Money. So does Israel. They both have a far more vested interest in destroying ISIS than we do. I seem to remember.Ok, fine. So, if Trump pulls out tomorrow and refuses to have anything whatsoever to do with Syria in the future, you'd support that and not conveniently forget you were in favor of it if it didn't work out the way you planned?
I somehow doubt it.
Still attacking a sovereign country (act of war) without congressional authorization. Irrelevant. Congress passed a law to define how it thinks that Article 2 is delimited, just like they pass laws to put every other part of the Constitution into actual effect.
There is nothing inherently wrong with an attack on another country if the President feels it is necessary as long as the limits in the War Powers Act are adhered to.
Its my right to have an opinion. Just as its your right to think I'm an idiot. No one said you can't have an opinion. the problem is that you're trying to have an opinion on a factual matter you have absolutely no knowledge of. Sucking your thumb and saying "but I have a right to an opinion!" is meaningless.
Nah, I'd prefer if deplorables like you didn't vote. But that's ok. I'll continue to exercise my constitutional rights. At least until your side strips me of them. 
You say "deplorable" like it's somehow negative. Don't worry, your rights aren't going anywhere. People like me like it that people like you can make fools of yourselves spouting your bullshit opinions. It's like giving you bread and circuses, and we get to point and laugh.
What I said was "do us a favor". Sort of like you can do the world a favor by not becoming a stripper. Just because you have the right to do something doesn't make it a good idea.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
Just so you know that.
