At what point is Congress SUPPOSED TO ACT? Before, during or after a war? What does the Constitution say?

Maybe you can explain something to me FNR. Republicans vilified Obama for doing nothing in Syria years ago. Didn't he TRY to do something? He went to Congress to ask for authorization to intervene in Syria and they ignored him. They were too cowardly to take a position. They didn't want any part of it. So he did nothing. The Donald did this attack without Congressional approval I presume because it happened so fast. So will they vilify him for NOT following proper procedure or are they already declaring him a sainted hero for doing something? Had Obama done something you know the Republicans would have castigated him mercilessly for committing an illegal act. Sometimes ya just can't win! Thank you for your reply and Happy Saturday! :)

You are correct. Not only did he try to intervene, he went to Congress for permission to intervene. They turned him down. Had he bombed them after being denied, the consequences could have been grave.

I know repubs are gearing up to inject the War Powers Act, it's worth mentioning that through the War Powers Act the potus can send in ground troops without asking Congress, so long as he goes to Congress within 90 days. But that relates to troops, not bombings and certainly not committing an act of war. We currently have around 3000 troops in Syria at this time.

The problem is, Trump has put many dems into a precarious position as criticizing him for what he did will open them up to cries of partisanship in the face of human suffering... you can imagine how that will sounds. But doing nothing will result in great pressure from their constituents. They should press him on why now rather than years ago and persist in pointing out how this looks with the Russian investigation as a backdrop. Furthermore, he did this while having dinner with Xi. He set this up so he could have a photo-op of himself and Xi shaking hands, wining and dining the night this bombing took place. China will not soon forget that...

Thank you for a very thoughtful and helpful analysis in response to my question. I appreciate it. What a mess this is and I fear what lies ahead. His supporters will defend/support ANYTHING HE DOES OR DOES NOT DO AND EVERYTHING HE SAYS. I wonder what other tricks he has up his sleeve?  I'm sure there is no low too low for Trump to go. Happy Sunday FNR! :)

Here's what I don't get m'dear. Republicans rail at Obama for NOT doing something about Syria years ago.  He did TRY. He asked Congress to authorize our intervention and Congress didn't want to touch it. They didn't want any part of it.  They wanted it all on his shoulders. Didn't he follow the proper procedure and didn't Congress strike out because they were too cowardly to take a position? I presume The Donald did what he did unilaterally without prior Congressional approval. IF Obama had acted unilaterally too guess who would have been all over him for being a dictator? SIGH. So is North Korea next on Trump's agenda? What does he do if Russia gets too smartalecky? What about Iran? I mean Trump has so many choices of wars to start he must be giddy with delight! Thank you for your reply Spunky! I am a huge seatbelt fan. On Friday, August 13, 2004 (but  who remembers the exact date?) Jim and I would have died in an auto accident were it not for our seatbelts locking us into place! :)

You're correct about Obama attempting to get Congressional approval and their failing to give it.  And, you are right that Trump didn't even ask.  I guess he works on the theory that it's better to seek forgiveness than permission.  However, there are reports that Congress is not happy that he made this unilateral decision and I believe have told him that he must do so in the future.  We'll see how that works out.  I have very mixed feelings about the Syrian crisis.  On one hand, I am tired of us getting ourselves involved in the civil wars of other countries, yet I also feel that Assad cannot be permitted to continue killing his people.  If I were in the president seat, I really have no idea what I would do.  What I can see is that there are no other Western countries that are eager to get involved in Syria either.

EDIT TO ADD:  I'm glad you and Jim had your seatbelts on.  They are very important and I don't even think twice about putting mine on, even when I'm going from one end of a parking lot to another.  Happy Saturday. :) This post was edited by SpunkySenior at April 9, 2017 4:02 AM MDT

Thank you for your thoughtful and helpful reply Spunky!   Seatbelts are lifesavers for sure! I wish we could seatbelt The Donald somehow. Restrain him somehow. Control him somehow! Maybe someone some day will! Happy Sunday m'dear! :)

Maybe Trump is beginning to understand the gravitas of his position now that he has made the determination to engage Syria in a game of chicken.  Since Assad has again bombed his own people, it doesn't appear that the millions of dollars spent sending missiles over there has done much good.  I'm not sure why the goal was not to destroy the airfield completely along with the airplanes on it.  Let's just waste a few more million dollars on an international temper tantrum.  Happy Sunday to you. :) This post was edited by SpunkySenior at April 9, 2017 10:30 AM MDT

Trump is trying to hide behind "the element of surprise" as a military strategy. He will say that it was imperative they not know our game plan... blah blah blah blah. But here's something I thought interesting given the outrage of press leaks within this admin.

