Remember how I single handedly postponed 9/11 by bravely tomahawking Bin Laden?
Posted on 04/07/2017 5:07:52 PM PDT by springwater13
Leading conservative talker Mark Levin has strongly endorsed President Trump's strike on Syria, urging in his Friday night Levin TV show, "You should be very proud of your president, that's a leader."
Levin, never one to rip Trump, said, "By God, when he does the right thing and he does it in such a wonderful way, as a true leader, then he needs to have our support. We need to have his back."
Throughout the day, some of Trump's supporters have criticized the president for the strike, which they believe violates his campaign promises to keep America from deeper involvement in world crises.
But Trump, who initially leaned against action, said the Syrian government's poisoning of children changed his mind and Levin endorsed that change, a powerful message of support that should carry weight in the conservative wing of the GOP.
Levin also dismissed calls for Trump to get the OK first from Congress, saying, "Under the War Powers Act, it's perfectly legal."
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
After trying to inject some common sense and fact I've come to the same conclusion.
We have treaty obligations and Assad broke a big one in a horrific manner. Trump made it clear that the U.S. will defend its obligations and reject such gross acts of inhumanity. Apparently neither of those things are important to some here. He made his point with a hammer not a flowery letter to the UN. He intended to be taken seriously not as a joke like 0jugears was.
Standing up for what is right for America and right morally is a magnet for invective and low grade sophistry but I'm sure Trump expects that as much as we do. Didn't expect so much of that SJW mentality around here though.
More to “it” meaning the White House staff business, or the Syria strike business?
In connection to your reply to this:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/3542227/posts?page=102#102
Remember how I single handedly postponed 9/11 by bravely tomahawking Bin Laden?
There is such evidence, and it was reviewed, confirmed, and acted on by the grownups in the Trump administration. Aside from the classified portions, the summary evidence presented to the public included aerial photos, flight path data, and other information which made—at the very least—a prima facie case.
Do you honestly think that President Trump, his advisors, Defense Secretary Mattis, the Cabinet, the Joint Chiefs and such would have undertaken this airstrike if there was doubt in their minds about who was the guilty party—especially considering the fact that the intelligence community has given the President ample reason to mistrust it?
Your whimsical notion—that there isn't actual evidence—is laughable on its face, and it exposes you either as an incorrigible NeverTrumper, or else a strident ideologue who can't be bothered by such trivial things as objective reality.
If you want to argue that the Syrian airstrikes were the wrong decision, that's fine. But claiming a lack of evidence—in the face of bona fide evidence—is both disingenuous and juvenile.
In any event, it's nice to see Mark Levin—a tireless Trump skeptic and Constitutional expert—set aside any bias and geniunely express praise for the leadership shown by President Donald J. Trump.
Unfortunately for incorrigible Trump-haters and their ilk, lingering butthurt is not a valid justification for disregarding the actual evidence of Assad's most recent War Crime...
He did what lameass Obama wouldn't do after his red line was crossed!
As I said in another thread.
This is a tough one.
On the one hand the people who are praising Trump are John McCain, Hillary Clinton, George Bush, the neo-cons, CNN, the New York Times, the Saudis, the Islamist rebels in Syria, Sunni fanatics, the Israelis and Uncle Tom Cobbley and all.
Meanwhile the people who have doubts about it are about 50 percent of the people who made the effort to get out and vote for Donald Trump in a Tuesday back in November.
Hmm, yeah it’s tough to decide who is right on this issue and no mistake.
I don’t get Savage...this is all it took to turn on Trump after being a BIG Trump supporter??
I don’t have a big problem with Trump showing some muscle when the world needed to see it and for a good cause.
Bump
So you figure Trump can get Asaad, and Russia, and Iran out of Syria???
On the one hand the people who are praising Trump are John McCain, Hillary Clinton, George Bush, the neo-cons, CNN, the New York Times, the Saudis, the Islamist rebels in Syria, Sunni fanatics, the Israelis and Uncle Tom Cobbley and all.
Meanwhile the people who have doubts about it are about 50 percent of the people who made the effort to get out and vote for Donald Trump in a Tuesday back in November.
Sorry, the neobolshevik demographic that dreams of a diminished United States and a world run by the likes of Death to America Iran and fascist Russia is thankfully minuscule. POTUS is going to asert US influence and day dreaming isolationists are going to have to deal with it.
Same here!
Savage has been a long time fan of Putin. He’s intellectually lazy on that particular subject. I recall him making basic errors on the subject. It’s clear he hasn’t studied that part of the world in much depth.
>Amazing what dropping bombs in the Middle East will do for your popularity with the never trump neocons. The weekly standard and national review were overjoyed today. These people are really whacked.
To steal a line from warhammer 40k: More blood for the Blood god!
>FR supports false flags and neo-con war-mongering now?
As long as Trump says it wasn’t false flag war-mongering. Personally I’ll continue supporting Trump as long as he continues to appoint Conservative judges but the direction we’re headed in Syria doesn’t bode well for the future.
Syrian Refugee IS fake news. Most are not refugees by standard definition let alone Syrian.
Neoconservatism (commonly shortened to neocon) is a political movement born in the United States during the 1960s among conservative-leaning Democrats who became disenchanted with the party’s foreign policy.[citation needed] Many of its adherents became politically famous during the Republican presidential administrations of the 1970s, 1980s, 1990s and 2000s. Neoconservatives peaked in influence during the administration of George W. Bush, when they played a major role in promoting and planning the 2003 invasion of Iraq.[1] Prominent neoconservatives in the George W. Bush administration included Paul Wolfowitz, Elliott Abrams, Richard Perle and Paul Bremer. Senior officials Vice President Dick Cheney and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, while not identifying as neoconservatives, listened closely to neoconservative advisers regarding foreign policy, especially the defense of Israel and the promotion of democracy in the Middle East.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism
Search can be your friend.
Neoconservatism is no more difficult to define than ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’ or ‘Tea Party’.
That anyone would hear a group give different definitions for it should be expected.
In the context of what has happened here, to say the NEOCONS are whooping up a celebration at bombing a nation is say that a group of people who think the United States must engage in ENDLESS WARS is celebrating the change in course of this President.
It is really not difficult to understand unless certain people want it to be difficult.
Just no way they could gather evidence that quickly. Yesterday he was blaming Assad before he even knew anything crying about “beautiful babies” - sadly he acted without full intelligence.
Weren’t we AGAINST obama lobbing missiles over this?
and weren’t we worried about hillary doing something like this?
But now it’s genius? :)
Now the Russia has cut off communications with us regarding flight coordination, I wonder if a plane on either side will be shot down this week or next.
We should get a little pool going to pick the day :)
Obviously it will be a Russian plane as we are far superior, but it still won’t end that good.
Yeah insulting half the people who loyally worked to get Trump elected, who attended his rallies, who lost friendships over their support for him, who made the effort to go out and vote for him, that will work a treat won’t it?
Trump was not elected to start blasting 100 million dollar craters in the desert, that’s precisely the opposite of why he was elected. That was the policy of the Bushes and the Clintons.
Good luck getting Trump re-elected in 2020, I am sure your new friends in CNN and the NYT as well as John McCain and Hillary Clinton will be pulling out all the stops for you.
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.