Pro-Trump PAC Raising Money Off Syria Strikes

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2017/04/07/pro-trump-pac-raising-money-off-syria-strikes.html

 

President Trump ordered a military strike on Syria Thursday night in response to a recent chemical attack. By Friday afternoon, a supportive PAC was fundraising off of the strike.

“Last night, President Trump ordered military action against Syria in response to their chemical weapons attack,” an email from the Great America PAC, first flagged by Dave Levinthal at the Center for Public Integrity, read.

TWITTER

“59 United States tomahawk missiles destroyed the airfield used to store Syria’s toxic weapons and aircraft involved in the Sarin gas attack.What are your thoughts?”

The message asks respondents to vote on whether they approve of the strike and subsequently includes a request for money. The email was signed by Ed Rollins, currently the national co-chair of the PAC who joined the group in May of 2016.

A representative for the PAC did not immediately respond to a request for comment from The Daily Beast

[bcking 3,157]

"59 United States tomahawk missiles destroyed the airfield used to store Syria’s toxic weapons and aircraft involved in the Sarin gas attack."

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/08/syrian-warplanes-take-air-base-bombed-us-tomahawks/

 

Wouldn't exactly say the airport was destroyed. 

[eieio 1,594]

3 hours ago, bcking said:

"59 United States tomahawk missiles destroyed the airfield used to store Syria’s toxic weapons and aircraft involved in the Sarin gas attack."

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/04/08/syrian-warplanes-take-air-base-bombed-us-tomahawks/

 

Wouldn't exactly say the airport was destroyed. 

So you are saying you would have liked more missles deployed?  

[bcking 3,157]

1 hour ago, eieio said:

So you are saying you would have liked more missles deployed?  

No. The objective was pointless. It achieved nothing, and is honestly insulting to the victims. Is bombing an airfield supposed to make us feel like we've "done right" by the civilians? They have been massacred for years and until now Trump has supported "America first" and has been a proponent of not getting involved. Suddenly now we need to bomb an airfield. Next we have two options:

 

1. Stop now - We achieved nothing, civilians are still dead and will continue to die

2. We continue active involvement - We've seen what that has done in the past

[eieio 1,594]

So you don't believe we should get involved in Syria at all?  That's fine,millions feel the same way.

[TBoneTX 45,324]

The mission is being criticized by some, because the airport runways weren't targeted.

The apparent rationale is that runways can be rebuilt rather rapidly and inexpensively, so they weren't a priority.

 

As to the thread's topic, PACs of all stripes probably cite current events in fundraising appeals.

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

9 hours ago, TBoneTX said:

The mission is being criticized by some, because the airport runways weren't targeted.

The apparent rationale is that runways can be rebuilt rather rapidly and inexpensively, so they weren't a priority.

 

As to the thread's topic, PACs of all stripes probably cite current events in fundraising appeals.

Profiting from war has been off limits for political fundraising , but in this strange era taboos are made to be broken

[Ban Hammer 13,352]

9 hours ago, TBoneTX said:

The mission is being criticized by some, because the airport runways weren't targeted.

The apparent rationale is that runways can be rebuilt rather rapidly and inexpensively, so they weren't a priority.

 

correct - as the damage is craters instead of complete destruction of the entire runway, a runway is only out of commission for usually 12 hours or less.

[bcking 3,157]

9 hours ago, TBoneTX said:

The mission is being criticized by some, because the airport runways weren't targeted.

The apparent rationale is that runways can be rebuilt rather rapidly and inexpensively, so they weren't a priority.

 

As to the thread's topic, PACs of all stripes probably cite current events in fundraising appeals.

So what was the mission's target?

 

1. Airstrip - clearly not

2. Troops - we got what, 12 killed at highest estimate? That's like two warheads per person. So clearly failed there.

3. Resources - hard to find specifics of that, so possibly

4. "Message" - We don't really have a clear one. We have allowed Assad to murder thousands for years. So now a chemical attack crossed our line. So i guess we are saying continue to murder civilians as long as you do it conventionally? Not the greatest of messages I'd say.

