I strongly support @POTUS’s decision to work with our UK and French allies to respond decisively to the Syrian regime’s criminal use of chemical weapons against innocent men, women and children.
— Rep. Steve Scalise (@SteveScalise) April 14, 2018
FoxNews.com reports that
President Trump on Friday night announced that he approved U.S. military strikes to be carried out in Syria against the country’s leader, Bashar al-Assad.
The news came after a suspected chemical attack last weekend from the regime on the rebel-held town, Douma.
At least 40 people died in the attack, located about 10 miles east of Damascus, and more than 500 people, mostly women and children, were injured and brought to medical centers. The attack occurred amid a resumed offensive by Syrian government forces after the collapse of a truce. Syrian activists, rescuers and medics said families suffocated in their homes.
Immediately following Trump’s address to the nation, loud explosions and thick smoke were reported in the capital city.
The president said Assad’s actions were not those “of a man” but rather “the crimes of a monster instead.”
Sen. Orrin Hatch of Utah tweeted a statement saying “The President’s decision to retaliate with air strikes as part of a broader military response reflect his seriousness in addressing the scale and depravity of Assad’s actions.”
Kentucky Rep. Thomas Massie tweeted, “I haven’t read France’s or Britain’s ‘Constitution,’ but I’ve read ours and no where in it is Presidential authority to strike Syria.”
Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan in a tweet called the strikes “unconstitutional, illegal, and reckless.”
Georgia Sen. David Perdue issued a statement saying, “Chemical attacks against innocent children and civilians are horrific and totally unacceptable. Assad must know his inhumane actions will not be tolerated. I’ve met some of the Syrian families who fled Assad’s terror and are living in a refugee camp at the Turkish border. For too long, the world has been asking: when will Assad stop? It is time for action. President Trump is engaged and led our allies in measured response to hold Assad accountable.
In August 2012, President Barack Obama announced that if Syrian President Bashar al-Assad were to use chemical weapons in the Syrian civil war, he would be crossing a “red line” that would likely trigger a military response by the United States. But exactly a year later — on August 21, 2013 — Assad did in fact breach that “red line” when he launched a massive chemical-weapons attack that killed more than 1,300 people and injured several thousand others.
By mid-morning on September 15th, Russian President Putin had taken Petulant President Pantywaist up on his magnanimous offer:
Russia and Syria embraced Secretary of State John F. Kerry’s suggestion Monday that the Syrian government could avert a U.S. attack by placing its chemical weapons under international control, upending the Obama administration’s efforts to sharpen its case for military action.
U.S. officials said Kerry’s comment, made in response to a question at a news conference in London, was not intended to be a diplomatic opening. But Kerry’s Russian and Syrian counterparts quickly followed up, and the idea drew immediate interest internationally and from top Democrats in Washington.
By the end of the day, President Obama conceded that the idea of monitoring and ultimately destroying Syria’s arsenal “could potentially be a significant breakthrough.” The Senate postponed a vote scheduled for Wednesday on whether to back a proposed punitive strike.
“I think you have to take it with a grain of salt, initially,” Obama said in an interview with NBC that was among several he gave Monday in pursuit of public backing for a military strike in response to an alleged Aug. 21 gas attack on Syrian civilians.
“We are going to run this to ground,” Obama said. “We’re going to make sure that we see how serious these proposals are.”
The President of these United States made the rounds of the news programs all that day, as if he was running for another term in office, desperately trying to drum up support for getting America involved in the Syrian Civil War, on the side of al Qaeda. Here is an excerpt from an interview with Scott Pelley, Anchor of the CBS Evening News:
…I’m not looking for an excuse to engage in military action.
And I understand deeply how the American people, after a decade of war, are not interested in any kind of military action that they don’t believe involves our direct national security interests. I– I get that. And members of Congress I think understand that. But in this situation where there’s clear evidence that nobody credible around the world disputes that chemical weapons were used, that over a thousand people were killed, that the way that these weapons were delivered makes it almost certain that Assad’s forces used them, when even Iran has acknowledged that chemical weapons were used inside of Syria.
In that situation, I think the issue is not the evidence — most people around the world are not questioning that chemical weapons were used. I think the question now is what– how does the– how does the international community respond. And I think it is important for us to run to ground every diplomatic channel that we can. There’s a reason why I went to Congress in part to allow further deliberation, not just here domestically but also internationally.
But I think it’s very important for us to make sure that we understand this is important. And if the American people– are not prepared to stand up for what is a really important international norm, then I think a lot of people around the world will take that signal — that this norm is not important.
PRESIDENT OBAMA: Yeah, well, not yet. And I, as I said, I understand that. So I’ll have a chance to talk to the American people directly tomorrow. I don’t expect that it’s gonna suddenly swing the polls wildly in the direction of another military engagement. If you ask the average person — including my household — “Do we need another military engagement?” I think the answer generally is gonna be no.
But what I’m gonna try to propose is, is that we have a very specific objective, a very narrow military option, and one that will not lead into some large-scale invasion of Syria or involvement or boots on the ground, nothing like that. This isn’t like Iraq, it’s not like Afghanistan, it’s not even like Libya. Then hopefully people will recognize why I think this is so important.
And that we should all be haunted by those images of those children that were killed. But more importantly, we should understand that when we start saying it’s okay to — or at least that there’s no response to the gassing of children, that’s the kind of slippery slope that leads eventually to these chemical weapons being used more broadly around the world. That’s not the kind of world that we want to leave to our children.
All of Obama’s actions at that time were nothing but a bunch of “sound and fury, signifying nothing”.
Obama’s “drawing of a red line in the sand” meant nothing at all to al-Asaad as he knew that Obama did not have the intestinal fortitude to back up his bluster.
Obama’s ineffectiveness as an American President lead to the birth of al-Qaeda and the continued tyranny of the Syrian Dictator, leaving President Trump to clean up both “messes”.
What President Donald J. Trump did by coordinating last night’s US/UK/France Air Strike against strategic targets in Syria was to send a firm message to Bashar al-Assad.
As the President said, after witnessing the horrors of chemical weapons in World War I, the civilized nations of the world vowed never to let them be used again.
Unfortunately, the Syrian Dictator is NOT a civilized man and had to be dealt with appropriately by sending a message which he and his benefactors in Iran, including Putin, would understand.
Last night, a clear and concise message was sent to Syrian Dictator Bashar al-Assad.
No Red Lines needed.
Until He Comes,