So Trump goes on twitter and tells the enemy what he’s going to do. In advance. Again. He does it. Missiles launch. NeoCons celebrate.

But WaPo, owned by an actual self-made billionaire, warns us that this is happening despite Trump, not because of.

But perhaps this is Fake News, as Putin and Trump like to say. After all, the US Ambassador to the UN then announces that new sanctions are coming.

So Trump throws her under the bus.

Is he compromised? Or just a Useful Idiot?

https://www.strategypage.com/

If the Left already took it over since 2008, don’t blame me. It was still good in 2001-2007.

Can’t make this stuff up humans.

All the anti Bush people that jumped on the Trum Band wagon better talk about WMDs before their cognitive dissonance explodes their heads again.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/04/an-unbelievably-small-limited-strike.php

Diggs Cleveland
I plead guilty to being one of those who generally supports military actions taken under a Republican President while generally opposing military actions taken under a Democratic President. But the reason is one you fail to mention. The established track record for the two parties in supporting Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Marines before, during, and after military action. Democrats on the whole bear no loyalty to the military. While there were servicemen and women fighting on the battlefield under CinC Obama, his SecState claimed that intelligent people go to college,and stupid people go into the miltiary (BTW, I’ll pit my IQ against Kerry’s, spotting him Pelosi’s 50 points, and I’ll still win). Obama used “clinging to guns” as an insult of half the American public. He’ll never know just how much one clings to his gun during a firefight. On the battlefield defined by a Democratic President, a soldier still understands that his actions can, and will be, second-guessed by Democrats, and can lead to legal actions against him after the shooting stops. That level of non-support keeps me from giving my full support in return to any Democratic President who sends troops in harm’s way. The support for servicemen and women by the majority of Republicans tends to earn my support for a Republican President who sends troops in harm’s way. It’s not politics. It’s whether one has earned my support for their action through their historical support back; before, during and after an action. The Democratic Party fails that test at every level (CinC, Congress, Voters).

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2018/04/about-that-syrian-scientific-research-center.php

“Rosett says the SSRC remained active and in the chemical weapons business during the period when Russia assured us that 100 percent of the chemical weapons were gone from Syria. The Russians and Syrians must have had a good laugh at Barack Obama.

President Obama couldn’t attack the SSRC even if such a move had been in his playbook. Doing so would have amounted to a concession that Russia and Syria had played him (or, alternatively, that he and Russia had played the American people).

If Rosett’s reporting is sound, and I have always found it to be, President Trump should have attacked the SSRC last April when he hit that Syrian air base. Even so, he deserves credit for doing it now.”

Because otherwise he would have to conclude that Obama was just as unmagnanimous as Trump by his standards, if not more so.

https://www.nationalreview.com/magazine/2018/04/30/does-character-matter-in-a-president-yes/

One almost-consensus is that it is a signal from Trump to Russia (why? of what kind? with what purpose? and where’s all that kompromat when you need it?), kind of like his pardon of Libby is a signal to Mueller and his victims.

Why not just a straightforward action as he stated: because chemical warfare is to be discouraged, and Libby’s prosecution and punishment were always wrong and unjust.

I guess it’s in the timing.

Syria (in some reports) has used chemwar many times since Obama’s long-vanished-red-line, and even since Trump’s first strike (which got the attention of China and North Korea at the time).

Libby’s life seems to have gone well despite his conviction.

As reports and analyses continue, remember the maxim usually quoted about economists, but equally pertinent to politics in general:
If you question 5 experts on any event, you will get 7 opinions about it.