I agree with Scott that last night’s strike against a Syrian air base was an appropriate and long-overdue assertion of American power. But the Democratic Party press doesn’t see it that way. (The press’s attitude would have been entirely different, of course, if Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton–who called for the strike shortly before it happened–had ordered the missile attack.) The Associated Press uses an age-old trick, headlining the president’s “defense” of the strike as though the most salient fact were that some Democrats criticized it: “Trump defends attack on Syria; demands ‘end the slaughter.'” Other newspapers, like the Minneapolis Star Tribune, followed suit:
The AP story contrasts President Trump’s Syria policy with Barack Obama’s:
It was the first direct American assault on the Syrian government and Trump’s most dramatic military order since becoming president just over two months ago. The strikes also risk thrusting the U.S. deeper into an intractable conflict that his predecessor spent years trying to avoid.
That is an awfully charitable characterization of Obama’s disastrous failure in Syria, and more broadly, the Middle East.
The Democrats will never be satisfied, but those whose opinions count for more supported the strike. Like Benjamin Netanyahu:
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu expressed his support for the US air strike in Syria, Friday morning.
“In words and actions President Trump sent a strong and clear response: The use of chemical weapons is unacceptable,” Netanyahu stated. “Israel fully and unequivocally supports the presidents decision and hopes the clear message will reverberate not only in Damascus but also in Tehran, Pyongyang and other places.”