Posted on 04/06/2017 7:17:47 PM PDT by Ray76
Just in the first few dozen posts, several people said they were through with Trump. That’s their right, but they are in fact abandoning him.
That said, there have been numerous comments posted here that state in essence, to disagree with Trump is to Trash him, or that one is a “stealth anti-Trumper.” Sorry I just don’t buy that, and I think it extinguishes thoughtful debate on the issues~one of the things that makes FR so valuable.
Oops!!
That may be—and that is SAD
Here’s Cruz. For you Cruzers out there.
- - - - -
“U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) issued the following statement:
Today, after eight years of Obama foreign policy failures, Syria is a humanitarian disaster. Bashar al-Assad is a monster, a puppet of Russia and Iran, and he has once again used chemical weapons against his own citizens, murdering innocent men, women, and children.
Our prayers are with Assad’s victims, and with the victims of the ISIS and al Qaeda terrorists ripping Syria apart. And, as always, our support and prayers are with the brave Americans in uniform who carried out the military strike tonight.
Any military action in Syria must be justified as protecting the vital national security interests of America – including decisive action to prevent chemical weapons from falling into the hands of radical Islamic terrorists – and I look forward to our Commander-in-Chief making the case to Congress and the American people how we should do so in the days ahead.”
- - - - -
Ted looks forward to it, and he doesn’t care much for “the monster” Assad.
And Trump hasn’t been hoodwinked unless you got the proof that he has - so prove it.
No I'm not. Howso?
The question is: can the President Constitutionally take action such as this in the absent of a declaration of War, and the longstanding answer—backed by extensive precedent—is "Yes".
I'm a Constitutionalist, so if you're accusing me of supporting some unconstitutional action, please explain precisely what that is.
The military action that President Trump took against Syria Thursday—in his role as Commander In Chief of the US Armed Forces—was unequivocally Constitutional—even by the most strict "original constructionist" standards...
Today, after eight years of Obama foreign policy failures, Syria is a humanitarian disaster. Bashar al-Assad is a monster, a puppet of Russia and Iran, and he has once again used chemical weapons against his own citizens, murdering innocent men, women, and children.
Our prayers are with Assad’s victims, and with the victims of the ISIS and al Qaeda terrorists ripping Syria apart. And, as always, our support and prayers are with the brave Americans in uniform who carried out the military strike tonight.
Any military action in Syria must be justified as protecting the vital national security interests of America – including decisive action to prevent chemical weapons from falling into the hands of radical Islamic terrorists – and I look forward to our Commander-in-Chief making the case to Congress and the American people how we should do so in the days ahead.”
Well, how about that: a thoughtful, balanced, non-hysterical statement by Ted Cruz—a statement that isn't laden with knee-jerk second-guessing!
What a novel idea...
Cruz means nothing to me
> unequivocally Constitutional
Sure it is. /s
There is no imminent threat to the US, a threat that would not admit of delay, that requires an immediate attack on Syria.
Come to think of it, he could have hit the source of the deaths of the 1300 Ghouta inhabitants murdered back when zero was in the office. They were surface to surface missiles though.
according to wikipedia (I know, but it’s got references)
Several countries including France, the United Kingdom, and the United States debated whether to intervene militarily against Syrian government forces.[41][42][43][44] On 6 September 2013, the United States Senate filed a resolution to authorize use of military force against the Syrian military in response to the Ghouta attack.[45]
On 10 September 2013, the military intervention was averted when the Syrian government accepted a US–Russian negotiated deal to turn over “every single bit” of its chemical weapons stockpiles for destruction and declared its intention to join the Chemical Weapons Convention.[46][47]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghouta_chemical_attack
Such a determination is solely the judgement of the President, and if the Congress disagrees with the president's determination regarding an "imminent threat", then there is an eminently Constitutional remedy: impeachment.
Under the Constitution, impeaching the President for the "high crime and misdemeanor" of bombing Syria yesterday would be the legitimate solution.
