Exactly.All of this "but, but, Obama" or "whatabout, whatabout a Dem" is all nonsense anyway. It requires us to, again, treat Trump as if everything he does is in a vacuum. Obama didn't lie about anything and everything all of the time. Obama didn't hide stats that showed him in a poor light. Obama didn't spend his entire presidency ◊◊◊◊ posting on social media just to "trigger the libs". He was, more or less, an honest man and when he did things the general population felt he did them for the right reasons.
Trump is an ignorant ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ jack ass and everyone knows it. So when certain posters bleat out "what about Obama" then we're left saying, "What about him?" Obama isn't Trump. He never will be and if the two ran against each other Trump would get his absolute ◊◊◊◊ stomped in and it wouldn't be close. If someone from the left did it I would wait for an explanation as to why, and I would weigh in outside facts, like has that administration been bombing the ◊◊◊◊ out of boats to the point it borders on international war crimes? No? Then I'll wait to see how it all shakes out, but Trump doesn't get that leeway. Cause he's a ◊◊◊◊◊◊◊ dumb sack of dicks.
The president of the United States is going to have occasions when there are good reasons to order military strikes. And indeed I think Obama was too cautious, in Syria, for example.
However there is a difference between a well-considered strike and sabre rattling followed by ones that don't seem to have any specific goals beyond "hitting Boko Haram" (whatever that means).
Let alone the strikes against claimed drugs smugglers. Asking whether those were probably guilty or not is missing the point. Due process exists for a very good reason. And committing war crimes is counterproductive on top of everything else wrong with it.


