We’ve all been rocked by those videos of Syrian kids gasping for air after their own President bombed them with chemical weapons.
So when Donald Trump said “something should happen,” most of us agreed. But it’s the “what” and “why” most of us didn’t consider. That is, unless, you are Malcolm Nance, a counter terrorism expert, who had this to say on NewsOne Now.
In case you missed it, Nance asked if Trump felt moved to action out of “[an] emotional impulse of seeing the victims of Syrian chemical attack?”
We know we did, but is that how the President should plan attacks — based on emotion?
President Obama got an extreme amount of side-eye for his handling of Syria a few years ago (it’s important to note that unlike Trump, he DID ask Congress for permission to attack and they said “nah”), which Trump characterized as “weak.” And when you add in Trump’s long and very public opposition to engaging with Syria, his decision yesterday seems out of character.
Peep some of his tweets below:
That said, the rich Arab countries should get involved with the Syrian mess, not us.We should start rebuilding our own country & military.
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) August 29, 2013
For all of those fools that want to attack Syria, the U.S.has lost the vital element of surprise-so stupid-could be a disaster!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 4, 2013
AGAIN, TO OUR VERY FOOLISH LEADER, DO NOT ATTACK SYRIA – IF YOU DO MANY VERY BAD THINGS WILL HAPPEN & FROM THAT FIGHT THE U.S. GETS NOTHING!
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 5, 2013
TELL US: Do you agree with Donald Trump’s decision to attack Syria?
View original article –