Elise on Syria

A couple from the PS today on Rep. Stefanik's take on Syria. I'm putting her down as a full-throated supporter of any action Trump takes. I could be reading it wrong, but facts don't matter anymore.

First up, the statement:

“This week the world watched in horror as the Assad regime used chemical weapons to murder dozens of men, women and children. The Obama administration policy toward Syria has failed and we need a new strategy. As a member of the House Armed Services Committee, this will be an important part of our work and I will be monitoring the situation closely with my colleagues.”

My comment there:

In August 2013, the Syrians conducted a chemical attack outside of Damascus. There were reported 1,429 deaths with 426 of them children. Obama sought Congressional approval to respond and was met with Republican obstruction. Here's Rep. McCaul, "Lobbing a few Tomahawk missiles will not restore our credibility overseas." And what did Trump just do. Lobbed $84 million worth of Tomahawks onto an obscure air base and didn't even shut it down. There are still planes flying from it. In this attack, there were 72 deaths with 20 of them children. Trump was against Obama taking action. Four days ago he was cool with any actions Assad took.

I checked the PS archives and couldn't find any statement from Elise Stefanik on the 2013 attack. Wow, no opinion from our rep. Shocker. Can we take this as she's totally behind any actions Trump takes? If she's expecting a coherent policy from the WH I've got a Trump University course to sell her. Shooting cruise missiles from naval ships is not a strategy. It's a tactic and an ineffective one at that. I would think someone on House Armed Services would recognize the difference. And BTW, Obama is not in office anymore.

Trump said the other day that it was his responsibility now. I'll guarantee you that when things go south he'll blame the military brass. He already did it in Yemen.

This is the other article with Schumer, Gillibrand and Stefanik. None of whom spellcheck likes. Sen. Gillibrand: 

However, unilateral military action by the U.S. in a Middle East conflict causes grave concern, given the lack of any Authorization for Use of Military Force from Congress and the absence of any long-term plan or strategy to address any consequences from such unilateral action. Furthermore, there is no ‘military only’ solution to the suffering in Syria. The American people need answers from the administration about their plan here and how they will bring coalition partners to the table for a long-term diplomatic solution.”

Sen. Gillibrand gets the brass ring. Trump has no strategy and likely never will have. How many factions are fighting in Syria: United States, Russians, Iranians, Turks, ISIS, Hezbollah, Kurds (several groups), Assad's forces, rebels against Assad (several groups), maybe an al-Qaeda group. Trying to figure out who's fighting whom on any given day is impossible.

 Four days ago, Trump and Tillerson were saying they were cool with Assad staying in power. After much larger attack in 2013, Trump said Obama shouldn't get involved and should go to Congress for approval if he was going to launch an attack.

 Dropping $84 million worth of cruise missiles on an obscure air base and not even preventing planes from continuing to use it is about the extent of what we can do without getting much more involved than the average American wants to. And up until now Assad has been ignoring our troops and aircraft in Syria. What happens when they both come under attack? Trump said the other day that he has responsibility now. I doubt he'll take it. He already blamed the brass for Yemen.

Another comment for Elise at the "monitoring" article.

The Obama Administration policy towards Syria has failed and we need a new strategy.

Let's throw a link on the barbie.

Trump laid part of the blame for the chemical attack on former President Barack Obama, saying the deaths were a "consequence of the past administration's weakness and irresolution."

Sounds kind of like our rep.

Republicans, however, who controlled Congress then as they do now, were adamant that Obama should not act without their approval, Obama aides said. Trump also had called for Obama to get congressional approval before any attack on Syria.

Here's Trump's tweet.

"What will we get for bombing Syria besides more debt and a possible long term conflict? Obama needs Congressional approval," the businessman tweeted in 2013.

Because Obama did not have the support of the American people, Congress or allies he didn't attack Syria.

He opted instead for a Russian-backed plan that was supposed to lead to the removal and elimination of Syria's chemical weapons stockpiles.

