Thanks, it's interesting (I'm about halfway through), though I do notice that Senator Franken barely allows Gorsuch to finish a sentence much less give a full answer, so it seems to me a little unfair to say that 'Gorsuch certainly didn't bother to give [a decent rationale]'.

I dunno, I happened to see Gorsuch's reply to Senator Feinstein, in which he eloquently praises the 14th Amendment, I thought that was quite nice.

Ha ha, wow, that is pretty striking.

I don't know if these strikes were so impulsive or done merely to benefit Trump's domestic standing. This feels like Trump sending a message to countries like China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, etc. as well - and the strikes being so sudden and (relatively) unannounced is a big part of that message.

Well, that is undeniably true.

"there are many Republicans who essentially couldn't not vote for [Garland]"

So your argument is that since the US can't stop *every* atrocity in the world, it shouldn't try to *some* atrocities?

"stealing Garland's seat"?

Well, I think there's more to it than that (Russia especially is showing that it's a reliable ally/partner/great power patron, unlike the US, which dropped Mubarak like a bad habit the moment riots broke out in Cairo), but there's certainly a bit of tit-for-that there.

Well, the Ottoman Empire did alright. The British Empire too. And several previous American administrations have done better than President Obama did.

No, but it's hard to deny that President Obama (whom I like!) did a pretty shitty job in the Middle East. His foreign policy in general was pretty atrocious.

But Assad has (allegedly) used chemical weapons several times since Obama's redline came and went.

Eh, no. Iran is really only a regional power (smaller economy than Belgium) opposed by most Arab nations, and Russia is a dysfunctional petrostate run by spies and gangsters (and, again, economically not as impressive as it looks on the map - smaller economy than South Korea and Italy). China is a contender of course,…

In what way has this administration given Assad an opening that the previous administration with its nonexistent red line hadn't already given?

…considering that this entire Syrian crisis (including Assad using chemical weapons against his own citizens) has unfolded on President Obama's watch, I fail to see what she could've done differently in the 3 months she would've been President by now.

Sure, but to be fair, this does make for a far more powerful and terrifying statement. It's still limited, proportional, targeted and announced (well, to the Russians at least apparently), but because it happens so sudden, it has maximum impact.

No. This is President Trump baring his teeth, sending a message to Russia, China, North Korea, Iran, etc.

That's what they said about Germany too, a century ago.

Now might be a good time to remember that old Sting ditty, "Russians" - the Russians love their children too. They're not going to burn the world to a cinder to protect some local vassal who's sole strategic benefit is a Mediterranean port for the Russian Navy.

I wish I could say "EU", but that ain't happening anytime soon.