LF: Schumer, Pelosi among Democrats Supporting Syrian Air Strike

Democrats on Thursday responded to reports that President Trump authorized a cruise missile strike on an airbase in Syria, and the reaction appeared to be mixed.

"I support the administration's strike on the air base that launched the chemical attack. I hope this teaches President Assad not to use chemical weapons again," Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., said.

Trump’s quick action was in response to the chemical attack that left as many as 72 civilians dead, including woman and children.

Sen. Tim Kaine, D-Va., and former vice presidential candidate, issued a statement: “Congress will work with the President, but his failure to seek Congressional approval is unlawful.”

The statements came as the U.S. launched 59 Tomahawk missiles targeted at an airbase at Shayrat. The attack was targeted at the airstrips, hangars, control tower and ammunition areas in the base, officials said.

"Any further action will require close scrutiny by Congress," Sen. Dick Durbin, D- Ill., said.

Sen. Ben Cardin, D-Md., also commented on the importance of Congressional approval, saying, "Any longer-term or larger military operation in Syria by the Trump Administration will need to be done in consultation with the Congress."

“This week’s unspeakable chemical weapons attack is only the latest in a long series of horrors perpetrated by Bashar al-Assad on innocent men, women and children,” Democratic House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi said in a statement issued on the attacks in Syria. “Tonight’s strike in Syria appears to be a proportional response to the the regime’s use of chemical weapons. If the President intends to escalate the U.S. military’s involvement in Syria, he must to come to Congress for an Authorization for Use of Military Force which is tailored to meet the threat and prevent another open-ended war in the Middle East.”

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said in a statement that, "making sure Assad knows that when he commits such despicable atrocities he will pay a price is the right thing to do."

"It is incumbent on the Trump administration to come up with a strategy and consult with Congress before implementing it. I salute the professionalism and skill of our Armed Forces who took action today," Schumer added.

While most came out in support of the strike, Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, D-HI, released a statement on Thursday condemning the attack.

“It angers and saddens me that President Trump has taken the advice of war hawks and escalated our illegal regime change war to overthrow the Syrian government,” Gabbard said, adding that, “this escalation is short-sighted and will lead to more dead civilians, more refugees, the strengthening of al-Qaeda and other terrorists, and a direct confrontation between the United States and Russia—which could lead to nuclear war.”

Gabbard said the Trump administration had “acted recklessly without care or consideration of the dire consequences of the United States attack on Syria without waiting for the collection of evidence from the scene of the chemical poisoning.”

Airstrikes are the way that America should fight wars. Massive ones, using our technology. No US casualties, heavy enemy losses and destruction. And just keep it going.

The replacement of the munitions is good business for our defense contractors also.

In the past, war was hard to win from the air. We managed it with Japan, thanks to the atom bombs, and Clinton pulled it off in Serbia (albeit for a dubious goal).

For the most part we sacrifice our key strategic and technological advantage, which is air supremacy, in order to too rapidly "put boots on the ground", and thereby engage all of the armed services and get political backing.

We allow ourselves to be deceived by the claims, which USED TO BE true, that you cannot win a war without boots on the ground.

Actually, you can. If you're America, and you're willing to relentlessly use air power and destroy everything, you CAN destroy governments with airpower alone. It just takes more time. It's expensive, but nobody really cares about THAT expense. It's AMERICAN DEAD that cause support for wars to end. When Clinton broke Serbia, nobody cared because Americans did not die.

Assad may not have ordered the Sarin gas attack, but he's still a murderous dictator so blowing up one of his airbases was hardly an atrocity.

He and Putin are on notice. Indeed, now they have a greater incentive to accelerate the pace of the war and get it over with - ending ISIS and other terrorist threats to us, while also ending the refugee crisis.

The quicker Syria is back under control, the better for us - from the perspective of refugees and terrorism - EVEN IF Assad is a bad guy.

Trump's willingness to launch surprise military attacks will alarm everybody from Putin to Assad to Kim Jong Il to the Chinese leadership (who is meeting with Trump right now). An America that will shoot first and that will not be tied down by ineffective UN diplomacy is a really fearsome thing.

If it was a false flag attack, then we attacked one villain - Assad - who has a greater incentive than ever to take out other villains who are more dangerous to us: the people who launched the false flag. Either way, we win.

Russia cared. The war Clinton waged on Serbia on behalf of Islam was instrumental in forging the alliance between Moscow and Beijing. Clinton stripped Kosovo from Serbia and weakened our strategic position in the bargain.