NY Times Finally Figures Out Their Complaints With Trump’s Syrian Airstrike

It took a little bit of time, but the NY Times Editorial Board, the EB for, as you know, one of the leading newspapers in not just the U.S., but the world, finally came up with a line of attack against President Trump, one which includes a graphic of a very big question mark

President Trump’s abrupt change on Syria does not inspire confidence https://t.co/YWdTpQIZ1R pic.twitter.com/NpTOuex7rK

— NYT Opinion (@nytopinion) April 8, 2017

Big!

After the Airstrikes on Syria, What’s Next?

It was hard not to feel some sense of emotional satisfaction, and justice done, when American cruise missiles struck an airfield in Syria on Thursday. The country’s president, Bashar al-Assad, needed to understand that there would finally be a cost for his brutality, in this case the use of chemical weapons with sarin, a banned nerve agent, that killed scores of civilians earlier this week in one of the worst atrocities of the Syrian civil war.

Can’t you feel the “but” coming?

But it is also hard not to feel unsettled by the many questions raised by President Trump’s decision. Among them: Was it legal? Was it an impetuous, isolated response unrelated to a larger strategy for resolving the complex dilemma of Syria, a nation tormented not just by civil war but also by the fight against the Islamic State? So far, there is no evidence that Mr. Trump has thought through the implications of using military force or figured out what to do next.

As to the last, have they, you know, asked him? Because there’s no evidence he and his team haven’t thought through the implications. The main one seeming to be to show Syria’s leader Assad that the use of chemical weapons is a Bad Idea and will be met with force. And that force will be used quickly. It has also, reportedly, caused North Korea’s resident nutjob leader to go into hiding.

The NYTEB then seems to complain about Mr. Trump changing his mind on what’s going on in Syria from his previous notions of the civil war in Syria, because changing one’s mind when you see children dead from chemical weapons is wrong or something. But, the Times had to find ways to put a positive in a negative light. And they whine about Trump blocking Syrian refugees from entering the U.S., something many, many Leftist pundits have already stated, because this is part of the agreed upon talking points to Bash Trump.

Strangely, none of the Leftists pushing that meme have offered to host Syrian refugees in their own homes.

So what did the 59 missiles accomplish? Militarily, this was a measured response that severely damaged Syrian aircraft and infrastructure at Al Shayrat airfield. Tactically, it may help persuade Mr. Assad (and other problematic leaders, like those in North Korea) that using weapons of mass destruction will not go unpunished. But Mr. Assad still has his chemical weapons, and the civil war endures.

Really? Where was the NY Times when Team Obama was crowing about having removed most of Syria’s chemical weapons, which turned out to be a big lie? Then the EB jumps into another leftist conspiracy theory being bandied about

Whether by design or not, the American military action has also shifted the focus from the scandal over Russia’s interference in the election on Mr. Trump’s behalf and allegations that the president and his allies may have colluded with Moscow.

The old “question the timing” theory.

But the action lacked authorization from Congress and the United Nations Security Council, raising questions about its legality and spotlighting a rich irony. In 2013, Mr. Trump argued that Mr. Obama must get congressional approval before attacking Syria. Congress, with a long history of ducking its war-making responsibility, refused to give it.

They refused to give it because Team Obama wasn’t really asking, and what little they had was essentially a sticky note of a plan.

In all fairness, the legality and Congressional authority memes were briefly brought up by the NYTEB regarding Obama’s Big Libyan Adventure, as well as wondering what the objectives were, but, not to the complaining and bashing extent they go after Mr. Trump.

All that said, what does President Trump do? What he did was legal, per the War Powers Act. If he decides to do more, then, yes, going to Congress is necessary. Regardless, so many Democrats just can’t say “good job.”

Crossed at Right Wing News.