from James Perloff:
Let me start by saying that I voted for Donald Trump, and anyone familiar with my website or Twitter feed knows how vigorously I opposed a Hillary Clinton Presidency. However: (see picture on the left)
Regarding the Syria airstrikes:
1. Trump contradicted himself 100 Percent. His Tweets following the 2013 alleged “sarin gas attack” reveal a different man, the non-interventionist we hoped we were voting for:
I am grateful to Middle East Eye for posting 13 of Trump’s Tweets, five of which I’ve screen shot.
2. Trump skirted the U.S. Constitution, which he swore to uphold in his inaugural oath.
Here’s what Ron Paul’s son, Senator Rand Paul, Tweeted in response to Trump’s missile assault:
Trump cannot plead ignorance about this matter, since he said the same thing as Paul in his first Tweet above.
The Constitution designates the President “Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy”; it is somewhat ambiguous about what independent actions he may take. In any event, Article 1, Section 8 clearly vests all war-making power in Congress. While I never thought I’d have anything good to say about Barack Obama, at least he asked Congressional approval for the airstrikes he first sought after the 2013 sarin gas allegations. Trump did not; he behaved as a rogue autocrat.
For those who argue that Trump was acting legally because he didn’t really “make war,” I would ask: If another country rained 59 missiles on America, would we not consider that an act of war?
If anyone truly believes Trump had the right to launch cruise missiles on Syria, without consent of the People or Congress, then by that same logic Trump has the right to launch a nuclear first strike on Russia, start World War III, and incinerate the planet. The Founding Fathers did not intend Presidents to be invested with such power; they consistently emphasized the principle of checks and balances.
3. Trump acted with impetuous haste, not waiting for adjudication of the facts.
If a person is accused of a heinous crime, do we simply lynch him on the spot? Or do we give him a fair trial, so that facts can be weighed, all sides of the story heard, and the accusation’s truthfulness determined?
If Trump was genuinely concerned about the sarin gas allegation, what he should have done: request an investigation by an impartial delegation, composed of members from several foreign countries with no vested interests in Syria. Such a delegation could have interviewed witnesses, examined forensic evidence, and submitted a report.
Instead, Trump received an intelligence briefing and reacted to some victim photos taken by jihadists. I know there are die-hard Trump supporters who will argue this was “good enough.” NO, IT WASN’T. COLIN POWELL HAD FAR MORE INTELLIGENCE BRIEFINGS ON SADDAM HUSSEIN’S “WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION” AND SHOWED PICTURES TO THE UN. WE WERE THEN LIED INTO AN UNNECESSARY WAR THAT COST TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS AND KILLED HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF IRAQIS. POWELL ULTIMATELY ADMITTED HE ACTED ON FAULTY INTELLIGENCE.
To this day, the Trump administration has supplied no proof whatsoever that Assad’s forces released the chemical agents. Syria’s air force did strike an opposition target, but there is no evidence they dropped chemical weapons. Rather, the chemicals evidently belonged to the terrorists on the ground. Peter Ford, former British ambassador to Syria, explains this important distinction:
RELATED:Help us spread the ANTIDOTE to corporate propaganda.
Please follow SGT Report on Twitter & help share the message.