Throughout the weekend there has been debate in the news and on social media about the hows and whys of 45’s attack on Syria. Most of it is the same stuff I brought up in my post last week about going about it the wrong way. The president should have gone to Congress when he decided he wanted to shoot missiles into Syria, and I stand by that understanding how awful Assad’s actions were against their own people. Using chemical weapons is never excusable, but against their own children? Still, Assad did not attack us, and this isn’t the first time Syria has done this to its own citizens. Other than Tillerson admitting that our attack was a warning and not an act of war (and doesn’t mean anything has changed) the only real headline is that Trump doesn’t appear to have thought this thing through. But then that’s what Trump does-he acts without any thought, plan, or goal. For some reason, his supporters think impulsiveness is a good trait in a leader.
For every argument we have against the strike or against striking back without a plan there is a tweet Trump posted at some point when Obama was president showing 45 agreed with everything we are saying now. Those tweets are all over Twitter. This shows us 45 knows better. If he knows better, why is he doing everything wrong?
Link: “Tillerson: Strikes don’t signal change in military action policy in Syria” – by Brooke Seipel at The Hill