 

Any other ideas?

[Amica Nostra 4,803]

2 minutes ago, Ban Hammer said:

correct - as the damage is craters instead of complete destruction of the entire runway, a runway is only out of commission for usually 12 hours or less.

So what objectives were met by hitting this airport? 

[OriZ 3,157]

7 hours ago, bcking said:

So what was the mission's target?

 

1. Airstrip - clearly not

2. Troops - we got what, 12 killed at highest estimate? That's like two warheads per person. So clearly failed there.

3. Resources - hard to find specifics of that, so possibly

4. "Message" - We don't really have a clear one. We have allowed Assad to murder thousands for years. So now a chemical attack crossed our line. So i guess we are saying continue to murder civilians as long as you do it conventionally? Not the greatest of messages I'd say.

 

Any other ideas?

I don't feel the fact that "only" 12 died is a "clear failure" quite to the contrary actually. I don't think the intention here was to kill anybody. And to be honest when I first heard about the attack I was under the assumption that it wouldn't. To me it actually took away from the success of it once I heard they did. However I still believe it was the right move to make.

[bcking 3,157]

Just now, OriZ said:

I don't feel the fact that "only" 12 died is a "clear failure" quite to the contrary actually. I don't think the intention here was to kill anybody. And to be honest when I first heard about the attack I was under the assumption that it wouldn't. To me it actually took away from the success of it once I heard they did. However I still believe it was the right move to make.

Based on which of my options, or do you have another in mind? I believe from our prior conversations you believe it is all about "message". The message remains to be seen. So at best right now we have a "meh" and whether it is retroactively seen as successful or a failure is based on what happens next. As I've said before, so far it's not too promising to me since Assad continued bombings almost immediately and yet we didn't respond in kind.

[OriZ 3,157]

5 minutes ago, bcking said:

Based on which of my options, or do you have another in mind? I believe from our prior conversations you believe it is all about "message". The message remains to be seen. So at best right now we have a "meh" and whether it is retroactively seen as successful or a failure is based on what happens next. As I've said before, so far it's not too promising to me since Assad continued bombings almost immediately and yet we didn't respond in kind.

I was responding to option 2 obviously. We talked about the rest of it already. To me it's not about the body count - that only takes away from it. A powerful message can be sent without killing people. The killing comes in when the other side doesn't take the(many) hints and you have to start escalating your response.

[bcking 3,157]

6 minutes ago, OriZ said:

I was responding to option 2 obviously. We talked about the rest of it already. To me it's not about the body count - that only takes away from it. A powerful message can be sent without killing people. The killing comes in when the other side doesn't take the(many) hints and you have to start escalating your response.

I agree as well. I wasn't listing them implying they were the actual goals. I was trying to create a list of "possible goals". 

 

I don't think the mission really had a target or a goal. I think it was not very well thought out, and it was just a show of "force" so that Trump could say he was upset and was going to do something about it. It was picked because it was flashy (Oh look, lots of tomahawk missiles!) yet would have a relatively small impact so we could all just move on and hopefully forget about Syria again. People can think "Well Trump bombed them, so we're good now".

[OriZ 3,157]

1 hour ago, bcking said:

I agree as well. I wasn't listing them implying they were the actual goals. I was trying to create a list of "possible goals". 

 

I don't think the mission really had a target or a goal. I think it was not very well thought out, and it was just a show of "force" so that Trump could say he was upset and was going to do something about it. It was picked because it was flashy (Oh look, lots of tomahawk missiles!) yet would have a relatively small impact so we could all just move on and hopefully forget about Syria again. People can think "Well Trump bombed them, so we're good now".

I think again. the test would be whether or not Assad attacks with chemical weapons again. Yes, people are still going to die even if he doesn't but that wasn't the intention. Russia and Iran already threatened today that if the US attacks again they will respond. It will be interesting to see what happens if Assad uses chemical weapons again - will the US attack again? If so it's going to have to up the ante. How will the Russians/Iranians respond? Until all that goes down I really don't think we should try and predict what is or isn't going to happen.