In the absence of such a proceeding, such use of military action by the President—as its Commander in Chief—is de facto Constitutonal...
That rhetoric may be satisfying to sycophants, but it is nonsense.
In the absence of such a proceeding, such use of military action by the President—as its Commander in Chief—is de facto Constitutonal...
Sure, just as gun control is de facto legal with corrupt judges. What matters is that it’s illegal in both cases.
Oh you'll still be involved. It's part of your DNA.
No, your rhetoric is nonsense. Waxing hysterical over one salvo of cruise missiles, when the United States hasn't declared war on anyone in over 75 years, is about as nonsensical as you can get.
I guess you'd prefer a declaration of war so things could really get geared up and escalated?
In any event, your hypersensitivity about what is basically a semantic consideration is simply absurd.
A declaration of war—thereby telegraphing the operation—is inadvisable on both theoretical and practical grounds.
I'm satisfied with Ted Cruz's take on this incident. He made a thoughtful, incisive statement, as did the President. Ted Cruz is being a statesman; if he—at some point in the future—becomes hysterical regarding the Constitutional propriety of this limited military operation, then I'll re-evaluate my position.
Until then, this remains a matter for calm, rational thought, as opposed to disingenuous and/or knee-jerk accusations of unconstitutionality...
when the United States hasn’t declared war on anyone in over 75 years, is about as nonsensical as you can get.
In other words, because for a long time courts considered Federal Minimum Wages constitutional, pointing out that they aren’t is ‘as nonsensical as you can get’.
In sargon’s world breaking the law is something not to be opposed if it’s been done for a long enough time.
"Breaking the law"? Balderdash. Your whimsical assertion stands unproven.
"Congress shall have the power to declare war."
That doesn't preclude the President from acting as Commander-In-Chief, and directing the Armed Forces to engage in either offensive or defensive military operations.
I'm not aware of any Supreme Court precedent which suggests otherwise—not in over 240 years of Constitutional governance.
Ironic that all three branches of government are apparently complicit in disregarding the Constitution viz-a-viz your suggestion that there's something subversive afoot.
The Korean War. Viet Nam. Desert Storm. The list goes on and on.
The President simply isn't doing anything even remotely against the Constitution—except in the eyes of your misguided ilk. That's the judgement of nearly a quarter millennium of U.S History. Why don't you examine a list of Presidents who took similar military action in the absence of a declaration of war. It's a lengthy compilation.
I'll just have to bear the unspeakable shame of having my patriotism and Constitutional understanding questioned by such sage analysis. I'm condemned to live with the burden of knowing that President Trump is every bit as tainted as President Reagan—who similarly took such Congressionally unauthorized military action during his own administration. Yep, President Reagan was just another globalist criminal—because Constitution!</sarc>
On the other hand, maybe you're the one who's wrong...
Hilarious.
A week ago Nikki Haley said the following: ""Do we think he's a hindrance? Yes. Are we going to sit there and focus on getting him out? No," she said. "What we are going to focus on is putting the pressure in there so that we can start to make a change in Syria.""
This very diplomatic language from Ms. Haley suggested that (1) U.S. policy remained anti-Assad, and (2) we would take action to help convince the Syrians to oust Assad themselves.
$60 million in cruise missiles to bust up a few planes and aircraft hangars. Before we see any hard evidence of Assad’s involvement, and when the opposition has a clear motive for a bait and switch. If Trump has smoking gun intelligence to support this attack he should share it, otherwise he’s marching down the same path as Clinton, Bush and Obama. Reagan’s admonition to “trust but verify” applies equally when making agreements with opponents or relying on information from organizations (UN) and “rebel” groups that do not have the best interests of the United States at heart.
Every president is tested early in his term. Trump used this opportunity 100 day into his administration to take strong decisive lethal action.
And don't forget that a principal target of our deterrence action is not Assad, but North Korea and Iran. North Korea has to know, now, that any funny business over nukes and they are a smoking cinder.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.