Chuck Schumer, Nancy Pelosi, John McCain, Lindsey Graham, John Kerry, and Hillary Clinton. What do these names have in common? Besides the fact that they are either RINOs or liberal Democrats—but I repeat myself—they are just a few of the establishment politicians supporting Donald Trump’s decision to bomb Syria.
Clearly, with this level of so-called bipartisan support, this must be the closest Trump has ever been to perfection in his entire life. Right? Well, to coin an old phrase, something about this situation “doesn’t pass the smell test.”
Personally, I find it very troubling that there are so many who are unwilling to apply any critical thinking on the matter, choosing instead to embrace it completely before all the facts are in.
Donald Trump has done the right thing on Syria. Finally!! After years of useless handwringing in the face of hideous atrocities.
— Anne-Marie Slaughter (@SlaughterAM) April 7, 2017
I commend President Trump for taking swift, decisive action against Bashar al-Assad's outlaw regime. MORE: https://t.co/VixYl8me8z
— Tom Cotton (@SenTomCotton) April 7, 2017
— Fox News (@FoxNews) April 7, 2017
President Trump, a real commander-in-chief https://t.co/ZVKldvKaty
— Mark R. Levin (@marklevinshow) April 7, 2017
I’m not going to get into the Constitutional implications of Trump’s actions; there are Conservatives I respect coming down against the attack.
— FOX Business (@FoxBusiness) April 7, 2017
If the US is to increase use of military force in Syria, we should follow the Constitution and seek the proper authorization from Congress.
— Mike Lee (@SenMikeLee) April 6, 2017
Airstrikes are an act of war. Atrocities in Syria cannot justify departure from Constitution, which vests in Congress power to commence war.
— Justin Amash (@justinamash) April 7, 2017
— Raúl R. Labrador (@Raul_Labrador) April 7, 2017
So, what was Trump’s true motivation for attacking a nation that didn’t attack us?
According to Trump, he was moved after watching the “horror” of babies get “choked out” on television, not much of a surprise for the man who said in an interview during the primaries that he relies on TV to make foreign policy decisions. While it is indeed sad that children suffer in wars, is dying from the use of chemical weapons any more horrific than being beheaded by ISIS or being shot? If defending children from being brutally murdered is your motivation, how about starting at home by telling Ivanka to stop holding secret meetings with Planned Parenthood about their funding?
Concerning the chemical weapons, we still don’t know that President Assad is the one who used them. It has been well-known that Al Qaeda and ISIS have access to chemical weapons. Is it possible that they were the ones behind last week’s chemical attacks in order to trigger an international reaction against Assad who has been actively fighting ISIS? And is it also possible that Trump’s knee-jerk reaction indirectly helped our radical Islamic enemy?
When it comes to foreign affairs, Trump has been all over the map, which is why I find myself agreeing with Jonah Goldberg at National Review when he said that, “The strike on Syria is the single best proof that Trump has no overriding commitment to any ideological position.”
Donald Trump just calls that being “flexible.”
After eight years of Obama’s ineptitude, it’s easy to see how people would crave a man of action. But action simply for action’s sake is no better than inaction. In fact, wars have been started that way.
Parting question. Was Trump’s liberal little girl Ivanka, a key advisor to the president, the reason he decided to bomb Syria?
Originally posted at The Strident Conservative
David Leach is the owner of The Strident Conservative, your source for opinion that’s politically-incorrect and always “right.” His articles are also featured on RedState.com.
His daily radio commentary is nationally syndicated with Salem Radio Network and can be heard on stations across America.