Fox News pentagon correspondent Jennifer Griffin, let slip on air, late the night of this bombing, that she and her crew were given intelligence that this bombing would take place hours earlier in the day. Even before they contacted Russian military in the region, even before many of our own troops in the region were aware. Why? For an admin concerned about leaks and losing the upper-hand on the battlefield, who informs the news hours prior to this?

It almost seems it was desired that Fox break the news and that Fox set the narrative. Moreover, this evidences what we've all suspected for sometime---one media outlet in particular is acting as a direct pipeline to the White House. There are so many problems with that it's incredible.

You know Tink that there is something very fishy going on.
Syria swears that they did not make the attack. So if they didn't do it who did?

You're right, I don't think Assad did it either. The problem goes back to Benghazi, it's a shame too because for all the hearings that were held on Benghazi, the complete truth about it was glossed over entirely.

Benghazi was a weapons running operation of ours. We were running weapons out of Libya after the ousting of Gaddafi, those weapons were moved to Turkey and then into Syrian rebels, some of whom were affiliated with the Levant in Syria. There were several credible reports at the time that the materials used to make dirty sarin gas were making their way into the hands of rebels who were mishandling them and using them against innocents. I think the evidence is compelling enough to at least consider the possibility that the rebel factions intended to use those weapons as a false flag which would then be blamed on the Assad regime.

https://www.lrb.co.uk/v36/n08/seymour-m-hersh/the-red-line-and-the-rat-line
https://www.lrb.co.uk/v35/n24/seymour-m-hersh/whose-sarinhttp://www.globalresearch.ca/syria-chemical-weapons-who-was-behind-the-east-ghouta-attacks/5362741

It is also noteworthy that within this same time-frame audio emerged of Turkish leaders discussing how they could stages a false flag in their own country to blame on Assad for the purpose of intervening in Syria. The evidence is compelling.

There are several players that wish for Assad to be ousted, Turkey at the front of the line.  And they are all our allies.

Agreed. There are multiple players, Turkey specifically would have to be involved, there is no way that this could unfold without their involvement. It is noteworthy that they're pushing the Trump admin, as recently as today, for deeper involvement. This post was edited by ForkNdaRoad at April 8, 2017 2:04 PM MDT

Not surprising, though I couldn't find anything new today.  

If Turkey were to intervene, that would provide an open pathway to move in any number of weapons. And whether wittingly or not, at least some of those will inevitably end up in the hands of some pretty questionable people. That's giving all parties involved the complete benefit of the doubt, which as we both know, they do not deserve.

Yes, but I haven't seen anything regarding Turkey today.  That's what I was saying.

If those are our "allies," we don't need enemies.

Amen sister!

Strange bedfellows...then again, the same could likely be said for any country - our own included, if judged solely upon the actions of its leaders.  We do not always know what those actions are, and often find out only decades later, if even then.  Certainly, some are worse than others, but I doubt any are truly worthy of anyone's respect.

JMHO

I agree with you.  The worst might be Pakistan because of their allowing al Qaeda training camps along the border with Afghanistan while "supporting" our endeavors against those very same enemies.  The Western nations are more believable to me as they have a proven track record and similar ideals to ours.  Frankly, there are days when I think that the solution to the Middle East problems is to turn it into a parking lot.

The more I study history, the more I find that every nation has committed atrocities.  Some just are not acknowledged, like many commited by the U.S. and our western allies.  And often, the records are sealed for decades, sometimes even destroyed, and many things are done quietly by a few without the knowledge of others in government and we will probably never find out the truth of those things.  

So while I agree, it is easier to look with approval on western nations, simply because we (the people) share a history and have very similar societies, values and ideals, I can no longer believe we (meaning our governments) haven't been quilty of horrible things, too.  We just hide ours, whereas they are more open about it in the ME.  

Yes, Pakistan did that.  There are reports that two of the many factions fighting in Syria include one armed by the CIA that is now fighting another armed by the DoD, we helped both Iraq and Iran when they were at war with each other, and those are just two examples.  

The situation in the ME is difficult for me.  I find many things about their societies repugnant, yet I realize that the west has created many of the problems there and exported those problems to the west in the process.   

No question that you are right about all nations committing atrocities.  The Native Americans are certainly one glaring example that has been swept under the rug.  We have no idea who the "good" guys and "bad" guys are in the ME.  We arm rebels only to find out they are just as bad as the bad guys and then find ourselves getting killed with weapons we provided both sides.  A very sad state of affairs to be sure and more than one administration is to blame for it.