I'm glad that our congresswoman is so confident in Trump's strategy. If anyone has a statement from 2013 on whether Obama would have had her support in doing the same as Trump did, I'd love to hear it.

And another comment at the troika article:

Just to share another opinion. Here's James Mattis from 2013 after that chemical attack:

When Blitzer asked Mattis about his views on military intervention against Syria’s government, the former general sounded a stern note of caution. He stressed that the United States should not intervene without a serious and well thought-out plan, and that it would be an enormous commitment.

 “On Syria, ladies and gentlemen, we are going to have to determine what is the end state we want. This war needs to be ended as rapidly as possible. That’s the bottom line,” Mattis began. “But if the Americans go in, if the Americans take leadership, if the Americans take ownership of this, it’s going to be a full-throated, very, very serious war. And anyone who says this is going to be easy, that we can do a no-fly zone and it’ll be cheap, I would discount that on the outset.”

That's OK. I'm sure Trump has a serious and well-thought out plan.

Thanks for that quote, Shaw!

This is partly to make sure these get published. 

On Derrick's Fundraising

Mostly just putting this up for my comments. There's the guy running for Congress too, though.

“A lot of the things that Bernie stands for, I will also stand for,” Derrick said. “You may not get your first choice in terms of nominating a presidential candidate, but I’m still here.”

“We do the Bernie approach,” he also said during the event. “People contribute small amounts of money and encourage others to contribute small amounts of money, and it continues to snowball.”

The retired U.S. Army colonel began by informing the group that his campaign earned one of 37 spots nationally on the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee’s “Emerging Races” program, which provides support to “top” campaigns around the country that the DCCC deems has the potential to unseat Republican incumbents.

“This race has taken off in the last three weeks,” Derrick said. “We were noticed as one of the races in this country that can be won by the Democratic Party. That puts us in the top tier of winnable races, and that makes a huge difference because the eyes of the nation are now on this race.

From your lips to God's ears, Mike. 

Anyway. My comments:

When he announced his run, Mr. Derrick had no idea how to answer when asked how he would be different from the incumbent.

I'll give you a for instance. When the Iran Nuclear Deal was being debated and demagogued by the right (including Ms. Stefanik), Mike Derrick came out in support of it. He could have easily ducked that issue. BTW, I never heard anything from Matt Funiciello one way or another on it. My feeling is that he does not often comment on an issue if he can't say Dems and Reps are equally bad.

I wrote several letters to the PS expressing my support for that deal, so it's clear which side I think is in the right. I would also mention the opening to Cuba. I haven't heard Derrick's position on that, but I suspect he is in favor of that as well. So yes, there is a difference between Derrick and Stefanik.

And the following are in response to Matt F at the thread:

I went looking for a definition of progressive and mostly found it to be a little nebulous. I like the idea thatit's a problem solving method. That's simple and direct. I like to vote for people I believe have the ability to solve problems.

At its core, progressivism is a non-ideological, pragmatic system of thought grounded in solving problems and maintaining strong values within society.

Maintaining strong values is good, too.

95% of his individual donations are over $200

Mr. Derrick will have to speak to what his average donations are and I hope he does. The ones I've sent him were less than $200 and more than $23. Same as the one I sent to Bernie.

And:

Being especially neurotic, I just want to clarify my comments. The Iran Nuclear Deal and the opening to Cuba seem to be progressive actions, to me anyway. They certainly are not conservative or, as I like to call it, regressive. Mike Derrick did come out in support of the Iran deal when he did not have to. Much as I liked Aaron Woolf, he would have ducked. Presumably, Mr. Derrick would support the opening to Cuba too, changing the moronic policy that was in place most of my lifetime.

As far as the definition of progressive, I take my cue from Humpty Dumpty.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."

I'm not putting up MF's comment because he'd probably sue me for violating fair use if he found out. 

Haven't added a label in awhile. What'd I Say is in honor of fellow nihilist Repsac. Hope your well on Twitter, Reppie.